"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.
John Gibbs, Hillary Scholten Michigan race pursues the middle – The Washington Post
By Marianna Sotomayor
. . . .
Republicans argue that economic woes in an area that has traditionally valued fiscal conservatism will make it possible for Gibbs to keep the district under GOP control.
Democrats have in turn rallied around their candidate, Hillary Scholten, who lost to Meijer in the 2020 general election. They counter that Gibbs’s embrace of Trump, his previous criticism of women’s right to vote and other inflammatory statements are incompatible with a race that requires that a candidate appeal to the district’s growing middle.
The district’s new lines — encompassing more suburban parts of Grand Rapids, as well as the lakeshore cities of Muskegon and Grand Haven — have Democrats confident they can close the six-point gap that marked Scholten’s previous loss to Meijer. Republicans also acknowledged that possibility, with several strategists who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations noting that Meijer’s moderate bona fides made him the most likely GOP candidate to keep the seat.
. . . .
PolitiFact has rated as false the claims that Scholten “dismissed” the destruction that rioters caused during the George Floyd protests. At the time, Scholten put out a statement encouraging people to “continue to speak out for George and all victims of violence” but pleaded “with those who take to the streets to make that effort peaceful and to not resort to violence and destruction.”
Scholten jokes that the Republican ads have earned her a new nickname at home from her two young sons: “Agent of Chaos.”
As a fourth-generation West Michigander and deacon in her Dutch Reformed Church, Scholten says she is confident that her reputation will usurp what she describes as “baseless attacks by someone that has no connection” to the district. (Gibbs recently moved to Grand Rapids, but he was born and raised in Lansing, the state capital.)
“I think it’s almost having a boomerang effect, where people see that attack against someone like me that has such deep connection and respect in our community, and it reflects more negatively on the person that is insulting them,” she said.
“You weren’t here then,” Scholten said in response to claims by Gibbs and the GOP about the protests. “You don’t know.”
In an effort to attract the middle, Scholten also has been critical of her party, especially on fiscal issues.
“We’re doing everything to cope with rising prices, but Washington doesn’t seem to be doing anything at all,” she says in her most recent ad. “Democrats, stop the spending. And Republicans, stop putting politics before people.”
Scholten also is trying to highlight differences with her opponent on abortion rights. Voters in November will decide whether to protect reproductive freedom in the Michigan Constitution or adopt a 1931 law that bans abortions except if the mother’s life is threatened and criminalizes the person who performs the procedure.
A recent CNN poll showed 54 percent of Michigan’s registered voters support the amendment that would enshrine protections for reproductive freedom.
Scholten pushed back against Gibbs’s characterization that she is in favor of abortions until birth, noting that she is “not pro-abortion” while speaking about it in personal terms. At 13 weeks pregnant, Scholten was offered an abortion by a doctor after a diagnosis of Turner syndrome. She and her husband “chose life,” Scholten said, but the fetus had died by Scholten’s 19-week appointment.
Gibbs has said he would support a 15-week federal ban on abortion, saying it is a “position based on common sense” because most European countries have more conservative laws limiting abortion. That is a slightly more moderate position than he espoused before the primary, where he downplayed the need for exceptions because, he said, medicine was sufficiently advanced to save the life of the mother. He told The Detroit News, “There are many great Americans all around the country who were actually conceived from rape, and they’re doing great things.
. . . .
For voters like Killion, Gibbs’s apparent attempt to distance himself from Trump may not be persuasive. He says that touting the connection to Trump “throws up an alarm” since he believes many in the Republican Party have put “blinders on” and follow only the former president.
“At the end of the day, I don’t care about who endorses you. I want to know what you plan on doing,” he said.
These days, running for office on a platform of real family values, practical problem solving, fiscal responsibility, common sense, individual freedom, and human decency is an act of great courage. Obviously, Hillary has had to “take the cheap shots and low blows” from her opposition. Also, she was “caught in the middle” on the very dubious political “strategy” of the national Democratic Party to promote the far-right Gibbs over the more moderate Congressman Peter Meijer (D-MI), who bested Hillary in the “pre-redistricting” 2020 race and who was one of the few GOP Reps voting to impeach Trump.
The folks in Michigan-3 can be confident that in casting a vote for Hillary they will get a responsible, non-ideological, approachable Representative who understands the community and is laser-focused on solving their problems and addressing their concerns. She exudes integrity and humanity. She knows what it is like to raise a family while working full-time on demanding and sometimes emotionally draining jobs. Hillary is smart, informed, courageous, a great team member, and someone who will work cooperatively with anybody to get the job done for her district and for America. She is just what we need in Washington right now.
I hear lots of talk about “what it will take to get America back on track!” Electing Hillary Scholten won’t solve all of our nation’s problems, but it would be a fantastic start that will pay dividends for many year to come!
Elizabeth Gibson Managing Attorney National Immigrant Justice Center Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
Weekly Briefing
This briefing is designed as a quick-reference aggregation of developments in immigration law, practice, and policy that you can scan for anything you missed over the last week. The contents of the news, links, and events do not necessarily reflect the position of the National Immigrant Justice Center. If you have items that you would like considered for inclusion, please email them to egibson@heartlandalliance.org.
This gathering will bring together existing universal representation projects as well as groups considering starting/supporting new programs to reflect on best practices, adapting models while seeking to end detention, and ways to expand universal representation. The deadline to register for virtual attendance is tomorrow, October 25, 2022.
CNN: There were 227,547 migrant encounters along the US-Mexico border in September, up 12 percent from the previous month. The sharp increase in migrants from Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua contributed to the uptick.
NYT: The number of Venezuelans entering the United States illegally dropped from about 1,200 a day to 150 in the first days after the Biden administration rolled out the new policies.
Reuters: The Ethiopian military and allies including troops from neighboring Eritrea have been battling forces from the northern region of Tigray on and off for two years. The conflict has killed thousands, displaced millions and left hundreds of thousands on the brink of famine.
The Hill: The Coast Guard stopped 185 Cubans on Friday, 94 on Saturday and 40 on Sunday. In total, the service says it has intercepted 921 Cubans since Oct. 1.
AP: Molina was among 13 migrants who recently arrived in the U.S. who agreed to share documents with The Associated Press that they received when they were released from U.S. custody while they seek asylum after crossing the border with Mexico. The AP found that most had no idea where they were going — nor did the people at the addresses listed on their paperwork.
CNN: It has been an endless cycle since President Joe Biden took office, according to multiple administration officials and sources close to the White House. Agency officials dream up a plan but then struggle to get White House approval, even as the problem compounds and Republicans step up their criticism. See also Immigrant advocates feel abandoned as they stare at Biden’s first-term checklist.
TRAC: According to new data obtained by TRAC through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, 480,301 people have been enrolled in ICE’s electronic monitoring program known as Alternatives to Detention (ATD) between August 2020 and June 2022. Many of these individuals, about 196,000, were previously active in ATD but have since ceased to be monitored under ATD, while 284,000 immigrants were still in ATD as of the end of June.
TRAC: As of the end of September 2022, Immigration Court judges dismissed a total of 63,586 cases because Department of Homeland Security officials, chiefly Border Patrol agents, are not filing the actual “Notice to Appear” (NTA) with the Immigration Court. Without a filed NTA, the Court has no jurisdiction to hear the case.
GBH: Police in New York arrested about 57,000 unlicensed drivers a year before state lawmakers narrowly approved the Green Light Law in 2019, making most immigrants eligible for licenses regardless of their legal status. In 2021, those arrests declined to about 30,000 and are on a similar pace for this year, according to records obtained by GBH News from the New York State Unified Court System.
Block Club: As a major city that attracts immigrants, Chicago specifically has been struggling to support the recent influx of asylum seekers. After dealing with cuts under the Trump administration and then the COVID-19 pandemic, immigrant serving organizations’ resources were already strained before the war in Ukraine and the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan and subsequent Taliban takeover sent thousands of refugees and asylum seekers to Chicago. The recent arrival of migrants from Texas has only added to the strain on organizations’ resources, including legal services and representation.
LexisNexis: He argues that the immigration judge (“IJ”) applied the incorrect legal standard in assessing whether he would more likely than not be tortured with the “consent or acquiescence” of the Honduran government, and that the BIA erred in its review of the IJ’s decision. He also argues that the BIA failed to consider whether the Honduran government would likely torture him and whether the MS-13 gang is a de facto government actor. We agree that the agency erred in these respects, and we therefore grant his petition for review, vacate the order of the BIA to the extent it denied him CAT relief as to Honduras, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
CA1: We thus remand for the BIA to consider in the first instance whether Chavez’s proposed social group satisfies the requirements for constituting a particular social group under the INA to which he belongs. We express no opinion as to the merits of that issue other than to emphasize that the BIA cannot reject such a group based solely on its determination that current or former gang members cannot form a particular social group.
LexisNexis: The plain language of the statute, coupled with the reasoning of Mahn and Ramirez-Contreras, persuades us that the Pennsylvania felony fleeing statute does not qualify as turpitudinous. While the failing to stop for a police officer while crossing a state line is conduct that may put another in danger, it does not necessarily do so. The agency therefore erred in its conclusion that King was convicted of a CIMT.
LexisNexis: We conclude: (1) the record in this case compels the conclusion that two of De Leon’s attackers were police officers during a July 2011 incident; (2) De Leon showed acquiescence on the part of the Guatemalan government with respect to that incident because government officials— namely, the two police officers—directly participated in the incident; and (3) the record indicates that the IJ and BIA’s conclusion that De Leon is not likely to be subjected to torture with government acquiescence if returned to Guatemala disregards several important circumstances pertinent to evaluating the likelihood of future torture. In light of these errors, we grant the petition and remand for the agency to reconsider De Leon’s application for relief.
Law360: The state of Texas on Wednesday agreed to drop its challenge to a provision of the pandemic-era Title 42 policy which exempted unaccompanied minor migrants from being expelled from the U.S. during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Law360: An Illinois university professor and students can’t stop the Biden administration from enforcing a Trump-era policy barring student visas to Chinese nationals who are connected to any entity in China that supports its “military-civil fusion strategy,” a federal judge has ruled, denying the plaintiffs’ bid for a temporary restraining order.
Law360: A class of foreign-born military recruits who sought $10 million in attorney fees after winning back their expedited path to naturalization two years ago have settled for $2.75 million in the interest of conserving resources and avoiding further litigation risks.
AIC: Several legal services organizations filed a lawsuit today against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for unlawfully preventing attorneys from communicating with immigrants detained in four detention facilities in Florida, Louisiana, Texas, and Arizona.
USCIS: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is extending certain COVID-19-related flexibilities through Jan. 24, 2023, to assist applicants, petitioners, and requestors.
You now can change your email settings or search the archives using the Google Group. If you are receiving this briefing from a third party, you can visit the Google Group and request to be added. If you receive an error, make sure you click request access.
Elizabeth Gibson (Pronouns: she/her/ella)
Managing Attorney for Capacity Building and Mentorship
National Immigrant Justice Center
A HEARTLAND ALLIANCE Program
224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 600, Chicago, IL 60604
T: (312) 660-1688| F: (312) 660-1688| E: egibson@heartlandalliance.org
But immigrant advocates note that some of their demands aren’t contingent on Congress or the courts, which makes it all the more exasperating as to why the administration has failed to deliver.
Some told POLITICO they simply wanted to see the administration remedy the harm caused by the Trump administration’s family separation policies. Others want to see follow-up on early proposals to protect immigrant workers in labor disputes.
The administration further angered the community last week when it announced plans to use the Trump-era pandemic policy, Title 42, to expel Venezuelan migrants crossing the border illegally as part of its new humanitarian parole program for them. Advocates decried the expansion of Title 42, which the Justice Department is fighting in court, as a continuation of the Trump “playbook.”
. . . .
The biggest, most significant “unforced error” by the Biden Administration has been the failure to “clean house” at EOIR and to reform the Immigration Courts to be a model of great, scholarly, humane judging, and a bastion of due process, fundamental fairness, and best judicial practices.
The Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation set forth a successful “blueprint” for a far-right takeover of not only the Immigration Courts, but the entire Article III Judiciary. The Trump Administration adopted and successfully followed it!
By stark contrast, the Dems have failed to act timely and decisively on the one all-important Federal court system that they completely control! EOIR is a system that probably has more impact on the future of America — or whether there will even be a future America — than any court short of the Supremes!
Garland’s dismissive treatment of the informed views of immigration, human rights, and racial justice experts — who have had “hands on” experience with “America’s most dysfunctional courts” (the Immigration Courts) — has undermined our legal system and hamstrung almost every other progressive social justice initiative — from voting rights to abortion!
Garland’s failure to bring in experienced, dynamic, inspirational, respected, “Tier One” progressive practical scholar/leaders — folks like, for example, Dean Kevin Johnson, Professor Karen Musalo, Marielena Hincapie, Professor Phil Schrag, Margaret Stock, Professor Michele Pistone, and Judge Dana Leigh Marks — to clean up EOIR, kick some tail, and create “the best, fairest, most efficient courts in America” — is beyond inexcusable!
Dems are a self-inflicted mess when it comes to immigration — apparently because those “calling the shots” are more “Stephen Miller Lite” than they are Julian Castro and other Democrats who understand the essential importance of immigrants and of standing up for their rights — starting with the “retail level” of American justice.
As one frustrated experienced practitioner recently told me: “Biden’s entire immigration policies are a train wreck. He didn’t take the action he said he would. The practice of immigration law is soul crushing.”
“Soul crushing!” Those words should be a “wake up call” to the “tone deaf” policy honchos in the Administration. It shouldn’t be this way in a Dem Administration that was elected because they promised to do better and to stand up to the lies, myths, and false narratives of the nativist right! Once in power, Dems don’t seem to be able to distinguish between their friends and their adversaries. That’s proven NOT to be a “formula for success!”
For every immigrant/racial justice advocate that the Biden Administration wears down and demoralizes, two “new recruits” for the NDPA will arise, fully energized to keep litigating, winning, and raising hell until due process, human rights, fundamental fairness, and racial justice get some long overdue ACTION. Based on results to date, that means continuing to “beat Garland’s brains out” in court! The talent and creativity is obviously “out here,” not in Garland’s “Halls of (In)Justice!” Given that the “Stephen Miller Group” is also challenging the Administration in court, Garland will eventually find himself doing nothing but litigating immigration issues and getting walloped by both sides!
Meanwhile, as the Administration daily fails on immigration, human rights, and racial justice within the Executive Branch, my mailbox and message box are overflowing with desperate requests from Dem politicos, from Joe, Kamala, Nancy, and Chuck on down, for more donations of money and time. But, once the election cycle is over, our views are ignored, and we are treated as “PNGs.” Meanwhile, those who actively undermined immigrants’ rights and diminished due process are rewarded or retained in key positions where they continue to heap damage on the most vulnerable among us and frustrate their supporters.
Doesn’t seem like a sustainable future for the Democratic Party or for American democracy! But, hey, I’m just a retired Immigration Judge. Maybe my friends in the social justice movement enjoy being treated as “chopped liver” — frozen out and ignored — once they have helped elect Dems.
Republicans boldly “run on the big lie.” Meanwhile, Dems “run from the truth” about immigrants and their all-important role in America’s future! Go figure!
A quote from a recent NY Times article struck me as aptly summarizing the failure of leaders of both political parties to take an honest, creative, and practical approach to the opportunity presented by continuing human migration:
Immigration in the United States is broken, but one side of the fence wants to study the root causes of the problem, and don’t want to see what’s happening right here,” Mr. [John] Martin [deputy director of the Opportunity Center for the Homeless in El Paso] said, squinting beneath the brim of his cowboy hat. “And the other side wants to build a wall which would become a dam and eventually burst.”
Former AG Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions went to the border to preach his “gospel” of anti-immigrant hate, lies, nativist myths, and to “fire up” officials for one of the biggest unconstitutional abuses of prosecutorial authority in modern American history. Indeed, that is when one reporter coined the term “Gonzo Apocalypto” to describe the absolute nonsense spewing from Sessions’s mouth.
Sessions orchestrated a vile “strategy” of family separation from which the victims haven’t yet, and may never, fully recover. Interestingly, he has also escaped accountability.
By contrast, Garland, to my knowledge, has never bothered to visit the border and engage first-hand with the human carnage his failed “courts” and abuse of both the Constitution and asylum law inflict on others. He interacts neither with those outside government trying to uphold the rule of law nor the enforcement officials given “mission impossible.” He absolves himself from observing the effect that his failure to carry out orderly, humane, legally compliant refugee and asylum processing — using existing law rather than extralegal “gimmicks” — has on communities on the border and in the interior.
Sessions was a vile, intellectually dishonest, and immoral leader; Garland is simply a failed and disengaged one. But, the difference might not be readily apparent to most practitioners laboring in the foul trenches of Garland’s dysfunctional “court” system.
From my observation, there are folks out here interested in, and capable of, addressing the opportunities, potential benefits, and challenges presented by the inevitability of human migration in the 21st Century. Most of them, unlike “pontificating politicos,” have, at some point, “walked the walk” with those humans caught up in the migration dilemma, on both sides of the border.
But, leaders of neither party are interested in the constructive ideas and solutions developed within the rule of law that these unusually talented and dedicated individuals can offer. As long as that is the case, the realities of human migration, false promises, racially driven bias, and wildly inconsistent application of justice in America will continue to vex both politicians and the voters who put such “non-problem-solvers” in office!
Garland’s approach to immigrant justice in his courts harkens back to “the bad old days.” Yet he remains impervious — and unaccountable! The Wasp 1882-01-06 cover Slow but sure.jpg Slow, but Sure. Cartoon depicts Lady Justice riding a tortoise, about to hang a man. George Frederick Keller Public domain
Dean Kevin Johnson @ ImmigrationProf Blog previews upcoming book by Professor Maya Pagni Barack:
The publisher’s description of the book reads as follows:
“Each year, hundreds of thousands of migrants are moved through immigration court. With a national backlog surpassing one million cases, court hearings take years and most migrants will eventually be ordered deported. The Slow Violence of Immigration Court sheds light on the experiences of migrants from the “Northern Triangle” (Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador) as they navigate legal processes, deportation proceedings, immigration court, and the immigration system writ large.
Grounded in the illuminating stories of people facing deportation, the family members who support them, and the attorneys who defend them, The Slow Violence of Immigration Court invites readers to question matters of fairness and justice and the fear of living with the threat of deportation. Although the spectacle of violence created by family separation and deportation is perceived as extreme and unprecedented, these long legal proceedings are masked in the mundane and are often overlooked, ignored, and excused. In an urgent call to action, Maya Pagni Barak deftly demonstrates that deportation and family separation are not abhorrent anomalies, but are a routine, slow form of violence at the heart of the U.S. immigration system.”
KJ
**************************
The ongoing national disgrace called “EOIR” continues to mete out injustice and inane bureaucratic nonsense under a DEMOCRATIC Administration that pledged to return the rule of law and humanity to our broken Immigration Court system!
That system is “headed and controlled” by a DEMOCRATIC AG, Merrick Garland. He is a former Federal Appellate Judge who certainly knows that what passes for “justice” in his broken “court” system is nothing of the sort! Also this ongoing debacle doesn’t say much good about Garland’s “lieutenants:” Deputy AG Lisa Monaco, Associate AG Vanita Gupta, Assistant AG for Civil Rights Kristen Clarke, and Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar.
They have all “looked the other way,” defended, or failed to condemn this travesty undermining our entire justice system, unfolding under their collective noses at EOIR every day! At some point in the future, all these guys will be “making the rounds” of major law firms, NGOs, universities, mainstream media, and corporations — seeking to “cash in” on their DOJ “experience.” Then, folks should remember how they ACTUALLY PERFORMED (or didn’t) when they had a chance to fix “America’s worst courts” — hotbeds of racial and ethnic injustice, purveyors of bad law, and a haven for ridiculously dysfunctional procedures!
Perhaps a suitable future for these willfully blind “public servants” would be to require them to spend the balance of their careers practicing on a pro bono basis before the “star chambers” they inflicted on others! See how they like being “scheduled,” with no or inadequate notice, to do 15 or 20 asylum cases per month; appearing before too many ill-qualified “judges” who have already decided to deny regardless of the law and facts; appealing to a captive “appellate court” dominated by individuals, working for the Executive, whose main “judicial qualification” was that they denied close to 100% of the asylum claims that came before them in Immigration Court and were known for their rude and dismissive treatment of asylum applicants and their lawyers! See, e.g., “Confronting The American Star Chamber . . .,” https://wp.me/p8eeJm-4Vm.,
Here’s Professor Barak’s bio from the U of Michigan-Dearborn website:
Maya Barak, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Criminal Justice Studies
Maya P. Barak, PhD Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice Studies U. of Michigan -Dearborn PHOTO: UM-D Websitew
Teaching Areas: Arab American Studies, Criminology & Criminal Justice Studies, Master of Science in Criminology and Criminal Justice, Women’s & Gender Studies
Research Areas: Capital Punishment, Criminal Justice, Criminology, Gangs, Immigrants / Crimmigration, Legal Sociology, Procedural Justice, State-Corporate Crime
Biography and Education
I am an Assistant Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Michigan-Dearborn. I hold a PhD in Justice, Law and Criminology from American University (2016), an MA in Criminology and Criminal Justice from Eastern Michigan University (2011), and a BA in Social Anthropology and Peace and Social Justice from the University of Michigan (2009). My research brings together the areas of law, deviance, immigration, and power, utilizing interdisciplinary approaches that span the fields of criminology, law and society, and anthropology.
Gould, Jon B. and Maya Barak. 2019. Capital Defense: Inside the Lives of America’s Death Penalty Lawyers. New York: NYU Press.
Selected Articles
Barak, Maya. 2021. “Can You Hear Me Now? Attorney Perceptions of Interpretation, Technology, and Power in Immigration Court.” Journal on Migration and Human Security (https://doi.org/10.1177/23315024211034740).
Barak, Maya. 2021. “A Hollow Hope? The Empty Promise of Rights in the U.S. Immigration System”/ “¿Una promesa vacía? La ilusión de “los derechos” en el sistema migratorio de los Estados Unidos.” Las Cadenas Que Amamos: Una panorámica sobre el retroceso de Occidente a todos los niveles.
Barak, Maya. 2021. “Family Separation as State-Corporate Crime.” Journal of White Collar and Corporate Crime Vol. 2(2), 2021, pp. 109-121 (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2631309X20982299). (2021 Outstanding Article or Book Chapter Award, Division of White-Collar and Corporate Crime, American Society of Criminology)
Barak, Maya. 2017. “Motherhood and Immigration Policy: How Immigration Law Shapes Central Americans’ Experience of Family.” In Forced Out and Fenced In: Immigration Tales from the Field, edited by Tanya Golash-Boza. New York: Oxford University Press.
Advocates and all Americans committed to racial justice and equal justice under law need to keep raising hell — and supporting progressive candidates — until this horrible system is replaced by a real court system, with subject matter expert judges, totally focused on delivering due process, fundamental fairness, and best judicial practices to all!
What’s happening to individuals (fellow humans, “persons” under our Constitution) and their lawyers at EOIR is NOT OK, nor is it acceptable from a DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION!
Yeah, “there’s trouble, right here in River City!” And, it begins with “E,” ends with “R,” and rhymes with “EYORE!”
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”
La Cocina, a San Francisco-based nonprofit group, is helping low-income women and immigrants start their own food businesses. The 130 chef-owners receive support, including access to an industrial kitchen, to craft a recipe for a better life.
Oct. 20, 2022
Jay Gray reports for NBC Nightly News in this video:
I loved the shot of 1950’s-style “boring American food!” As a “child of the 50’s,” so true! Also, reaffirms the “food-based approach” to promoting social justice!
Heck, I remember from my days at the BIA that the best way to get folks to show up for a meeting or event and be in a good mood to participate was to “put out the food.” I used to bring bagels to BIA en banc conferences. It often helped “lighten the mood,” even if it didn’t garner me enough votes to win very many of my “en banc legal battles!”
Some things that stand out:
Teamwork, skill, and cooperation;
The power of immigrant women;
Diversity and variety improving American food;
Investment in “human capital;”
Self-sufficiency;
Jobs and education for others;
Teaching and training for success.
I think there are “messages” here about the benefits of immigrants and how many of those arriving at our borders could be successfully integrated into, energize, and expand opportunities in communities in need throughout America.
For example, almost everyone agrees that there is a shortage of affordable, livable, attractive housing that is adversely affecting communities around the U.S. Why not invest in the hard work, creativity, skills, and initiative of arriving migrants to help address these problems and make life better for everyone? Expand the economy, expand the tax base, raise wages, solve problems, revitalize “hurting” communities! Decent jobs with a future and homes in the community might also help address the opioid and other substance abuse problems in many areas.
Rather than squandering money and resources on “sure to ultimately fail” “deterrence” strategies and counterproductive restrictions, detentions, and deportations, why not think about ways to 1) recognize the realities of human migration; and 2) harness and direct the undeniable power of that migration for everyone’s benefit?
Leaders of both parties seem “willfully blind” to the realities and benefits of migration in the 21st century. Could public-private partnerships be part of the answer? There must be some more “humane pragmatists” out here who are interested in actually solving problems, building on diversity, and doing things for the common good.
Lori L. Scialabba Specialist Executive Deloitte Consulting LLP PHOTO: Deloitte
(Historical Footnote: I helped recruit Lori for the Honors Program when I was the Deputy General Counsel of the “Legacy INS.” Later, we were both BIA Members. Lori was one of my Vice Chairs — along with Mary Maguire Dunne — and eventually succeeded me as Chair before going on to a distinguished career as a Senior Executive at USCIS and then Deloitte.)
In 1984, the Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington announced the standard for determining when the Constitution’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel requires the overturning of a criminal conviction due to ineffective assistance of counsel.1 Strickland involved a death penalty case; on its winding path to the Supreme Court, a circuit court panel found in the defendant’s favor. That ruling was later overturned; the defendant was executed two months after the Supreme Court’s decision established a standard that the defendant could not satisfy.
A commentator writing years later could find no record of a malpractice claim or disciplinary complaint of any type having been filed against the attorney impugned in that case.2 The commentator cited this example in making the point that attorneys who are found to be Constitutionally deficient in criminal defense cases very rarely face disciplinary complaints.3 And the standard for establishing ineffective assistance laid out in Strickland does not require the filing of any such complaint.4
By contrast, the requirements for claiming ineffective assistance of counsel in immigration proceedings were set forth by the Board of Immigration Appeals in its 1988 decision Matter of Lozada.5 As immigration proceedings are civil in nature, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel was found not to apply; the Board determined that a right to counsel in the removal context “is grounded in the fifth amendment guarantee of due process.”6The BIA thus created its own standard in Lozada that requires (1) filing an affidavit attesting to the relevant facts; (2) informing prior counsel of the allegations, and providing any response received; and (3) if claiming “a violation of ethical or legal responsibilities” by prior counsel, indicating “whether a complaint has been filed with appropriate disciplinary authorities regarding such representation, and if not, why not.”7
A practice advisory of the American Immigration Council points out that requirement number three “on its face…does not require filing a bar complaint in all circumstances.”8 The AIC advisory cites circuit decisions excusing the filing of disciplinary complaints, including Fadiga v. Att’y Gen., 488 F.3d 142, 156-57 (3d Cir. 2007) (allowing no bar complaint “where counsel acknowledged the ineffectiveness and made every effort to remedy the situation”), and Correa-Rivera v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1128, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding that Lozada only requires an explanation of whether a bar complaint was submitted, not proof that the complaint was filed).9
Nevertheless, a 1996 BIA precedent, Matter of Rivera,10 underscores the risk of not filing a bar complaint. In that case, the requirements of Lozada were satisfied. As to the third requirement, new counsel indicated that a disciplinary complaint was not filed against prior counsel because “if any error was made in this case it was a postal error or an error of inadvertence by [former counsel].”11 Although this explanation accorded with Lozada, as it was explained both whether a bar complaint was filed and why, the Board rejected the explanation as insufficient.
The majority opinion in Rivera went on to provide a list of reasons why it considered “[t]he requirement of a bar complaint” important in ineffective assistance claims. A dissenting opinion written by then-BIA chair Paul Schmidt addressed the issue far more sensibly:
I do not need a Lozada motion or a state bar complaint to find that ineffective assistance has occurred here. The respondent’s affidavit and that of former counsel are sufficient to establish that former counsel’s duties to the respondent were not properly discharged. There is no hint of collusion between former counsel and the respondent. Under these circumstances, I see no basis for making the filing of a state bar complaint the determinative factor…12
Thus, in Rivera (and in a subsequent precedent, Matter of Assaad,13 the Board reframed the need to file a disciplinary complaint as a categorical requirement under Lozada. But in its circumstance-specific approach, Judge Schmidt’s dissent raised the question of whether this requirement is really necessary.
Nearly six years after Rivera, the answer to that question came from an unlikely source. Matter of Lozada was briefly vacated in the final days of the Bush Administration by then Attorney General Michael Mukasey.14His decision reframed ineffective assistance claims from a due process right into a discretionary agency action, and in doing so, created a new, tougher standard for establishing ineffective assistance that far fewer respondents would be able to satisfy. But interestingly, the A.G.’s decision felt the need to rethink the Board’s disciplinary complaint requirement:
By making the actual filing of a bar complaint a prerequisite for obtaining (or even seeking) relief, it appears that Lozada may inadvertently have contributed to the filing of many unfounded or even frivolous complaints. See, e.g., Comment filed by the Committee on Immigration & Nationality Law, Association of the Bar of the City of New York (Sept. 29, 2008), in response to the Proposed Rule for Professional Conduct for Practitioners—Rules and Procedures, and Representation and Appearances, 73 Fed. Reg. 44,178 (July 30, 2008) (“Under the Lozada Rule, an ineffective assistance of counsel charge is often required in order to reopen a case or reverse or remand an unfavorable decision. The practice of filing such claims is rampant, and places well-intentioned and competent attorneys at risk of discipline.”). Such unfounded complaints impose costs on well-intentioned and competent attorneys, and make it harder for State bars to identify meritorious complaints in order to impose sanctions on lawyers whose performance is truly deficient. The new approach is intended to avoid these problems by requiring only that the [noncitizen] submit to the Board a completed and signed but unfiled complaint…15
In light of these concerns, the new Compean standard still required the preparation of a disciplinary complaint against prior counsel, but (perhaps in a bizarre nod to Moses E. Herzog) added that the respondent “need not actually file the complaint with the appropriate State bar or disciplinary authorities, as Lozada had required.”16
Less than five months after its issuance, Compean was vacated by Mukasey’s successor, Attorney General Eric Holder, thus restoring the Lozada standard, along with its mandatory bar requirement.17 Holder’s decision further directed EOIR to draft proposed regulations on the topic for public comment “as soon as practicable.”18
When the agency finally published those proposed regulations more than seven years later, they retained Rivera’s mandatory complaint requirement.19 In its comments to the proposed rule, the American Immigration Lawyers Association opined that the mandatory complaint requirement should be eliminated, stating that “rather than centering on attorney discipline, the rules governing ineffective assistance of counsel should focus on assisting and protecting the noncitizen victim…” The comment continued that “EOIR already has ample existing procedures to police the immigration bar without requiring the filing of a formal complaint.”20As no final rule was ever published, we don’t know EOIR’s reaction to the comment.
Another six years later, the question first raised in the Rivera dissent, and to which a Bush Administration Attorney General and leading bar groups seem in agreement on the answer, remains unresolved.Recently, immigration law experts have revived the issue.21As those experts again point out, the purpose of reopening a proceeding in which attorney error occurred is to remedy a harm that was beyond the respondent’s ability to control. The focus on correcting the harm (as opposed to punishing the lawyer) is why in the criminal context bar complaints rarely if ever accompany ineffective assistance claims. The lack of sucha requirement allows attorneys to admit to their occasional errors without fear of retribution.
In its unique approach to the contrary, the BIA discourages attorneys from being forthcoming about their errors, and further forces counsel to turn on their own colleagues for acts that would not warrant the extreme action of a bar complaint in any other context. It seems remarkable that even an Attorney General decision issued during the Bush Administration acknowledged that most bar complaints filed pursuant to Lozada are “unfounded” and “impose costs on well-intentioned and competent attorneys,” while also hampering state bars from identifying and disciplining genuine incidents of malpractice.
According to one proponent of amending the standard, attorney Rekha Sharma Crawford, the current Lozada requirement pits members of the private bar against one another in a very destructive way, and adds unnecessary stress on the immigration removal defense counsel who are often at the forefront of these claims-many which are meaningless and done only to comply with Lozada.22
Hopefully, this will be the year that the agency finally gets around to resolving this issue by removing the mandatory complaint requirement of Lozada, and thus bringing the standard in immigration proceedings into alignment with those required in other civil and criminal courts and tribunals.
Copyright 2022 Jeffrey S. Chase.All rights reserved.
Notes:
466 U.S. 668 (1984).
Joseph H. Ricks, Raising the Bar: Establishing an Effective Remedy against Ineffective Counsel, 2015 BYU L. Rev. 1115, 1120 (2016).
Id.
The Strickland standard requires a finding that (1) counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; and (2) there was a reasonable probability that the result would have been different if not for counsel’s inadequate performance.
12.Id. at 608. It bears noting that Judge Schmidt, and two of the three Board Members who joined in his dissent (Lory Rosenberg and Gustavo Villageliu) are presently members of the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges.
20.Comment filed by the American Immigration Lawyers Association (Sept. 26, 2016), in response to the Proposed Rule for Motions Reopen Removal, Deportation, or Exclusion Proceedings Based Upon a Claim of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, 81 Fed. Reg. 145 (July 28, 2016).
21.See, e.g., an October 3 AILA Roundtable, “Changing the Bench: A New Narrative on Lozada and Bar Complaints.”
22.Private email to the author.
*****************************
Republished by permission.
As “Sir Jeffrey points out,” in Matter of Compean, Bangaly, & J-E-C-, 25 I&N Dec. 1 (A.G. June 3, 2009), AG Eric Holder directed EOIR to promulgate new regulations providing guidance on ineffective assistance of counsel. More than seven years later, in 2016 — essentially the entire Obama Administration — DOJ/EOIR issued flawed “proposed” regulations. Not surprisingly, no final regulations were ever issued. A dozen yers after the AG directed EOIR to take action — a big “nothingburger.”
This by no means is the only example of EOIR/DOJ’s unsuitability to the task facing it. It’s reminiscent of the tortured history of the “gender based asylum” regulations ordered by former AG, the late Janet Reno, but issued only as a badly flawed proposal and never finalized.
Additionally, incoming President Joe Biden made issuing “gender based regulations” one of his Administration’s highest priorities, ordering action by October 2021. A year later — nothing!
Meanwhile, EOIR Judges’ applications and interpretations of the governing precedent on gender-based asylum — Matter of A-R-G-G- — are wildly inconsistent. Beyond that, the 5th Circuit has taken the right-wing misogynistic “liberty” of simply ignoring the law on gender-based asylum.
“Lozada reform” is long overdue. But, so is meaningful EOIR reform!
Ultimately, America needs and deserves an independent U.S. Immigration Court with exceptionally well-qualified judges, at all levels, who are recognized experts in asylum law and unswervingly committed to due process and best judicial practices.
Until then, those appearing in Immigration Court — disproportionately individuals of color and women — and their hard-working attorneys — will continue to receive grossly substandard “justice” from “Justice!”
Border enforcement once again dominates contemporary immigration law debates. Yet many legal practices commonly linked to border control—including policing, relocation, and exclusion—actually have little to do with immigration enforcement. Instead, immigration control provides a justification for surveillance and the erosion of civil liberties deep inside the United States. For instance, the governor of Texas issued an executive order this June, asserting the legal authority to arrest people suspected of unlawfully crossing the border or committing “other violations of federal law.” This executive order is framed as being about expanding the pipeline to deportation and, in particular, shoring up federal efforts to promote border security. Yet the reach of the order goes well beyond issues relating to deportation. It raises the central questions: Who decides who appears to be present in the United States without lawful immigration status, and on what basis?
More recently, certain lawmakers have employed the rhetoric of border control to justify busing or flying migrants to locations inside the United States. Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) tweeted at the time: “We’re sending migrants to [Vice President Kamala Harris’s] backyard to call on the Biden Administration to do its job & secure the border.” Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) employed similar rhetoric to justify sending approximately 50 adults and children to Martha’s Vineyard without any apparent prior notice. This relocation may have violated criminal laws. The individuals who were relocated may have been given false information to induce them to board planes. Lawmakers who frame these relocations as a means of border control make the unjustified assumption that the targeted individuals had no claims to remain in the United States. This approach not only ignores laws permitting people to seek asylum but also treats certain U.S. residents as lacking basic civil liberties inside the United States. When government officials claim the ability to lure people from one state to another on false pretenses, they also claim virtually unlimited power to intrude on individual liberty in stated service of immigration control.
. . . .
In a variety of settings, ranging from politically motivated relocations of migrant communities to jailhouse immigration screenings, lawmakers present actions that curtail civil liberties as related to deportation. But a deportation-centric perspective, which centers whether and how certain practices might lead to removal, offers too limited a lens to understand the reach and impact of enforcement practices done in stated service of immigration control. It ignores the full costs of enforcement, including unjustified surveillance and policing. Rather than protecting the polity from a foreign threat, government actions purportedly aimed at immigration control undermine core liberties that ought to be protected within the American political community. If the ultimate aim of immigration law is to create an integrated political community, then we need to consider how law could operate to promote integration and inclusion, rather than treating all enforcement actions as a means to deportation.
******************************
Read the complete article of the link.
This is why it’s such a disgraceful mistake for Garland and the Biden Administration to allow the racially-charged, anti-due-process travesty at EOIR to continue, largely unabated!The misguided idea that migrants are not “real persons” under the Constitution — and to a large extent the related view that their lawyers aren’t entitled to the common professional treatment and courtesies extended in most other parts of our legal system — definitely has“carryover” into the dehumanization of various categories of the “other” and ignoring the compelling evidence of abuse amassed by those lawyers working to keep the system honest.
For example, the Supreme’s dismissive treatment of women’s rights and humanity is definitely related to the degrading treatment of women’s claims in Immigration Court — an overt misogyny encouraged by Sessions, Miller, and their nativist acolytes!That Democrats as a whole have failed to “pick up” on the serious attacks on equal justice and due process in Immigration Courts and their carryover effect to other parts of our legal system is a bad sign for the future of American democracy. Once a “person” is treated as “less than a full person” under the Constitution, there is no limit to who can become a “legal nonperson.”
The wheels are off and the wagon rotting away at EOIR! PHOTO: Creative CommonsAlfred E. Neumann has been “reborn” as Judge “Teflon” Merrick Garland! “Not my friends or relatives whose lives as being destroyed by my ‘Kangaroo Courts.’ Just ‘the others’ and their immigration lawyers, so who cares, why worry about professionalism, ethics, and due process in Immigration Court?” PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
The undersigned 106 legal service providers, court observers, and allied organizations located in the cities where the Dedicated Docket now operates. Together, we have observed hundreds of cases on the Dedicated Docket throughout the country. Our collective experience reveals a process rife with unfairness: lack of legal representation, expedited and arbitrary timelines, removal orders against pro se respondents (including young children), as well as courts marked by confusion and in some cases hostility.
What’s going on here!? As due process and equal justice are trashed, and lives and futures endangered, some of the best legal minds in America are forced to spend time pointing out the obvious to our “disconnected from reality” AG! What a waste!
This inexcusable disaster was totally predictable in advance! NO expert recommended this stupid, “sure to fail” “haste makes waste” approach to asylum in a faux “court system” already reeling from bias, management incompetence, hostility to due process, worst practices, far too many poorly qualified judges (some selected by Sessions and Barr for their perceived willingness to “railroad” asylum seekers), a notoriously anti-asylum appeals board, and rock bottom morale! Yet, Garland went ahead!
And NOBODY among his subordinates — not DAG Lisa Monaco, not AAG Vanita Gupta, not AAG/Civil Rights Kristen Clarke, not SG Elizabeth Prolager— at the DOJ had the guts to stand up and JUST SAY NO to his life-threatening nonsense. They all share the blame for this completely avoidable blot on our justice system and on their records (something progressives should remember when these irresponsible folks show up looking for jobs someday, as they inevitably will).What a disgrace! It didn’t have to be this way!
Why isn’t practice before the Immigration Courts and demonstrated commitment to human rights and due process a MINIMUM requirement for being the Attorney General or a top DOJ official in a Democratic Administration? No more “ivory tower” “tone deaf” appointments to key justice jobs from Democrats! End the deadly, wasteful nonsense! How many more innocents will be abused and systemically denied fundamental justice by EOIR before Biden and Harris pay attention to what’s happening “on their watch?”
And, folks, don’t forget the almost unfathomable “system costs” of having the knowledge, creativity, energy, and resources of these 106 organizations tied up in resisting and publicizing Garland’s stupidity and disdain by for equal justice and racial justice in America! They should be running EOIR, issuing great precedents on the BIA, solving problems in a practical, humane, legal manner as Immigration Judges, and redoing the broken and dysfunctional administrative system at EOIR.
The knowledge, personnel, creativity, and courage to establish a “model due process court system” are available “out here” — in spades. Instead, this avoidable human rights and racial injustice disaster is inflicted on our nation and some of the must vulnerable therein, by a tone-deaf Democratic Administration unwilling or unable to live up to their campaign promises! Disgusting! 🤮
As recent polls haveshown, Americans’ confidence in the Supreme Court is at an all-time low, which presumably has something to do with the decision by the Court’s conservatives to inflict their medieval ideas about bodily autonomy on the country and end the national right to an abortion in June. Might it also have something to do with one of the justice’s spouses reportedly attempting to overturn the 2020 election and another securing his lifetime appointment without actually being properly vetted by the FBI? Yes, sure. But the biggie is no doubt the overturning of Roe v. Wade. (No, really: You don’t have to be a constitutional law expert to figure this out, seeing as a majority of Americans think abortion should be legal in all or most instances.)
Justice Elena Kagan—who happens to be one of the few people on the Court who doesn’t believe half of the population should be treated like second-class citizens—recently pointed this out. At a July judicial conference in Big Sky, Montana, she told an audience: “If, over time, the Court loses all connection with the public and with public sentiment, that is a dangerous thing for democracy.” Earlier this month, while speaking on a panel at Northwestern University’s Pritzker School of Law, she declared that a court is legitimate “when it’s acting like a court,” and that it’s a problem when justices attempt to impose their personal preferences on society. And last week, she made similar remarks at Salve Regina University in Newport, Rhode Island, saying that throughout the Court’s history, “The very worst moments have been times when judges have even essentially reflected one party’s or one ideology’s set of views in their legal decisions. The thing that builds up reservoirs of public confidence is the Court acting like a court and not acting like an extension of the political process.”
Kagan’s comments don’t appear to be sitting very well with certain male justices. As Chief Justice John Roberts told a judicial conference in Colorado Springs, “Simply because people disagree with an opinion is not a basis for questioning the legitimacy of the Court.” But it was Samuel Alito’s response that was the most creepy, given the very clear problem he has has with women.
In a comment to The Wall Street Journal, the archconservative said: “It goes without saying that everyone is free to express disagreement with our decisions and to criticize our reasoning as they see fit. But saying or implying that the Court is becoming an illegitimate institution or questioning our integrity crosses an important line.” In other words, he wants Elena Kagan to shut her liberal mouth, which is not only some anti-free-speech bullshit but a convenient way for him to ignore the fact that he shares a large portion of the blame for the widely held view that the Court has no integrity.
Unfortunately, Alito’s comment to the Journal shouldn’t surprise many people who’ve kept up with his work. Not only did he author the opinion overturning Roe v. Wade in June, but he gleefully noted that his inspiration for doing so was a 17th-century English jurist who supported marital rape and had women executed for witchcraft. Later, after a 10-year-old rape victim was denied an abortion in her home state, Alito was doing comedy routines about taking away a pregnant person’s right to choose.
Of course, let’s not forget the other justice who’s done his part to erode confidence in the Supreme Court
. . . .
***********************
Alito’s brand of “justice” harkens back to glorious days of yore when all-male judges had a range of methods for dealing with uppity women who thought they were entitled to control their own bodies and lives! — Woman Being “Tried 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
Read the rest of The Levin Report and subscribe at the above links.
Yesterday, new Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was invested. As I’ve observed before, after the niceties and handshakes, her right wing extremist GOP colleagues will return to their chambers and continue to plot ways to bend and distort the law to dehumanize, disenfranchise, and demean Justice Brown Jackson, others like her, and all of the genuine American values she represents.
Lawrence Tribe’s tweeted critique of Alito’s disingenuous nonsense (see, full article) is “spot on:” “It’s politically agenda-driven decisions that cross the line by eroding the Court’s legitimacy.”
His defense of the indefensible went over like a lead balloon with those whose lives have been upended by the radical right Justices’ political agenda!
Every time a GOP politico or media sycophant preferences remarks with “I’m not a racist,” you know that some outrageous racist statement is about to follow. What they are doing is dishonestly attempting to preemptively “shift the blame and focus” to those who call out their vile, dishonest conduct!
Over the weekend, Chief Justice John Roberts, drifted down a similar discredited path of disingenuous “preemptive denial.” In a ludicrously tone deaf statement that echoed Tricky Dick’s “I’m not a crook” speech, Roberts lamely attempted to defend the legitimacy of his Court’s stripping of fundamental human rights from women. In doing so, he basically reinforced critics’ points about the Court’s illegitimate, extralegal, right-wing, political war on individual and human rights with a good bit of misogyny thrown in!
Nixon’s “I’m not a crook speech” convinced many that he was, indeed, a crook. Roberts’s “My Court isn’t illegitimate just because it advances a far-right political agenda speech” is heading in the same direction! PHOTO: Twitter
Never mind that the Court basically aligned itself with authoritarian theocrats promoting “forced birth” and overt subjugation of a woman’s fundamental right to decide whether or not to reproduce. Indeed, advancing that minority political agenda was the fundamental reason why Roberts and his GOP crew are on the Court in the first place! To pretend otherwise is off the wall!
There are some strong moral, societal, economic, andmedical arguments to be made about why women should or should not choose to have children. Under the First Amendment, both those who favor abortion and those who oppose it have always been free to argue their points.
But, the idea that these choices should be removed from those directly concerned and placed in the hands of political and religious authorities is preposterous. Lacking convincing arguments to persuade all women facing that choice to their side, the far right theocracy did a preemptive strike! And, their “wholly-owned Justices” went along!
Needless to say, Roberts’s insultingly disingenuous defense of the indefensible did not fare well with informed critics.
Former Sen. Claire McCaskill, now an MSNBC analyist, On Meet the Press:
On Sunday, McCaskill – an MSNBC political analyst – tore into Roberts for taking the country backward and recalled that the jurists who signed onto Alito’s originalist rationalization misled the public during their respective Senate confirmation hearings.
“He’s so so out of touch. I mean really, this interview shows why the numbers for the Supreme Court are so bad. For him to say something like that, he just doesn’t get it. You don’t take away a right that’s been around for 50 years and you don’t have a party go to extremes of trying to make sure rape victims have to have forced birth,” McCaskill said.
“You don’t do that and not have it splash back on the Supreme Court,” she continued. “And they all said they respected precedent when they were confirmed. I heard them. America heard them. Clearly, they didn’t, and you can feel me getting angry at John Roberts right now because he knows better when he says that stuff.”
Professor (and former prosecutor) Joyce White Vance, Professor Leah Litman, Professor Stephen I. Vladeck, Political Scientist Norman Ornstein:
“Roberts’s failure to understand why the court has lost credibility with so many Americans smacks of ‘Let them eat cake,’ ” Joyce White Vance, a former prosecutor and a distinguished professor of the practice of law at the University of Alabama law school, told me. “The Supreme Court has a proud history of defending our rights, not taking them away. The Roberts court will go down in history as the first one” to strip away people’s rights.
University of Michigan law professor Leah Litman said: “I would be embarrassed to say something that naive and divorced from reality if I had said it as a first-year law student. For the chief justice to say it is just an insult to the intellect of everyone who knows anything about the court, American democracy and politics.”
. . .
If Roberts and the conservative bloc were to engage in just a tiny amount of self-reflection, they would understand that their own actions have brought them to this point. Law professor Stephen I. Vladeck, of the University of Texas school of law, asked me rhetorically: “If the court’s legitimacy doesn’t come from public acceptance of the principled nature of its decision-making, where does it come from?”
While Roberts might not have written the most egregious opinions, he has joined in them, from the abortion ruling in Dobbs, to the prayer-in-schools ruling in Bremerton, to a Brnovich decision on voting rights, written by Alito, that “blatantly ignored the plain language of the law and rewrote it to fit his partisan and ideological views,” as political scientist Norman Ornstein told me. Moreover, Ornstein said, it is Roberts who has “ignored Clarence Thomas’s blatant conflicts of interest and continues to oppose applying the judicial code of ethics to the Supreme Court, even as its credibility plummets.”
He concluded: “John G. Roberts Jr. is far from the worst justice undermining the fundamental legitimacy of the court, but he is surely culpable.”
The court has failed to regulate itself and instead has abused its power. None of the six right-wing justices acknowledge, nor do they signal they want to halt, the conduct that has lost the public’s confidence.
So it’s up to Congress and the president to shore up the court’s credibility. Allocating more seats to correct the damage done by Sen. Mitch McConnell’s court-packing, imposing term limits on all justices and enacting a mandatory code of ethics would be good places to start.
But it’s not just the outcome, which decimated a right Americans had held for five decades and put a variety of other privacy rights in jeopardy. It’s the way that decision — and others on guns, climate change, and religion — recently came to pass.
In this case, Roberts would have done better to confine himself to “calling balls and strikes.” Sadly, he and his GOP colleagues have gotten out from behind the plate and taken the field in their “Federalist Society” uniforms. He’s going to have to learn to live with objections and catcalls from those in the stands who see what’s really going on here and are understandably upset about the Court’s overreach, substandard legal performance, lack of accountability, absence of self-awareness, and, yes, lack of legitimacy.
Better judges for a better, fairer America — from the Immigration Courts to the Supremes!
By the way, we can’t change the Supremes overnight. But, Biden, Harris, & Garland COULD have reformed, repaired, and legitimized the Immigration Courts, including the BIA, that they control. That they have failed to do so is the biggest “unforced error” of the Biden Administration — one that will haunt Democrats and Americans for ages!
Every day Garland’s parody of a court system, still largely bearing the unmistakable stamp of White Nationalists Sessions, Barr and Miller, continues to run roughshod over individual rights, often in life or death cases, while degrading the judicial process. Misogyny and racism are also on full display, as a disproportionate brunt of their unprofessional, wrong-headed, result-oriented “any reason to deny” decision-making falls on refugee women of color (and often on their accompanying children).
There is a very direct connection between “DHS agents in robes” in our Immigration Courts and “right-wing politicos in robes” at the Supremes. Part of the idea is to “normalize” injustice directed at “the other” — just so long as YOUR life isn’t directly affected, who cares? It’s also known as “Dred Scottification.” It’s the “polar opposite” of Dr. Martin Luther King’s observation that “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” If Dems don’t “connect the dots,” they might not be able to save our democracy!
Elizabeth II & President Harry Truman in Wash DC, Nov. 1951 PHOTO: Getty Images
Like all of us “boomers,” it’s hard to imagine a world without “The Queen.” I can vaguely remember my parents, grandmother, and aunt glued to our black and white TV in Milwaukee to watch Elizabeth’s coronation. It was the first internationally televised world event, although admittedly the American version was on film, not live.
Elizabeth basically rose from her death bed to perform her final constitutional duty, the appointment of Liz Truss as her Prime Minister. And, she did a good job of it, performing with grace, dignity, and a strength of character that even coming death couldn’t squelch. She wasn’t one to “just go through the motions” — I don’t think the concept “good enough for government work” was in her vocabulary.
Compare Queen Elizabeth’s sense of duty in putting constitution, duty, and service before personal comfort and ego with the sleazy performance of recent world leaders including, specifically, disgraceful, dishonest, selfish, lawless, self-aggrandizing, right wing turkeys 🦃 Trump and Johnson!
Four queens to an ace? Although the overwhelming number of British monarchs have been men, it’s four of the Queens — Elizabeth I, Anne, Victoria, and Elizabeth II — who have proved to most skilled at the position and left the biggest historical footprints (although I’m sure that somewhere in the afterworld, Henry VIII would debate that).
Elizabeth has been succeeded by King Charles III, who spent the longest “period in waiting” of any British monarch. It’s going to be a tough act to follow, but we all wish him well. The Queen is dead; long live the King!🇬🇧👑
Hillary Scholten Democrat Candidate for Congress Michigan 3rd DistrictLissandra Villa Huerta National Political Reporter Boston Globe PHOTO: BoGlo Website
GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. — Hillary Scholten, a 40-year-old Democratic congressional hopeful, only had to knock on a handful of doors last Saturday in a residential neighborhood here before she encountered Maria D’Angelo, who was sitting on her front porch, about to have coffee with her neighbor, Sara VanderArk.
Both women in the historically conservative but now Democratic-leaning district are overwhelmingly focused on a single issue this November: women’s rights.
“I’ve had to voice publicly and to family members that I never intended to tell that I’ve had abortions,” D’Angelo, a Democrat, told the Globe about the fallout from the Supreme Court’s June decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. VanderArk, who identifies as an independent, said she was inspired by the court ruling to join abortion rights protests and that her vote would largely hinge on the issue in the fall.
They are exactly the type of galvanized voters that Democratic candidates up and down the ballot in Michigan and across the country are hoping will give them a boost in the November midterm elections. Midterm years are historically bad news for the president’s party even without high inflation and sagging presidential approval ratings, but Democrats now are nursing a sliver of hope: They’re narrowing the enthusiasm gap — the motivation level of voters — and popular opinion on the issue of abortion is on their side.
That’s especially true in Michigan, a battleground state where, like Kansas before it, there has been a surge in the number of women who’ve registered to vote since Roe v. Wade was overturned in June after almost 50 years as settled precedent, according to an analysis by TargetSmart, a Democratic data firm. A recent poll commissioned by AARP, the interest group for older Americans, showed the issue was among voters’ top concerns. And Michigan’s new third congressional district, where Scholten is running, is a rare congressional race where Democrats aren’t just having to focus on defending their turf, they feel bullish about their odds of flipping the seat.
“The level of engagement on this issue is just so high,” Scholten told the Globe in an interview at her campaign office last weekend. “It’s the only thing I hear about. Women stop me in the grocery store and grab my arms and are like, please do something about this.”
Scholten, an attorney and former Department of Justice official, said she saw a surge of volunteers, fund-raising, and willingness of voters to answer doors and talk to her after the Dobbs decision.
This may sound strange in a district that has historically voted Republican. Its congressman is Republican Peter Meijer, a scion of a Midwest grocery store dynasty, and its voters have backed Republicans in the last three presidential elections. But the district’s newly drawn boundaries that are in place for the first time this election cycle make it significantly friendlier to Democrats. Since Meijer, who was one of just 10 House Republicans to vote to impeach former President Trump, lost his primary to his more right-wing and anti-abortion opponent John Gibbs, Democrats hope to motivate the more Democratic-leaning voters in Grand Rapids and its suburbs who are now part of the district and are mad as hell about the abortion rights repeal.
“Everywhere around the state, when we knock on doors, people bring up abortion — it’s not a negative anywhere,” said Michigan state Senator Winnie Brinks. “People used to be pro-choice, but they were quiet about it. Now they’re not quiet about it. They’re like, ‘Nope, this is on the line, we’re gonna talk about it.’”
That was clear in interviews with voters in downtown Grand Rapids for the city’s “3rd Thursdays,” where residents congregate for live music and can go into the city’s art museum for free courtesy of the Meijer Foundation. It was clear in interviews on the other end of the district on the shore of Lake Michigan, where voters strolled watching the sun set over the lake on a Friday night. And it was clear in the views expressed by voters Scholten met knocking on doors.
“I will for sure be there to vote,” said Erica Kochaney, a Democrat and Grand Rapids resident who was at Grand Haven State Park on Friday evening. Reproductive freedom “is my number one reason for getting out there for sure.”
On the Scholten-Gibbs race and the issue of abortion, she added, “I know where she stands on it, and I’m fine, and I feel like I know where he stands on it, and I’m not fine with it.”
. . . .
*******************
Read the rest of Lissandra’s coverage at the link.
A “home grown daughter” of her Michigan District, Hillary is an experienced, resilient, courageous, values-based problem solver committed to making Government work for the common good rather than infringing on individual liberties, invading bedrooms and doctors’ offices, banning books, interfering with elections,and “dumbing down” education.
She is also a highly successful working parent who knows that the same teamwork, caring, creativity, and unselfishness that goes into the challenges of raising a family also can apply on a larger scale to American society. She knows that problems like inflation, infrastructure, climate change, health, safety, and education affect all Americans, regardless of party affiliation.
As a DOJ attorney working in one of the most fractured areas of American law and public policy, Hillary has seen first hand what works and what doesn’t work in today’s Government. She knows that “same old, same old” won’t get the job done for 21st Century America! She seeks a better America — for all Americans, regardless of race, color, creed, gender, or status.
Hillary Scholten is following in the footsteps of another “Good Government Trailblazer,” Frances Perkins (1880-1965) U.S. Secretary of Labor (1933-45) PHOTO: Public realm
Perkins was driven by her life experiences and values, yet courageously and effectively “worked the system” (then basically an “Old Boys’ Club”) to achieve successes and innovations that have shaped our nation for generations (Social Security is just one of her achievements). Hillary Scholten embodies qualities that made Perkins a successful leader who made life better for all Americans!
No one legislator can do it all. But if anyone can bring fact-based legislating, the hopes, fears, and positive values of people in the heartland, and informed debate to our national legislative process, it’s Hillary and other “practical problem solvers” like her! Values, progress, innovation, and humanity over political expediency — that’s Hillary! She is a good listener and team-builder — willing and able to find common ground with those who might not share all her views.
I know Hillary as an unusual combination of intellectual and moral toughness with kindness, compassion, humanity, and common sense. She’s one of the nicest people you’d ever want to meet — makes you want to be on her team! She gets things done by inspiring others, not by threatening , demeaning, or excluding them!
The good folks of Mich 3 have a chance to do something really great — for their own district and for the future of America — by sending Hillary to Washington! We need you, Hillary, now more than ever!
Between 2015 and 2020, about fifty bodies were recovered each year in Brooks County, according to an S.T.H.R.C. report. Then came Title 42, a policy enacted by the Trump Administration at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic that closed ports of entry and blocked most avenues for asylum claims, ostensibly for public-health reasons. The policy, which is still in place in a modified form, has increased business for smuggling cartels and spurred people to cross in more dangerous places. “Before Title 42, the calls we got used to be, like, eighty-per-cent apprehended, twenty-per-cent missing,” Canales said. “Now it’s flipped—it’s more like twenty-per-cent apprehended, eighty-per-cent missing.” So far this year, there have been nearly seventy recoveries of remains in Brooks County, putting 2022 on track to be the deadliest year on record.
. . . .
*****************
Read Rachel’s entire report, directly from the border, at the link.
So, before the Trump Administration’s bogus, racist “invocation” of Title 42, 80% of migrants came to the border or were easily apprehended close thereto — most probably because they turned themselves in to seek asylum through the legal system. And, lets not forget, this was with an already badly broken, fundamentally unfair, asylum legal adjudication system intentionally biased and “loaded” against legitimate refugees seeking protection!
Smart, honest public policy would have improved asylum adjudication at USCIS and at EOIR to quickly recognize and grant, with the assistance of NGOs and legal assistance groups, the many cases of legitimate refugees so that they could take their rightful, legal places in our society.
Additionally, by taking refugees seeking legal determinations “out of the equation,” enforcement against those seeking to evade legal processing — certainly a much, much smaller “universe” than is “out there now” — would have been enhanced. Business would have declined for smugglers, as those seeking protection would have been motivated to use a humane, fair, functioning legal system rather than being forced into “do it yourself” refuge!
You don’t have a genius to figure this out — just not be motivated solely by racism like Stephen Miller and his Trump regime cronies! Better qualified — non-Jim Crow righty — Federal Judges would also produce more humane, honest, and rational results.
Additionally, by running a legitimate asylum system, and complementing it with an honest, robust, legal refugee system for Latin America, the Caribbean, and Africa, we would finally have sound data on how many of those seeking to enter at the Southern Border are entitled to immigrate as legal refugees and how many are non-refugees. That’s something on which we now have no reliable information— just myths and anecdotes, many provided by racist restrictionists and nativists with neither expertise in asylum law nor any real interest in the rule of law at the border.
As a result of Title 42, and the unqualified “Jim Crow” Federal Judges, GOP nativist AGs, and their apologists (including some in the media who repeat or republish, without critical examination, GOP racist lies about the border), we now have a deadlier than ever border; the legal immigration system at the border has been functionally abolished and replaced with an underground, extralegal system; the U.S. Government has ceded control of border migration policy to cartels and smugglers; and the job of the Border Patrol — forced to spend time apprehending legal refugees who seek only the protection to which they are legally entitled — has become impossible.
That’s what happens when we let GOP nativist pols, overt racists, and bad, right wing Federal Judges take over the immigration policies that were actually enacted by Congress — a key part of which are legitimate refugee and asylum systems and a fair, functioning, expert Immigration Court. Right now, we have NONE of the foregoing. And, innocent migrants at the border are too often paying the price — with their lives!
“Enforcing the law” does NOT mean unfairly, unwisely, and illegally abrogating the legal asylum system and fair adjudications in Immigration Court at the border. It means fixing the legal asylum system including USCIS Asylum Offices. Perhaps most of all, it means reforming and replacing where necessary the broken, dysfunctional, leaderless, and non-expert Immigration Courts and a BIA that continues to misinterpret asylum and protection laws on a daily basis. We need a BIA of real judges with the expertise and guts to establish fair, humane, correct, positive precedents and to rein in or remove from asylum cases those Immigration Judges who are “programmed to reject, not protect!”
I, along with many others, watched the Brittney Griner travesty unfold. I saw the irony. President Biden was rightfully blasting the outrageous “kangaroo court” show trial that passes for justice in Russia. But, at the same time, he, Harris, and Garland are basically running a farcical “Russian style” dysfunctional immigrant “justice” system at EOIR and calling it a “court!”
Perhaps, in addition to blasting the Griner farce, President Biden, VP Harris, and AG Garland need to take a closer look at the “Russian-style” justice being inflicted on migrants in their wholly-owned Immigration “Courts” — which particularly target women, children, and migrants of color seeking justice under US laws. Indeed, many are still being arbitrarily returned without ANY process at all! Others get “off the wall” denials of their valid claims. Its this REALLY any way for a self-proclaimed “nation of laws” to operate? https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
Would you want this guy as your Immigration Judge or BIA “panel?” If not, tell Garland to “pull the plug” on his deadly and incompetent BIA! Public Domain
Sorto-Guzmán v. Garland, 4th Cir., 08-93-22, published
PANEL:KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
OPINION: Judge FLOYD
KEY QUOTE:
In sum, we hold that the IJ’s decision, which the BIA adopted, blatantly ignored our long line of cases establishing that the threat of death alone establishes past persecution. This was legal error, and therefore, an abuse of discretion. See Cordova v. Holder, 759 F.3d 332, 337 (4th Cir. 2014). We hold that Sorto-Guzman has established she was subjected to past persecution in El Salvador.2 She is thereby entitled to the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. Li, 405 F.3d at 176; 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1). The IJ and the BIA erred in not affording Sorto-Guzman this presumption, which would
2 Sorto-Guzman argues, in the alternative, that the IJ and the BIA erred in finding that she failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. We will not answer that question today. Because we hold that she properly established past persecution, the proper remedy is to remand the case to the BIA to consider the question of whether DHS can rebut the presumption that Sorto-Guzman has a well-founded fear of future persecution.
11
have then shifted the burden to DHS to rebut the presumption. Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 187 (4th Cir. 2004); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i).
*************
Sorto-Guzman is a life-long Catholic who regularly attended Catholic services in El Salvador. In December 2015, about five members of the Mara 18 gang accosted Sorto- Guzman in the street as she was leaving church. At the time, she was wearing a crucifix medallion around her neck. The gang members tore the chain from her neck, hit and kicked her, and threatened to kill her if she ever wore it or attended church again. Sorto-Guzman stopped attending church after the attack, fearing the gang and their threats.
A few weeks later in January 2016, a group of Mara 18 gang members—including some of the gang members from the December 2015 assault—stopped Sorto-Guzman, along with her sister and Rivas-Sorto, as she was coming home from a shopping trip. One of the men attempted to sexually assault Sorto-Guzman and had started to forcefully kiss her. He only stopped when her screams caught the attention of a neighbor. The gang members threatened to kill Sorto-Guzman and Rivas-Sorto if Sorto-Guzman did not join the gang and start living with them.
3
On February 13, 2016, some of the gang members from the prior incidents tracked where Sorto-Guzman lived and broke into her house carrying guns. The gang members viciously beat Sorto-Guzman, threatened her life, and robbed her. Sorto-Guzman’s neighbors called the police, but they did not come until several hours after the assault. Sorto-Guzman reported the assault and robbery to the officers who arrived at the scene. She also went to the local police station the next day to report the attack. The police made one attempt to investigate, but Petitioners were not home when the police arrived, and the officers never followed up. The day after, a gang member called Sorto-Guzman, warning her she would regret making the report to the police and that they would soon kill her, her son, and her sister.
Absurdly, an Immigration Judge found that this gross abuse and death threats by a gang with the ability and willingness to carry them out did not amount to “persecution.” Worse yet, on appeal, rather than reversing and directing the judge below to follow the law, the BIA agreed — invoking the outlandish “theory” that the death threats, on top of the savage beating, weren’t so bad because they had never come to “fruition.” In other words, the applicant hadn’t hung around to be killed. Then, to top it off, attorneys from the DOJ’s Office of Immigration Litigation (“OIL”) unethically defended this deadly nonsense before the Fourth Circuit! This is “justice” in Garland’s disgraceful, deadly, and dysfunctional “court” system!
Garland’s BIA Judges applying the “fruition” test. If she lives, it’s not persecution! Public Realm Source: Ancient Origins Website https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160
NOT, a “mere mistake.”
EOIR’s performance is this case, particularly the BIA’s absurdist conclusion that, essentially, death threats must result in death to constitute past persecution, is a contemptuous disregard for binding circuit precedent, a demonstration of gross anti-asylum bias, misogyny, and a clear example of judicial incompetence.
Would a heart transplant surgeon who “forgot” to install a new heart or neglected to sew up the patient’s chest be allowed to continue operating? Of course not! So, why is the BIA still allowed to botch life or death cases — the equivalent of open heart surgery?
If Garland allows his “delegees” to perform in this dangerous and unprofessional manner, in his name, what is he doing as Attorney General? This is a farce, not a “court system?” Those responsible need to be held accountable! And, OIL’s unethical defense of this deadly nonsense is indefensible!
“What are legal ethics? Not my friends or relatives whose lives as being destroyed by these ‘Kangaroo Courts.’ Just ‘the others’ and their dirty immigration lawyers! So, who cares? Why worry about professionalism, ethics, and due process in Immigration Court?” PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
We’ve heard lots lately from Garland about “accountability.” Why doesn’t it apply to his own, wholly owned, totally dysfunctional, legally deficient, contemptuous, unprofessional “court system” that builds astounding, self-created backlogs while causing pain, suffering, and sometimes sending innocents to death?☠️
“EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept
Additionally, in Kansas this week, women have shown the power of their just demand to be treated as humans, with rights, rather than dehumanized pawns just there to re-populate the world for the men in charge. So, why not unleash the same passion and rightful fury on Garland and his ongoing, illegal, misogynistic treatment of women (primarily women of color) at EOIR!
“She struggled madly in the torturing Ray” — AG Garland has failed miserably to engage with the plight of women, mostly those of color, being denied fundamental rights and abused daily by his lawless, anti-immigrant, anti-asylum, misogynistic “holdover” EOIR! Why are women putting up with his bad attitude and dilatory approach to justice? What happened to Lisa Monaco, Vanita Gupta, and Kristen Clarke? Are they “locked in a dark closet” somewhere in Garland’s DOJ? Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Elizabeth Gibson Managing Attorney National Immigrant Justice Center Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
Weekly Briefing
This briefing is designed as a quick-reference aggregation of developments in immigration law, practice, and policy that you can scan for anything you missed over the last week. The contents of the news, links, and events do not necessarily reflect the position of the National Immigrant Justice Center. If you have items that you would like considered for inclusion, please email them to egibson@heartlandalliance.org.
USCIS: This extends certain COVID-19-related flexibilities through Oct. 23, 2022, to assist applicants, petitioners, and requestors. The reproduced signature flexibility announced in March, 2020, will become permanent policy on July 25, 2022. But DHS To End COVID-19 Temporary Policy for Expired List B Identity Documents.
TRAC: One out of every six new cases DHS initiates in Immigration Court are now being dismissed because CBP officials are not filing the actual “Notice to Appear” (NTA) with the Court. The latest case-by-case Court records obtained and analyzed by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University through a series of Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests show a dramatic increase in these cases.
Buzzfeed: The US reached a settlement Thursday that establishes fingerprinting deadlines for parents and sponsors trying to get unaccompanied immigrant children out of government custody. Under the settlement, which expires in two years, the government has seven days to schedule fingerprinting appointments and 10 days to finish processing them.
CNN: The Biden administration is developing a new identification card for migrants to serve as a one-stop shop to access immigration files and, eventually, be accepted by the Transportation Security Administration for travel, according to two Homeland Security officials.
CBS: Officials in Arizona, Missouri, Texas and other GOP-controlled states have convinced federal judges, all but one of whom was appointed by former President Donald Trump, to block or set aside seven major immigration policies enacted or supported by Mr. Biden over the past year.
AP: Over the next 30 years, 143 million people are likely to be uprooted by rising seas, drought, searing temperatures and other climate catastrophes, according to the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report published this year.
Reuters: Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser has requested the deployment of military troops to assist with migrants arriving on buses sent by the Texas and Arizona state governments, according to letters sent by her office to U.S. military and White House officials. See also Migrants Being Sent to NYC From Texas — to the Wrong Places, With No Help, Sources Say.
Documented: Advocates estimate that ICE moved dozens of individuals at the Orange County Jail in New York on Monday, and sent them to detention centers in Mississippi and elsewhere in New York, without prior notification to families or attorneys about the transfers.
Reuters: An estimated 6 million Venezuelans have fled economic collapse and insecurity in their home country in recent years, according to United Nations figures. Many have settled in other South American countries but some have traveled north.
BIA: The respondent’s conviction for unlawfully selling or otherwise disposing of a firearm or ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(d) (2018) does not render him removable as charged under section 237(a)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(C) (2018), because § 922(d) is categorically overbroad and indivisible relative to the definition of a firearms offense.
Law360: The Second Circuit ordered the Board of Immigration Appeals to revisit an indigenous Guatemalan mother and son’s bids for asylum and deportation relief, saying the agency failed to provide a sufficient premise for affirming an immigration judge’s denial of relief.
LexisNexis: An active judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The matter failed to receive a majority of votes of the non-recused active judges in favor of en banc consideration.
Law360: Not knowing the law isn’t enough to excuse a Guatemalan union worker from missing the deadline to apply for asylum by three years, the Ninth Circuit said when it refused to overturn an immigration panel’s decision that the man’s circumstances weren’t “extraordinary.”
Law360: A panel of Ninth Circuit judges granted a petition to review an order rejecting a Mexican woman’s asylum bid Wednesday, saying in an unpublished opinion that the agency was wrong to determine that inconsistencies or omissions in her testimony undercut her credibility as a witness.
Law360: The D.C. Circuit has rejected requests from Afghan and Iraqi translators to alter a lower court’s order that granted the federal government an indefinite deadline extension to draft a plan for faster green card processing, ruling that reversing the order wasn’t necessary.
AILA: Advance Copy: DHS notice extending the designation of Syria for TPS for 18 months, from 10/1/22 through 3/31/24, and redesignating Syria for TPS for 18 months, effective 10/1/22 through 3/31/24. The notice will be published in the Federal Register on 8/1/22.
AILA: USCIS is experiencing delays in issuing receipts for Form I-589. For purposes of the asylum one-year filing deadline, affirmative asylum interview scheduling priorities, and EAD eligibility, the filing date will still be the date USCIS received the I-589 and not the date it was processed.
USCIS: USCIS is currently experiencing delays in issuing receipts for Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal. Due to these delays, you may not receive a receipt notice in a timely manner after you properly file your Form I-589.
You now can change your email settings or search the archives using the Google Group. If you are receiving this briefing from a third party, you can visit the Google Group and request to be added.
Elizabeth Gibson (Pronouns: she/her/ella)
Managing Attorney for Capacity Building and Mentorship
National Immigrant Justice Center
A HEARTLAND ALLIANCE Program
224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 600, Chicago, IL 60604
T: (312) 660-1688| F: (312) 660-1688| E: egibson@heartlandalliance.org
The foregoing sources also clearly illustrate that, with or without past persecution, such indigenous women would have a “reasonable fear” of persecution on account of their status under the generous standards for asylum adjudication articulated by the Supremes more than three decades ago in Cardoza-Fonseca and, shortly thereafter, reaffirmed and supposedly implementedby the BIA in Matter of Mogharrabi (a fear can be “objectively reasonable” even if persecution is significant unlikely to occur). Problem is: Both of these binding precedents favoring many, many more asylum grants are widely ignored by policy makers, USCIS, EOIR, and some Article III Courts — with no meaningful consequences!
Additionally, the respondents appear to have had grantable “racial persecution” claims based on indigenous ethnicity. The son, in addition to being a “derivative” on his mother’s application, also had an apparently grantable case based on disability.
In a functioning system, this case would have been quickly granted, the respondents would be integrating into and contributing to our nation with green cards, and they would be well on their way to U.S. citizenship. Indeed, there would be instructive BIA precedents that would prevent DHS from re-litigating what are essentially frivolous oppositions!
But, instead, after more than five years and proceedings at three levels of our justice system, the case remains unresolved. Because of egregious, unforced EOIR errors it is still “bouncing around” the 1.8+ millionEOIR backlog, following this remand from the Second Circuit.
Exceptionally poor BIA legal performance, enabling and supporting a debilitating “anti-immigrant/anti-asylum/racially derogatory culture of denial” at EOIR, has led to far, far too many improper asylum denials at the Immigration Judge level and to a dysfunctional system that just keeps on building backlog and producing grotesquely inconsistent, “Refugee Roulette” results! Go to TRAC Immigration and check out the shocking number of sitting IJs with absurd 90% or more “asylum denial rates.”
It also fuels the continuing GOP nativist blather that denies the truth about what is happening at our Southern Border. We are wrongfully denying legal protection and status to many, many qualified refugees — often without any process at all (let alone due process) and with a deeply flawed, biased, and fatally defective process for those who are able to “get into the system.” (Itself, an arbitrary and capricious decision made by lower level enforcement agents rather than experts in asylum adjudication).
The “unpublished” nature of this particular Second Circuit decision might lead one to conclude that the Article IIIs have lost interest in solving the problem, preferring to sweep it under the carpet as this pathetic attempt at a “below the radar screen” unpublished remand does. But, such timid “head in the sand” actions will not restore fairness and order to a system that now conspicuously lacks both! This dangerous, defective, unfair, and unprofessional abuse of our justice system needs to be “publicly called out!”
“The agency failed to evaluate any of the country conditions evidence relevant to Oliva-Oliva’s CAT claim.” So how is this acceptable professional performance by the BIA? And why is it being “swept under the carpet” by the Second Circuit rather than “trumpeted” as part of a demand that Garland fix his dysfunctional due-process-denying system, NOW?
Contrary to all the fictional “open borders nonsense” being pushed by the nativist right, the key to restoring order at the borders is generous, timely, efficient, professional granting of refuge to those who qualify, either by the Asylum Office or the Refugee Program. This, in turn, absolutely requires supervision, guidance, and review where necessary by an “different” EOIR functioning as a true “expert tribunal.”
That would finally tell us who belongs in the legal protection system and who doesn’t while screening and providing accurate profiles of both groups. The latter essential data is totally lacking under the absurdist, racially motivated, “rejection not protection” program of Trump, much of which has been retained by Biden or forced upon him by unqualified righty Federal Judges. But, we’ll never get there without meaningful, progressive, due-process focused EOIR reform!
There will be no justice at the Southern Border or in America as a whole without radical, long overdue, due process reforms at EOIR!
Is she the “Debbie Anker of Entertainment?” PHOTO: Mason Poole, CC BY 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons
Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” S. Chase writes:
What a beautiful tribute to a true giant and hero. I can’t even begin to state the influence Debbie has had on me. But think of how many NDPA heroes out there are former students of hers, and how many immigration law clinics around the country relied on Debbie’s clinic at Harvard as its model. It’s impossible to overstate her impact.
Clinical Professor Deborah Anker LL.M. ’84, ‘one of the architects of modern refugee law’ and founder of the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program, moves to emerita status
By Debbie/HLS Correspondent, July 20, 2022
Credit: Kathleen Dooher
As Harvard Law School Clinical Professor Deborah Anker LL.M. ’84 moves to emerita status, she and her many students and colleagues can reflect on her formidable record of achievement — as a pioneer in the study of refugee and asylum law, the author of the seminal text on the subject, and a tireless advocate for the rights of refugees, particularly women and children. As her former student Molly Linhorst ’16 puts it — quoting a sentiment voiced by many of Anker’s admirers — “She’s the Beyoncé of asylum law.”
“As founding director of the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic, Deborah Anker has played a pivotal role at Harvard Law School, not only by founding our clinic but in helping build our clinical program,” Harvard Law School Dean John F. Manning ’85, the Morgan and Helen Chu Dean and Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. “Her work in the clinic enabled countless clients to enjoy freedom and escape persecution by remaining in the U.S., and she trained and inspired scores of other lawyers to work to those same ends.”
“Debbie wins the prize for tenacity in terms of standing up for refugee rights in America,” says James Hathaway, prominent international refugee law scholar and founding director of Michigan Law’s Program in Refugee and Asylum Law. “Literally nobody has fought the good fight as often as she has done. But she is also an intellectual trailblazer, having, in particular, developed a gender-inclusive understanding of refugee status, and having made the case for the alignment of American understandings of asylum with our international obligations. She truly is a hero.”
Groundbreaking scholarship and litigation
A pioneer in the development of clinical legal education in the immigration field, Anker joined the Harvard Law faculty in the early ’80s, as a lecturer on law and later clinical professor of law in 2008. Along with her colleagues Nancy Kelly and John Wilshire-Carrera, Anker founded the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program, or HIRC, which has since become a model for similar clinics nationwide. Her book, “Law of Asylum in the United States,” first published in 1998 under the editorship of former student Paul Lufkin and now updated annually with a cadre of HLS student editors, remains the key authoritative text in the area. She also has authored numerous amicus curiae briefs in major refugee litigation, served as an expert witness before national and international fora, and helped draft national gender refugee guidelines.
Harvard Law Clinical Professor Sabrineh Ardalan ’02, Anker’s former student and the current faculty director of HIRC, credits its significant expansion over the decades to Anker’s “commitment to advocating for immigrants’ rights and dedication to responding to the evolving challenges facing immigrants and refugees in the U.S.”
In addition to the clinical work at Greater Boston Legal Services, overseen by Kelly and Willshire Carrera, “HIRC now includes two clinics, a student practice organization [SPO], and the Harvard Representation Initiative, which serves members of the Harvard community whose immigration status is at risk. In addition to the flagship Immigration and Refugee Advocacy Clinic, there is now a Crimmigration Clinic, led and directed by Phil Torrey, which focuses on cutting-edge appellate and district court advocacy at the intersection of immigration and criminal law. And through the HLS Immigration Project, the student-practice organization, students can hit the ground running with hands-on immigration and refugee advocacy their 1L year,” said Ardalan. “Debbie built a team at HIRC that now supervises over 140 HLS students each year through the two clinics and SPO and in so doing, centered immigration and refugee law as a core component of HLS’s clinical program.”
Credit: Tsar Fedorsky Anker (left) in 2011 with HIRC students Gianna Borotto ’11 and Defne Canset Ozgediz ’11, and Sabrineh Ardalan ’02. Ardalan is Anker’s former student and the current faculty director of HIRC.
Committed to justice from an early age
Raised in New York, Anker graduated magna cum laude from Brandeis University, and went on to earn her J.D. from Northeastern before continuing her legal studies at Harvard. Even before she began formal studies, Anker was invested in the study of and advocacy for human rights. She credits that in large part to her family history and values: Her Jewish grandparents crossed the Atlantic to escape the persecution leading to the Holocaust, and both of her parents were committed public school educators. Her father was a New York City Schools chancellor during desegregation. “The belief in the equality of all people was central to how I was raised,” she said.
“From my family I got deep beliefs and commitment to anti-racism. I have a strong memory of my father telling me about Ralph Bunche, a Nobel Peace Prize recipient, one of the founders of the United Nations, leading actor in the mid-20th-century decolonization process and U.S. civil rights movement, and recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom,” said Anker. According to her father, Anker reports, Bunche was discriminated in obtaining housing, and refused membership in a neighboring tennis club in the area of Queens where Anker’s family moved in her early teenage years. “That was something that stuck with me,” she said. Early in her legal career, Anker represented a Black family that had moved into Dorchester during desegregation and was subject to violent attacks; this was one of the cases covered in J. Anthony Lukas’ classic 1985 book, “Common Ground.” “For me personally, a commitment to racial justice was central to my identity,” she says.
Anker credits the late Harvard Law School public interest professor Gary Bellow ’60, founder and former faculty director of Harvard Law School’s clinical programs, with advising, advocating and paving the way for her engagement in clinical education at the law school.
She also credits the ‘extraordinary determination and integrity’ of Lisa Dealy, former assistant dean of clinical education, with whom Anker worked closely, in helping to expand the school’s clinical program.
In 1984, when Anker, along with Kelly and Willshire Carrera founded the Immigration and Refugee Advocacy Clinic, the study of immigration law was still in its infancy, and clinical education was relatively new in legal education.
And, according to Kelly, Anker was writing the law from the beginning. “The article she co-authored on the legislative history of the Refugee Act [and] shaped how that law would be interpreted, with the U.S. Supreme Court citing it in support of an internationalist approach to refugee and asylum law, grounded in our treaty obligations, as signatories to the U.N. Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees,” said Kelly. “She authored some of the first empirical studies of immigration adjudication and co-authored the first study of the expedited removal process for addressing the claims of asylum seekers at the U.S. border.”
According to Willshire Carrera, Anker “believes in bringing the reality of the law as it is experienced by real people into the classroom and into scholarship. We developed an approach of ‘legal change from the bottom up,’ changing ground-level legal institutions, which set the stage for changes at higher levels, including in precedent decisions in the federal courts.” From its earliest years, HIRC worked to bring administrative decision-making out of the shadows, publishing administrative asylum decisions, which were otherwise inaccessible to advocates and researchers.
During these early years, Anker also worked with Hathaway, who developed a structured human rights approach to interpretation of refugee law, an approach HIRC would adopt including in much of its women’s refugee work.
Credit: Kris Snibbe/Harvard Staff Photographer Anker (pictured here in 2014) with (from left) Julina Guo ’14, John Wilshire Carrera, and Nancy Kelly. Wilshire Carrera and Kelly founded the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic with Anker in 1984.
Anker’s background in racial justice led her to work with Haitian refugees beginning in the mid 1980s. “I got to know civil rights lawyer Ira Kurzban, who was leading the charge on behalf of Haitian refugees fleeing a horrible and violent dictatorship, which the U.S. had backed.” Among other work, Kurzban engaged Anker as an expert witness on U.S. asylum law, in challenges he brought based on discriminatory detention and treatment generally of Haitian refugees. She would continue to be called in as an expert, including later in challenges brought by Canadian NGOs in 2005 and 2017 to exclusionary policies of the Canadian government, refusing entry to asylum seekers coming from the U.S. under the Safe Third Country Agreement.
The Canadian Supreme Court will soon issue a ruling on whether the Canadian policy of returning asylum seekers to the U.S. complies with the Canadian Charter and international law. Canadian attorney Andrew Bouwer praised Anker’s work on the Safe Third Country Agreement and says he looks forward to her continued advocacy on these issues. “Professor Anker is a force of nature! Working with her on Canada-US border issues, especially the inhumane Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement, these past 17 years has been an incredible honor and a highlight of my practice.”
Also in the 1980s, Anker helped found the Boston Committee against Deportation, defending a group of Haitians who were arrested by immigration authorities as they attempted to organize a union at Faneuil Hall market place.
HIRC continued this work with Haitian refugees who fled again during the 1990s after the violent overthrow of Haiti’s first democratically elected president, Jean Bertrand Aristide. HIRC’s early engagement with Haitian refugees led to groundbreaking work on gender asylum. “After President Aristide was deposed, there were security forces who went into women’s houses (the men had mostly fled) and raped them, because they were known, or assumed to be, supporters of Aristide,” explained Anker. “So it was really rape used as punishment based on ‘political opinion,’ one of the grounds of protection in the refugee treaty to which the U.S. is a party.”
Working in conjunction with other groups, HIRC got the administrative Board of Immigration Appeals to recognize that this was a form of what the agency called “grievous harm,” which HIRC argued fit the concept of persecution. “This case, Matter of D.V., was the first administrative gender asylum decision; along with others, we were able to convince the board to publish it as a precedent decision,” said Anker.
Meanwhile, the group traveled to Haiti to collect affidavits; their work ultimately led the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to make the first finding by an international human rights body that rape could constitute torture.
This in turn contributed to greater global awareness of violence against women within a human rights framework. Canadian NGOs and academics took the lead, particularly through the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board. “The Canadians worked up an amazing series of guidelines, and we [the HIRC] took those and adapted them to American law,” Anker said. “We published these and asked the U.S. government to take our guidelines and issue official government guidelines, based on them — and in fact, they did that.” Later, HIRC led a major amicus effort, drafting a brief to the then-attorney general signed by 187 organizations and individuals, arguing that violence against women in the “domestic” sphere, that is, in the home by sexual intimates, could be the basis for protection. Eventually the attorney general reversed an original denial and the petitioner, represented by the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies, was granted asylum.
(HIRC was) committed to having legal education grounded in actual clients’ experiences of persecution. … We set a precedent that law school clinics are not just a place to do policy work or major litigation, but also a place to engage with clients, to get to know them and to help them articulate their experiences. … I am grateful to the law school for allowing us to advance that approach to legal advocacy and education.
Deborah Ankernone
Personal involvement became key in Anker’s approach to teaching. “We were committed to having legal education grounded in actual clients’ experiences of persecution. Students represented clients and learned to help them tell their stories. We then gave them the time to reflect in class and to write about it. We set a precedent that law school clinics are not just a place to do policy work or major litigation, but also a place to engage with clients, to get to know them, and to help them articulate their experiences,” said Anker. “I am grateful to the law school for allowing us to advance that approach to legal advocacy and education. We now have such a rich and diverse clinical education program at the law school, which has developed in many different directions – client work, policy advocacy, regulatory reform, as well as litigation.”
Anker also points to the clinic’s work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to develop general guidelines for international refugee law.
“My perception was that few academics and major practitioners around that time, the mid to late 1990’s, were thinking conceptually about this. Jim Hathaway’s work was a major force in bringing a principled, and importantly structured, human rights approach to interpretation of refugee law,” said Anker. “We got the UNHCR to adopt general guidelines recognizing gender itself as a category of protection within the refugee treaty’s ‘particular social group’ ground. In the amicus work we have done over the years, we have stuck to this approach and increasingly federal courts as well as some administrative decision makers are recognizing that gender itself can be a basis for protection, including in the ground-breaking 2020 First Circuit decision in De Pena-Paniagua v.Barr, which directly adopted language from HIRC’s lead amicus brief.”
HIRC has continued to expand its scope, working in recent years with students who were eligible for DREAM Act protection. Most recently, Anker and the group have worked on climate change and refugee law, pushing for interpretations of the law to account for the large-scale climate-based displacement that is already occurring in Central America and is expected to worsen. “We need to show decision makers and policy makers that displacement is caused by multitudes of factors and a person can qualify for protection if part of the cause is environmental,” said Anker.
“Our work has always been informed by what is happening,” Kelly said. “The gender work came from a sense of, ‘Where are the women in this system? They don’t seem to be represented’. The Haiti work was geared toward what happened to Haitian women after the coup in 1991. That brought the reality home of what was happening to Haitian women, and got that recognized in a legal context that could then be brought back to cases in the US. The two are integrally connected.”
“We pride ourselves on doing work from the ground up,” Willshire Carrera said. “We’ve had a large number of students who have gone on to be major contributors in the development of asylum law in the country. One thing for sure is that the clinic is now very well recognized. So much of that has to do with Debbie.”
Former students pay tribute
Ardalan, who now directs HIRC, acknowledges a significant personal influence. “Debbie has shaped the course of my life. I have learned so much from her advocacy and scholarship, from her empathy in working with clients, from her tremendous care for her students and colleagues, and from her incredible persistence in continuing to fight against injustice no matter what the odds. She has modeled for me how to approach teaching and lawyering with dedication, humility, strength, and compassion.”
Anker’s influence also goes far beyond Harvard Law School. According to Mark Fleming ’97, who studied with her at Harvard Law and is now a partner at WilmerHale, “Debbie’s contribution to how young lawyers thought about immigration law really can’t be overstated. She was the first person I met at HLS who was not only a gifted academic, but devoted to using her knowledge to represent clients. She used her knowledge to manage a significant group of people who were trying to push immigration law in a good direction and to help people who needed it. That was a new thing to me.”
Fleming currently does pro bono work in the immigration field and cites this as an example of Anker’s influence. “One of the more important lessons she taught me is that immigrants who come to our country are thrown into a very complicated system without anybody to help them. She showed me that things immediately change when a lawyer shows up, so a pro bono lawyer can make an enormous difference.” This, he said, goes back to his days at Harvard Law. “As a law student, the opportunity to walk down the street, to what used to be called Cambridge and Somerville Legal Services, had an impact. First of all, it was terrifying, because I had no idea what to do. But also very rewarding, because people in the system are otherwise forced to navigate it by themselves.”
“Debbie’s seminar influenced the way I think about asylum,” said Fatma Marouf ’02, who now directs the Immigration Rights Clinic at Texas A&M University School of Law. “The way she talked about absorbing each person’s story, I never forgot that. She walked us through each element of her incredible text about the law of asylum, and made sure we had a great understanding of it. She helped us connect the cases we were working on with the thinking behind it. And I loved that she really got in an international perspective — not just U.S. asylum law but how the U.K., Canada, Australia might approach it.”
Marouf particularly credits Anker with emphasizing the connection between asylum and human rights law. “When I teach my own clinic I talk about the importance of bringing in a comparative perspective of what asylum should be, versus how it is — and that’s all Debbie’s. I don’t know if I could have gone into immigration law without her, much less fallen in love with teaching.”
Credit: Brooks Kraft
“She built a program at a time when immigration clinics were not found at many law schools,” said David B. Thronson ’94, who went on to teach international human rights law at Michigan State University. “Part of what impressed me from the beginning is that her work is absolutely compelling and consequential; it changes peoples’ lives. You’re talking about people who are going to face persecution in their home countries if they are returned. It’s not an equal fight, the stakes and the consequences are high and their resources are often minimal; the government is always well represented but the migrant seldom is. To find someone with Debbie’s expertise and willingness to take on those issues — and who is also a tremendously human person that you can get to know — makes a huge difference, and it was a really defining law-school experience for me.”
That experience stuck with Thronson through his career. “I got the realization that things could go together; I could be a professor and still make a difference in the real world, representing clients — and hopefully I can do that in a way that lets my students grow and have good experiences. Debbie taught me that those aren’t mutually exclusive things to do.”
Another former student, Rebecca Sharpless ’94, now directs the immigration clinic at the University of Miami School of Law. “Debbie was the single most influential professor during my time at HLS. As I started my first year, I knew that I wanted to be a social justice lawyer, but I didn’t know what kind. Debbie taught me the urgency and importance of working with immigrants. Her work on some of the most difficult issues relating to the protection of refugees has been pathbreaking, but to me she is first and foremost a teacher and mentor. Under her guidance, I argued in immigration court, organized a trip to Miami to help Haitian refugees, and contributed to federal court briefing. Without a doubt, she made me into the immigration lawyer and teacher that I am today.”
Looking back on a lifetime of impact
Anker has been designated a Woman of Justice by the Massachusetts Bar Association, and in 2011 was elected as a fellow to the American Bar Foundation. The HIRC’s Women’s Refugee Project, which spearheaded work on gender asylum, received the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s (AILA) most prestigious “Founders Award.” HIRC also received AILA’s Human rights award for its work in clinical legal education and advocacy on behalf of refugees. Anker has received AILA’s Elmer Fried Excellence in Teaching Award; two awards for gender asylum work from the Federal Bar Association; the Massachusetts Governor’s New American Appreciation Award; and the CARECEN Award from the Central American Refugee Center.
Presenting her with the latter honor, lead attorney Patrick Young called Anker “one of the architects of modern refugee law. She really defined the field from its inception and her essays and her seminal treatise, ‘Law of Asylum in the United States,’ have helped educate and train two generations of asylum lawyers. Without her thoughtful guidance, it is doubtful CARECEN and many other refugee defense programs could have succeeded in protecting the persecuted as effectively as we have.”
In addition to those already mentioned, Anker notes that “HIRC and I are so fortunate to have on staff attorneys Sameer Ahmed, Jason Corral, Tiffany Lieu, Mariam Liberles and Cindy Zapata. HIRC’s staff also includes our head of social work, Liala Buoniconti; paralegal Karina Buruca; Mary Hewey; and Anna Weick, our chief administrator.” Anker credits her faculty assistant, Sophie Jean, as being an incredible resource, organizing work on “Law of Asylum” research with students, among other invaluable assistance. “Not much can be accomplished without her amazing intelligence and commitment, and of course thank you to those who have come and gone like the incomparable Jordana Arias, a force of nature, and all my assistants going way back to wonderful Delona Wilkins.”
In entering emerita status, Anker reflects back with much gratitude at the opportunities she has been given. “I love this community and I love this work. It truly has been an honor. I am so very grateful.”
***************************
Thanks and many congrats, Debbie, my long-time friend, for all you have done for due process, justice, humanity, and the future generations of the “New Due Process Army!” I wholeheartedly concur in the comments of my friend and Round Table colleague “Sir Jeffrey!” Through your intellectual brilliance, moral courage, extraordinary leadership, and ability to teach and inspire others, you have certainly left a permanent mark on the worldwide, eternal quest for justice!
