immigrationcourtside.com

👎🏽🤮AIMLESS DOCKET RESHUFFLING (“ADR”) @ GARLAND’S EOIR SCREWS 🔩ASYLUM SEEKERS WITH LONG-PENDING “SLAM DUNK” 🏀 CASES: “So if we can actually get to a hearing, it is still possible to win. This is the hope we all need to hold on to, but it would be much easier and much fairer if the system had a modicum of respect for the people it purports to serve.”

From Jason “The Asylumist” Dzubow:

https://www.asylumist.com/2022/04/27/aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah/

Let me tell you about some recent events in my office.

We had two cases set for individual hearings this week. Both cases involve noncitizens who have been waiting years for their decisions, both have family members abroad who they hope to bring to the U.S. if their claims are successful, and both have strong cases for asylum.

For the first case, we prepared and submitted evidence earlier in the pandemic, but the case was postponed at the last minute due to Covid. We were hoping that the new date would stick, given that restrictions are easing and the court now has a system to do cases remotely (called Webex). As the date approached, we filed additional evidence and scheduled two practice sessions for the client. We also regularly checked the Immigration Court online portal, which lists our court dates, to be sure the case was still on the docket.

“Your asylum case is cancelled. Again.”

The second case has also been pending for years. The respondent (the noncitizen in court) is from Afghanistan, and such cases are supposedly receiving priority treatment. So at the Master Calendar Hearing, the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) asked us to be sure to talk to DHS prior to the hearing, presumably in the hope that we would come to an agreement about relief. The IJ also scheduled the hearing for a relatively short time slot in anticipation of a possible uncontested hearing. As with the first case, we filed all the evidence and scheduled the practices.

Both respondents had been in touch with their families overseas and both had talked to their relatives about hopefully reuniting soon.

Then – surprise! – we checked the Immigration Court portal and noticed that both cases had disappeared from the docket. Since the portal pages are sometimes screwy, and since court dates are constantly changing, we decided to wait a bit to see whether the dates reappeared. Informing clients about court delays is always fraught, and can even be traumatic for the clients and their families, who have a lot invested in these dates. So it is better not to inform the client until we are sure a date is canceled.

After some hours, we decided to tell the first client. We had a practice session scheduled for that afternoon, and it would waste time to prepare for a hearing that was not going forward. I called the client and informed him, and as I have often experienced before, he was upset and confused. Why had the case been postponed? Was it something about him or his case? Or was it something about the Court? I could at least inform him that we had two cases canceled on the same date (from two different IJs), and so he should understand that the cancellation was not related to him personally. That is obviously cold comfort, but I guess it is better than nothing. I know it was very upsetting for him to receive this news. It was emotionally exhausting for me as well.

For the next two days, this client kept checking the online court system to see whether anything changed. Then – surprise again! – the case re-appeared on the docket for the same old day and time!

I called the court to confirm, and the clerk told me that the case had been removed by accident, and that it was back on! How lucky! The client told me how upset he had been. He hadn’t been able to sleep or eat. He did not even inform his family back home, as he feared they would not understand or would not believe him. We rescheduled the two practice sessions and mentally re-prepared to go forward.

The next day – surprise again again! – I received a message from the court. The case was definitely off. The clerk apologized for the confusion, and told me that the matter would be set for a date in the future. It would be inappropriate for me to publish here the words that came from my mouth after receiving this message, but let’s just say that I was somewhat agitated. I called the clerk and left a message informing the court how harmful this whole process had been to the respondent, how upset he was, and how he had not seen his family members for years. I also mentioned how upsetting the experience had been for me.

I should say that I do not blame the clerk. He is actually very nice and very responsive (he actually called back and said he will try to get us a new date as soon as possible). The problem is “the system” and complaining to the system is about as effective as punching the ocean. No one is ever responsible, and so there is no one who can be held accountable.

As for client number two, at least he did not suffer the on-again, off-again fate of our first client. But he and his family members were also very upset, and given the IJ’s intention of scheduling the hearing quickly because the respondent is Afghan, it is particularly frustrating that a likely approval should be pushed off until who-knows-when.

What now? For both cases, we will wait a bit to see if new dates appear. Maybe they will. If not, we will file motions to advance, and we will try to get earlier dates. All this is more expense and wasted time for the clients, more work for us, and more work for the court, which will have to review our filings. Last year, I wrote about the harm caused by cancelled hearings, and–despite the easing pandemic and the wide-spread availability of Webex–the problem persists. I’ve mentioned just two cases here, but we see this again and again and again. Not in every case, but it’s common enough that we can never be confident that any particular case will go forward, which makes it much more difficult for respondents and attorneys to prepare for court.

While the situation is bleak, I should mention that the news is not all bad. We are still having some successes. For example, over my Spring Break, I litigated a Syrian case (remotely, with very questionable internet, and in what I believe is the first Immigration Court case in the history of Shickshinny, Pennsylvania). Although it was a close case and DHS generally opposed relief, the IJ explained his reasons for granting and DHS agreed not to appeal. And just yesterday, my client from Pakistan received asylum after a contested hearing. DHS did not appeal.

So if we can actually get to a hearing, it is still possible to win. This is the hope we all need to hold on to, but it would be much easier and much fairer if the system had a modicum of respect for the people it purports to serve.

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

Thanks, Jason, for your clear and compelling description of the toxic human and systemic effects of Garland’s continuing “ADR” at EOIR!

Contrary to the “nativist false narrative” promoted under Administrations of both parties, those suffering in the inexcusable EOIR backlog are NOT “evading deportation.” Many, probably the majority, are individuals who are eligible to, and should be granted, the ability to remain in the U.S.

This is particularly true of asylum applicants. Even with a system improperly skewed against them, asylum applicants were winning the majority of their EOIR court cases as recently as FY 2012.

Despite worsening conditions since then in almost all “sending countries,” that rate cratered by about 50% during the Trump regime. It’s fairly obvious that the increased denial rates resulted from perversions of the law, ADR, and an intentional “dumbing down” of both the administrative law and EOIR personnel at all levels.

Garland has taken, at best, “baby steps” to improve the Immigration Courts. He’s merely “nibbling at the edges” where radical house cleaning 🧹and progressive reforms ⚖️ were absolutely necessary, recommended by experts, and achievable — at least had Garland “hit the ground running!”

EOIR should long ago have been replaced with an independent Article I Immigration Court based on the principles of fairness, scholarship, timeliness, respect, teamwork, and most of all, an overriding unswerving commitment to due process and best practices. Judges and administrators should be selected competitively, with private bar input, and exclusively on a merit basis from among those who have demonstrated expertise in immigration and human rights.

As long as EOIR inappropriately continues to reside in the U.S. Department of Justice, there should never, NEVER, again be another Attorney General who does not possess significant experience representing individuals in Immigration Court — the fundamental “retail level” of our entire justice system. Garland ‘s failure to “get the job done for due process and equal justice” — not even close — is “Exhibit A” in what happens when the wrong person is appointed to oversee the Immigration Courts!

At a time when America needed enlightened, inspirational, informed, and courageous legal and ethical leadership for the Immigration Courts, Garland has been “MIA!” American justice, at all levels, is paying the heavy price!☹️

Alfred E. Neumann — Merrick Garland: “What, me worry? I’ve spent my entire law career in the ‘ivory tower.’ What’s ‘aimless docket reshuffling?’ Who cares about asylum seekers?”
PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-04-22

⚡️ZAPPED AGAIN: 4TH CIR. TELLS EOIR TARDY IS NOT ABSENT! — NDPA Superstar 🌟 Helen Parsonage, Esquire, Comes Up Big For The Good Guys, Again! — Salomao v. Garland

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/201856.U.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca4-on-in-absentia-order-tardy-does-not-mean-absent—salomao-v-garland

“This case arises out of an in absentia order against two Petitioners who allege to have arrived one hour and five minutes late to their individual hearing scheduled for several hours. Neither the immigration judge (“IJ”) nor the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) addressed this argument. For the reasons that follow, we find that the BIA abused its discretion when it made no mention of the alleged late arrival in its decision to dismiss the motion to reopen proceedings on appeal. Thus, we reverse and vacate the BIA’s order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. … We vacate and remand with instructions to the BIA to consider Petitioners’ motion to reopen. In doing so, the BIA should determine whether Petitioners arrived late, and if so, whether the surrounding circumstances show that this late arrival constitutes a failure to appear for the purposes of the statute’s preclusive effect.”

[Hats off to Helen Parsonage!]

—

Daniel M. Kowalski

Editor-in-Chief

Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

cell/text/Signal (512) 826-0323

@dkbib on Twitter

dan@cenizo.com

Free Daily Blog: www.bibdaily.com

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

Congrats, Helen!

Anybody have a guess as to how many of these “bogus in absentias” are out there right now? Haste makes waste!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-03-22

🤮 UGLY HISTORY OF RACISM & BIAS INFECTS U.S. REFUGEE RESPONSES!

Dr. Laura Alexander
Goldstein Family Chair in Human Rights
Assistant Professor
U. of Nebraska-Omaha
PHOTO: UNO

https://theconversation.com/how-race-and-religion-have-always-played-a-role-in-who-gets-refuge-in-the-us-181700?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20April%2028%202022%20-%202276322632&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20April%2028%202022%20-%202276322632+Version+B+CID_a6f7cc645a264986686de82dd759a5c6&utm_source=campaign_monitor_us&utm_term=How%20race%20and%20religion%20have%20always%20played%20a%20role%20in%20who%20gets%20refuge%20in%20the%20US

From The Conversation:

How race and religion have always played a role in who gets refuge in the US

Laura E. Alexander Published: April 28, 2022 8.21am EDT

Ukrainian refugees wait near the U.S. border in Tijuana, Mexico. AP Photo/Gregory Bull

In the weeks since Russia invaded Ukraine, millions of Ukrainians have fled the country as refugees. Hundreds of those refugees have now arrived at the southern border of the United States seeking asylum, after flying to Mexico on tourist visas.

At the border, Ukrainians, alongside thousands of other asylum seekers, must navigate two policies meant to keep people out. The first is the “Migrant Protection Protocols,” a U.S. government action initiated by the Trump administration in December 2018 and known informally as “Remain in Mexico.” The second is Title 42, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention directive crafted in 2020, ostensibly to protect public health during the COVID-19 pandemic. The directive expels all irregular immigrants (those without permanent residency or a visa in hand) and asylum seekers who try to enter the U.S. by land.

On March 11, 2022, however, the Biden administration provided guidance allowing Customs and Border Protection officers to exempt Ukrainians from Title 42 on a case-by-case basis, which has allowed many families to enter. However, this exception has not been granted to other asylum seekers, no matter what danger they are in. It is possible that the administration may lift Title 42 at the end of May 2022, but that plan has encountered fierce debates.

The different treatment of Ukrainian versus Central American, African, Haitian and other asylum seekers has prompted criticism that the administration is enforcing immigration policies in racist ways, favoring white, European, mostly Christian refugees over other groups.

This issue is not new. As scholars of religion, race, immigration, and racial and religious politics in the United States, we study both historical and current immigration policy. We argue that U.S. refugee and asylum policy has long been racially and religiously discriminatory in practice.

Chinese asylum seekers

Race played a major role in who counted as a refugee during the early years of the Cold War. The displacement of millions fleeing communist regimes in Eastern Europe and East Asia created humanitarian crises in both places.

Under significant international pressure, Congress passed the 1953 Refugee Relief Act. According to historian Carl Bon Tempo, in the minds of President Dwight Eisenhower and most lawmakers, “refugee” meant “anticommunist European.” The text and implementation of the act reflected this. Of the 214,000 visas set aside for refugees, the law designated a quota of only 5,000 spots for Asians (2,000 for Chinese and 3,000 for “Far Eastern” refugees). Ultimately, approximately 9,000 Chinese (including 6,862 Chinese wives of U.S. citizens who came as nonquota migrants) were admitted under the 1953 refugee law, compared with nearly 200,000 southern and eastern Europeans, over the next three years.

Racial prejudice impacted the international response to refugees as well. By the late 1940s and early 1950s, United Nations officials had declared the displaced population in Europe a humanitarian crisis and appealed to the international community to relieve these pressures by accepting refugees. Over the next decade, Western nations including the U.S., France and Great Britain received millions of displaced Europeans as part of a larger Cold War public relations strategy to contain the Soviet Union and demonstrate the superiority of Western capitalist societies to life behind the Iron Curtain.

Millions of ethnic Chinese displaced by the 1949 Communist Revolution were not greeted so kindly. In the early 1950s, Hong Kong’s population tripled due to mainland Chinese fleeing civil war and communist rule, triggering a crisis. Most Western countries, however, continued to exclude Chinese and other Asians from immigrating and made few exceptions for refugees.

In the United States, exclusionary provisions that barred Asians from immigrating as “aliens ineligible to citizenship” would not be removed from immigration law until the 1965 Immigration Act.

Haitian asylum seekers

The first Haitian asylum seekers, who are overwhelmingly Black, attempted to reach the U.S. in boats in 1963 during the dictatorship of Francois Duvalier. It was a period of great economic inequality and severe violent repression of political opposition in Haiti.

Haitian refugees who were intercepted by the U.S. Coast Guard returning to Port-au-Prince after being repatriated in 1992. AP Photo/Daniel Morel

Between 1973 and 1991, more than 80,000 Haitians tried to seek asylum in the U.S. The U.S., however, consistently attempted to intercept and turn back boats carrying Haitian asylum seekers to avoid having to hear their cases.

In the 1980s and 1990s, nearly every single Haitian who tried to request asylum was either denied or turned away. Some disparities between asylum rates could be explained by political factors, particularly the U.S. government’s interest in prioritizing refugees from communist countries.

However, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida and the 11th Circuit Court both found, in Haitian Refugee Center v. Civiletti and Jean v. Nelson respectively, that racial discrimination could be the only reason for such strikingly different outcomes for Haitians. In Jean v. Nelson, the 11th Circuit heard evidence from plaintiffs that there was a less than two-in-1 billion chance that Haitians would be denied parole so consistently if immigration policies were applied in racially neutral ways. Both courts also noted the differences in outcomes of asylum claims between Cuban refugees, who were predominantly white, and Haitian refugees.

In the same time period, even while Black Haitian asylum seekers were being turned away, European immigrants, who were primarily white, received preference in the Diversity Visa system created by the Immigration Act of 1990. Northern Ireland, for example, was designated as a separate country from the United Kingdom, and 40% of “diversity transition” visas allocated during 1992 to 1994 were earmarked for Irish immigrants.

Similar accusations of racism and discriminatory treatment have surfaced over the last several months as Haitian asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border have been forced onto flights to Haiti and have faced degrading treatment.

Syrian refugees and the Muslim ban

Beginning in January 2017, President Donald Trump issued a series of executive orders described by many refugee advocates as the “Muslim Ban.” The ban suspended the entry of people from majority-Muslim countries, including Syrians, and limited the number of refugee admissions of several majority-Muslim countries.

Few Syrian refugees were allowed into the U.S. In this photo, Syrian refugees wait to be approved to get into Jordan. AP Photo/Raad Adayleh, File

Syrian refugees, most of whom fled the Syrian civil war that began in 2011 and violence by the Islamic State, were specifically targeted in the Muslim Ban.

A February 2017 version of the Muslim Ban claimed that Syrian refugees were “detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend[ed]” from admission, with few exceptions. This contributed to a significant decrease in the number of Syrian refugees – from 12,587 to 76 between financial year 2016 to 2018.

Research shows that religion, particularly Islam, is used to create symbolic boundaries of racial distinction in order to promote immigration enforcement goals. Specifically, the government attempted to justify an exclusionary refugee policy based on race and religion by implicating Muslims and refugees in terrorism, as Trump did in speeches, even calling Syrians the “trojan horse” for terrorism.

International agreements for refugees and asylum seekers clearly state that admissions should be based on need. In principle, U.S. law says this as well. But these key moments in United States history show how race, religion and other factors play a role in determining who is in, and who is out.

While refugees from the war in Ukraine deserve support from the United States and other countries, the contrast between the treatment of different groups of refugees shows that the process of gaining refuge in the United States is still far from equitable.

[Explore the intersection of faith, politics, arts and culture. Sign up for This Week in Religion.]

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

Yup!

And, the ongoing grotesque abuses of Title 42 to target refugees of color is Exhibit A! So, why are some “tone deaf” Democrats advocating this racist action?

Because the polls tell them is “politically expedient” to favor racism?
Because racism at the border and in the immigration system are thought to be “below the radar screen?”
Because dead refugees of color “don’t matter?”
Or, put another way, because the lives of refugees of color don’t matter?

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-02-22

⚖️🗽NDPA NEWS: SPRING 2022 ACHIEVEMENT REPORT FROM THE GW IMMIGRATION CLINIC! — “Saving Lives The Old Fashioned Way, With Hard Work & Practical Scholarship!”

GW Law Immigration Clinic Director Professor Alberto Benítez & Co-Director Paulina Vera

The Immigration Clinic had another busy and productive semester. Professor Vera and I share that our eight student-attorneys (Alexandra Chen, Spoorthi Datla, Daniel Fishelman, José Hernández, Trisha Kondabala, Mir Sadra Nabavi, Mark Rook, and Ryan Sarlo) accomplished the following on behalf of their clients:

Filings:

Four work permit applications

Two affirmative asylum applications

Two motions to terminate proceedings

Two motions to schedule a final merits hearing (one was granted!)

Two appeals of USCIS erroneous denials of green card applications

One application for removal of conditions of a green card, with a waiver for a domestic violence survivor

One U visa application (for victims of crimes in the U.S.)

One motion to change venue (granted!)

One request for expedited processing of an asylee derivative application (granted!)

One family-based petition and green card application packet for the spouse of a current client

Representation:

Two hearings for procedural matters

One affirmative asylum interview

Public engagement:

One legal orientation presentation with parents of a local MD high school

One public comment on the newly proposed public charge rule

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

Alberto Manuel Benitez

Professor of Clinical Law

Director, Immigration Clinic

The George Washington University Law School

650 20th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20052

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

Congrats to Alberto, Paulina, and the eight above-named student-attorneys for saving lives, promoting justice, elevating the level of immigration practice, and being in the vanguard of the New Due Process Army!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS
05-01-22

SOUTHERN BORDER: BIDEN ADMINISTRATION FINALLY REVEALS PLAN FOR LIFTING TITLE 42 — Long On Enforcement, Deterrence, Punishment, Notably Short On Humanitarian Reforms, Positive Legal Guidance, Cooperation With NGOs, States, & Localities Who Welcome Refugees & Asylum Seekers !

Here it is:

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2022-04/22_0426_dhs-plan-southwest-border-security-preparedness.pdf

Unfortunately, you have to get “down to the fine print” (page 13 of 20) find the paragraph that should be the “centerpiece of restoring the rule of law” — a functional legal asylum processing at ports of entry that would encourage refugees to present themselves there for fair and humane processing rather than seeking irregular entry with the help of smugglers.

Port of Entry Processing

The imposition of the Title 42 public health Order severely restricted the ability of undocumented noncitizens to present at POEs for inspection and processing under Title 8. The closure of this immigration pathway for much of the time Title 42 has been in effect has driven people between POEs at the hands of the cartels. Returning to robust POE processing is an essential part of DHS border security efforts. Beginning in the summer of 2021, DHS restarted processing vulnerable individuals through POEs under Title 8, on a case-by-case basis for humanitarian reasons, pursuant to the exception criteria laid out in CDC’s Title 42 Order. These efforts, which we have recently expanded, offer individuals in vulnerable situations a safe and orderly method to submit their information in advance and present at POEs for inspection and subsequent immigration processing under Title 8. We also have enhanced Title 8 POE processing through the development of the CBP One mobile application, which powers advanced information submission and appointment scheduling prior to an individual presenting at a POE. We will make this tool publicly available and continue to expand its use to facilitate orderly immigration processing at POEs.

13 of 20

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

The failure of Garland to appoint a new, expert BIA committed to due process and providing fair, practical positive guidance on the generous application of asylum law foreshadowed by INS v. Cardoza Fonseca a quarter of a century ago, but never realized in practice, is likely to become a millstone around the Administration’s neck. There is no substitute for due process and fundamental fairness. The current dysfunctional, mismanaged, and inappropriately staffed EOIR is not capable of providing the necessary leadership, consistency, and accountability.

Also, in light of U.S. District Judge Robert Summerhays’s “off the wall” decision in Arizona v. CDC, it’s not clear that Title 42 will ever be lifted.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-29-22

😎DANG, IF THE NDPA DIDN’T WIN ANOTHER ONE, AS THE BIA DECIDES TO FOLLOW THE SUPREMES’ JOHNSON RULING IN IMMIGRATION CASES! — Matter of Dang

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1497716/download

Matter of DANG, 28 I&N Dec. 541 (BIA 2022)

(1) The Supreme Court’s construction of “physical force” in Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010), and Stokeling v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 544 (2019), controls our interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 16(a) (2018), which is incorporated by reference into section 237(a)(2)(E)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) (2018); the Court’s construction of “physical force” in United States v. Castleman, 572 U.S. 157 (2014), is inapplicable in this context.

(2) Because misdemeanor domestic abuse battery with child endangerment under section 14:35.3(I) of the Louisiana Statutes extends to mere offensive touching, it is overbroad with respect to § 16(a) and therefore is not categorically a crime of domestic violence under section 237(a)(2)(E)(i) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i).

PANEL: CREPPY, LIEBOWITZ, and PETTY, Appellate Immigration Judges.

OPINION: Judge Petty

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

Sometimes, the BIA decides to “blow off” the Supremes! But not this time!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-28-22

🏴‍☠️ PARALLEL UNIVERSE — TRUMP JUDGE ELEVATES FABRICATED “STATE HARM” OVER HUMAN LIVES, RULE OF LAW, & HUMAN RIGHTS! 🤮

Arizona v. CDC, W.D. LA

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.188754/gov.uscourts.lawd.188754.37.0_3.pdf

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

So, the DHS can’t make advance preparation for orderly resumption of legal processing for asylum seekers? Clearly fabricated “harm” over human lives and human rights? Ignoring the well-documented record of deadly harm inflicted on those seeking asylum by lawless Title 42 enforcement? Racist actions by a U.S. District Judge specifically directed against Hispanic migrants from the Northern Triangle? No realistic connection whatsoever to “public health?” Obviously this is a scheme by an unqualified Federal Judge and White Nationalist GOP state AGs to end asylum law at the border!

The problem: They are getting away with it!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-28-22

⚖️STACY CAPLOW @ AILA IMMIGRATION COURTS ARE SINKING — ROUND TABLE 🛡⚔️ FIGHTING FOR CHANGE!

“Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports:

Hi all: A new volume of the AILA Law Journal was released yesterday. It contained an article by Stacy Caplow, co-director of Brooklyn Law School’s Safe Harbor Project, called The Sinking Immigration Court: Change Course, Save the Ship. I’m not sure if all can access it, but the link is:

https://www.aila.org/File/Related/19110103g.pdf#page=40. It is a very much worth reading generally, but I wanted to highlight the following mention of our group at pp. 49-50:

The Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, “a group of 51 former Immigration Judges and Members of the Board of Immigration Appeals who are committed to the principles of due process, fairness, and transparency in our Immigration Court system,” bears witness to the degrading of the court and, speaking with the voice of years of experience, has been an increasingly active and vocal critic of recent developments at the court both before Congress and as amicus curiae.

There are also citations to a couple of our group’s statements (including one to Congress) and an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court in the footnotes.

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

How come the Biden Administration, and particularly AG Garland, don’t “get it?”

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-28-22

🗽 BORDER MAYORS WELCOME END OF TITLE 42, STAND UP FOR RIGHTS OF REFUGEES, WHILE RIPPING FALSE NARRATIVES OF FEAR BEING SPREAD BY GOP AND SOME DEMS! — “We must remain steadfast in our work to provide refuge to those fleeing persecution and violence in their home countries, just as our European allies are doing with Ukrainian refugees.”

https://thehill.com/latino/3462471-two-border-mayors-come-out-in-support-of-ending-title-42/

Rafael Bernal reports for the Hill:

. . . .

But Romero and Mendez criticized Democrats who embrace a rhetoric of border security versus immigrant rights.

Biden administration lays out post-Title 42 border plan

Title 42 looms over Biden meeting with Hispanic Democrats

“Instead of caving into the anti-immigrant rhetoric of the Republicans, Congress should work on real immigration reform that doesn’t exploit an arcane public health authority to deny people their basic, human right to seek asylum,” they wrote.

And the two mayors painted an optimistic picture of border management where security is not at odds with proper asylum management.

“Our offices are working closely with the Biden Administration and with various community organizations on the ground to ensure that there are resources in place to execute a comprehensive plan to process asylum seekers, crack down on cartels, and establish appropriate COVID-19 protocols. We must remain steadfast in our work to provide refuge to those fleeing persecution and violence in their home countries, just as our European allies are doing with Ukrainian refugees,” Romero and Mendez wrote.

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

Read the complete article at the link.

Hats off to Mayor Romero (Tucson) and Mayor Mendez (Brownsville) for standing up for the rule of law and human decency and pushing back against false xenophobic rhetoric from both the GOP nativists and their “values challenged” Dem “fellow travelers.”

Remarkably, Moldova, a small, poor country living in the shadow of Russia has stepped up in ways that should embarrass cowardly Repubs and their Dem enablers. Moldova has taken the largest per capita number of Ukrainian refugees. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/refugees-flee-moldova-russias-shadow-looms-large-rcna25529

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-27-22

⚖️ THE GIBSON REPORT — 04-25-22 — Compiled By Elizabeth Gibson, Esquire, Managing Attorney, National Immigrant Justice Center

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.

CONTENTS (jump to section)

PRACTICE ALERTS

NEWS

LITIGATION & AGENCY UPDATES

RESOURCES

EVENTS

PRACTICE ALERTS

ICE PD Memo (Doyle Memo) Goes into Effect Today

Nationwide Immigration Court Legal Assistant Directory

NEWS

US to welcome Ukraine refugees but no longer through Mexico

AP: Under a program announced Thursday, the U.S. will streamline refugee applications for Ukrainians and others fleeing the fighting, but will no longer routinely grant entry to those who show up at the U.S.-Mexico border seeking asylum. See also Biden administration taking heat for new Ukrainian settlement program.

Swing-state Democrats turn on Biden over Title 42 border decision

CNN: The Democratic rebellion against President Joe Biden’s plans to lift pandemic-era border restrictions is growing, as candidates in marquee races from Nevada to New Hampshire break with the administration and Republicans turn immigration into a centerpiece of their midterm election messaging. See also Two border mayors come out in support of ending Title 42.

Anti-immigration activists are dominating YouTube

Politico: The report, which includes research in key swing states, shows that YouTube has proved to be a critical space for shaping opinion on immigration — and even influencing voting patterns. It also looks at how immigration advocates and opponents have used starkly different messaging strategies, with opponents largely being more effective by investing in digital media and tailoring their messages to undecided voters.

US immigration agency explores data loophole to obtain information on deportation targets

Guardian: US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has contracted with private data brokers to get around some areas’ sanctuary laws, documents show

Cuba-U.S. talks in Washington ‘focused on migration’ -State Dept

Reuters: U.S. and Cuban officials met in Washington for talks about migration on Thursday as the United States seeks to quell rising numbers of people attempting to cross its southern border, including increasing numbers of Cubans.

As COVID restrictions ended, a busy winter for asylum-seekers at the Canada border

Reuters: In December, Royal Canadian Mounted Police intercepted 2,811 asylum-seekers crossing the border outside formal land ports of entry, the vast majority crossing into Quebec. In January and February they intercepted 2,382 and 2,164, respectively – compared to 888 and 808 in January and February of 2019.

Watchdog Reports Feds Are Undercounting Border Deaths

Law360: U.S. Border Patrol has been undercounting migrant deaths along the U.S.-Mexico border, compromising the data provided to lawmakers overseeing the agency’s efforts to reduce migrant deaths in the area, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

Indianapolis to get new immigration court next year: Justice

AP: A new immigration court will open in Indianapolis next year, taking over the state’s cases from a court in Chicago, the Executive Office for Immigration Review of the U.S. Justice Department said Tuesday. See also EOIR to Stop Holding Hearings in Pittsburgh on Sidney Street.

LITIGATION & AGENCY UPDATES

Supreme Court weighs policy for migrants to wait in Mexico

AP: Arrested after the encounter with U.S. agents, Úbeda learned two days later that he could not pursue asylum in the United States while living with a cousin in Miami. Instead, he would have to wait in the Mexican border city of Tijuana for hearings in U.S. immigration court under a Trump-era policy that will be argued Tuesday before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Matter Of Dingus, 28 I&N Dec. 529 (BIA 2022)

BIA: If a State court’s nunc pro tunc order modifies or amends the subject matter of a conviction based on a procedural or substantive defect in the underlying criminal proceedings, the original conviction is invalid for immigration purposes and we will give full effect to the modified conviction; however, if the modification or amendment is entered for reasons unrelated to the merits of the underlying proceedings, the modification will not be given any effect and the original conviction remains valid.

4th Circ. Says Bad Advice Can’t Stop Ex-Citizen’s Deportation

Law360: The Fourth Circuit upheld a Virginia federal court’s decision to deport a Mexican native whose U.S. citizenship was revoked, saying his reliance on poor advice from his former attorney did not prevent him from knowing his risk for deportation.

Full 5th Circ. Won’t Redo Order Upending In Absentia Removal

Law360: The full Fifth Circuit kept intact a panel ruling that a multipart notice to appear tainted an immigrant’s in absentia removal order, but sparked a judge’s scathing dissent that the court wrongly blew wide open the deportation cases of thousands.

Feds Use 6th Circ. Ruling In Bid For 5th Circ. DACA Revival

Law360: The Biden administration is relying on a week-old Sixth Circuit ruling reinstating its policy prioritizing certain migrants for removal, as it presses the Fifth Circuit to crack open a judge’s permanent block on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

Feds Claim Immunity Over Alleged Wrongful ICE Detention

Law360: The U.S. government is claiming sovereign immunity to shake off the majority of a Washington district court lawsuit from a man accusing immigration officials of wrongfully imprisoning him, falsely affiliating him with gangs and stripping him of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals benefits.

Biden Administration to Streamline Humanitarian Parole Process for Ukrainians and Expand Refugee and Visa Processing for Ukrainians

AILA: “Uniting for Ukraine” will create a streamlined process to consider Ukrainians for humanitarian parole and work authorization in the U.S. DOS will expand refugee processing and NIV appointments for Ukrainians. Ukrainians presenting at land POEs without visas or preauthorization will be denied entry.

DHS Notice of Designation of Ukraine for Temporary Protected Status

AILA: DHS notice of designation of Ukraine for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 18 months, effective 4/19/22 through 10/19/23. (87 FR 23211, 4/19/22)

DHS Notice of Designation of Sudan for Temporary Protected Status

AILA: DHS notice of designation of Sudan for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 18 months, effective 4/19/22 through 10/19/23. (87 FR 23202, 4/19/22)

Biden Administration to Streamline Humanitarian Parole Process for Ukrainians and Expand Refugee and Visa Processing for Ukrainians

AILA: “Uniting for Ukraine” will create a streamlined process to consider Ukrainians for humanitarian parole and work authorization in the U.S. DOS will expand refugee processing and NIV appointments for Ukrainians. Ukrainians presenting at land POEs without visas or preauthorization will be denied entry.

EOIR Rescinds Policy Memoranda 19-05, 21-06, and 21-13

AILA: EOIR rescinded PM 19-05, Guidance Regarding the Adjudication of Asylum Applications Consistent with INA § 208(d)(5)(A)(iii); PM 21-06, Asylum Processing; and PM 21-13, Continuances.

DHS 5-Day Notice and Request for Comments on New MPP Disenrollment Request System

AILA: DHS 5-day notice and request for comments on a new public-facing Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) Disenrollment Request website. Comments are due 4/26/22. (87 FR 23879, 4/21/22)

CBP Request for Public Input

AILA: CBP request for public input on CBP processes, programs, regulations, collections of information, and policies for the agency to consider modifying, streamlining, expanding, or repealing in light of recent executive orders. Comments will be accepted through 6/21/22.

DHS Extends COVID-19 Vaccination Requirements for Non-U.S. Travelers Entering at the Canadian and Mexican Borders

AILA: DHS announced it will extend Title 19 requirements and require non-U.S. travelers entering the United States via land ports of entry and ferry terminals at the U.S.-Mexico and U.S.-Canada borders to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and provide proof of vaccination upon request.

RESOURCES

AILA: Six Steps to Correct a Mistake

CLINIC: ICE Issues Clarifying Memo on Prosecutorial Discretion in Immigration Court

CLINIC: Translation of Civics Questions and Answers for the Naturalization Test

CLINIC: U Visa Certification Advocacy Toolkit

CLINIC: TPS Developments: New Designations, Recent Settlement, and Buzz About Potential Policies for Ukrainians

CLINIC: DHS and DOJ Issue Interim Final Rule on Credible Fear Screenings and Consideration of Asylum Claims by USCIS Officers

CRS: Temporary Protected Status and Deferred Enforced Departure

HRF: “I’m a Prisoner Here”: Biden Administration Policies Lock Up Asylum Seekers

Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman (OIDO) will send out an e-newsletter quarterly

EVENTS

NIJC EVENTS

5/13/22 Prosecutorial Discretion 2022

5/18/22 Pro Bono Training: Representing Immigrant Survivors Eligible For U Visas

6/28/22 Pro Bono Training: Asylum Pride Part 1

6/30/22 Pro Bono Training: Asylum Pride Part 2

GENERAL EVENTS

4/25/22 USCIS to Host Engagement on TPS for South Sudan

4/25/22 Bias, Equity, and the Impact of Anti-Blackness on Immigrant Survivors

4/27/22 Special Immigrant Juvenile Policy Updates

4/27/22 U Visa RFEs

4/27/22 Panel Discussion: Afghan People in Detention

4/28/22 Motions to Reopen Removal Proceedings

4/29/22 Mobilities: A Conference on Disability and Migration

5/3/22 The Family Visa Petition

5/3/22 Inaugural “Vicarious Trauma Check-in” for Immigration Attorneys & Legal Staff: Reflecting on Lawyering Under 4 Years of Trump + 1 Year of Biden and Looking Forward

5/4/22 California Pardons and Post-Conviction Relief

5/5/22 Stories from the Trenches: Tools for Dealing with Depression, Burnout, and Substance Abuse

5/5/22 Preventing & Mitigating Vicarious Trauma Among Immigration Legal Staff As An Immigration Attorney Supervisor or Manager

5/6/22 Preventing & Mitigating Vicarious Trauma Amidst Zealous Immigration Detention Lawyering & Organizing

5/6/22-5/13/22 NITA-NIPNLG “Advocacy in Immigration Matters” Training

5/10/22 Asylum Claims for Young People

5/10/22 2022 Consular Processing Updates: Strategies and Alternatives for NIV and IV Cases

5/11/22 EOIR/ICE Liaison Update: The Most Recent Information on the State of Prosecutorial Discretion

5/12/22 Advanced DACA Issues: What You Need to Know in 2022

5/13/22 FBA Immigration Law Conference

5/17/22 Advocating for Prosecutorial Discretion for Clients in Removal Proceedings

5/18/22 Pro Bono Training: Representing Immigrant Survivors Eligible For U Visas

5/18/22 U Visa Webinar Series: Adjustment of Status

5/19/22 Fighting Interpol Red Notices with guest speaker, Sara Grossman

5/19/22 Waivers in Removal Proceedings: Beyond the Basics

5/19/22 Special Immigrant Juvenile Status: Your Client’s I-360 Is Approved, Now What?

5/21/22 Spring Ethics Conference Agenda

5/24/22 Current Issues in Afghan Asylum Claims

5/24/22 Obstacles to TPS Eligibility

5/24/22 Advanced FOIA Techniques

6/7/22 Asylum and Employment Authorization

6/8/22 ASISTA: Immigration Practice & Policy for Survivors: What’s New & What’s Next

6/8/22 Naturalization for People with Disabilities

6/14/22-6/15/22 NIPNLG 2022 Annual Pre-AILA Crimes & Immigration Seminar

6/22/22 Introduction to Immigrant Visa Consular Processing

7/5/22 Comprehensive Overview of Immigration Law (COIL)

7/13/22 CGRS Using Universal Expert Declaration in Immigration Court

8/31/22 What to Do When You Get a Decision from the Ninth Circuit

9/26/22 Comprehensive Overview of Immigration Law (COIL)

To sign up for additional NIJC newsletters, visit: https://immigrantjustice.org/subscribe.

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

www.immigrantjustice.org | Facebook | Twitter

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

Thanks, Elizabeth!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-26-22

☠️🏴‍☠️👎🏽TRUMP JUDGES MAKING RULE OF LAW A FARCE: It’s Weeks From May 23, But Righty Judge Already Planning To Shaft Vulnerable Asylum Seekers!🤮

Rebecca Beitsch

Rebecca Beitsch @ The Hill:

A federal judge in Louisiana says he intends to block the Biden administration’s plans for rescinding Title 42, siding with GOP-led states that had asked for the courts to force the White House to temporarily retain the pandemic-era border policy.

The decision from Judge Robert Summerhays, an appointee of former President Trump, will prevent the Biden administration from carrying out its plans to end Title 42 on May 23 and once again allow migrants to seek asylum.

The order, though temporary, is a victory in a suit initially filed by Louisiana, Missouri and Arizona that now includes some 20 GOP-led states.

It’s not yet clear what the terms of the order will be, as a summary of the hearing — which was not open to the public — said “the parties will confer regarding the specific terms to be contained in the Temporary Restraining Order and attempt to reach agreement.”

. . . .

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

Read the complete report at the link.

What’s wrong with a system where scofflaw judges undermine, rather than stand up for, the rule of law and the most vulnerable among us? The word “cowards” comes to mind!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-25-22

⚖️HISTORY, LAW ENFORCEMENT, HUMAN RIGHTS, FORENSIC SCIENCE COME TOGETHER TO BRING WAR CRIMINALS TO JUSTICE! — “They [Guatemalan soldiers and local Civil Patrol] covered her mouth, kicked her, and slapped her. Then they ordered her to take her clothes off and took her to the bedroom. They took turns raping her.”

This from my good friend and Alexandria neighbor Professor Alberto Benitez over at GW Law:

The attached article from the Washington Post reads like the affidavits we prepare and file in support of our clients’ asylum applications. Please read to the end. All respect to Sra. Alvarado, Sr. Osorio, and all the survivors, may the victims rest in peace, and thanks to Ms. Schneider and Mr. Langille.

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

Alberto Manuel Benitez

Professor of Clinical Law

Director, Immigration Clinic

The George Washington University Law School

Scanned from a Xerox Multifunction Printer – 2022-04-25T093400.796

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

From the above article by Kevin Sieff & Nick Miroff @ WashPost:

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

Obviously, what’s described elsewhere in the article is really “top notch” law enforcement work from DHS. It also illustrates one of my “continuing themes” of “effective interdisciplinary cooperation in immigration cases.”

The irony is that DHS now spends too much of its law enforcement time trying to “chase down the victims of persecution” and deny them their rights to apply for asylum and their opportunity have their cases fairly evaluated and adjudicated.

What if, if rather than yielding to disgusting political grandstanding by GOP nativists and, sadly, some misguided Dems, who want to misuse Title 42 to end asylum law, the Administration stood up for the rights of refugees and asylum seekers for fair and orderly processing and determination of their claims for protection? What if refugees were encouraged to apply at legal ports of entry and at points outside the U.S. Wouldn’t that leave more time for “real” law enforcement at DHS — at the border and everywhere else?

Interestingly, during the Trump regime, some ICE Special Agents came to the same conclusion. They unsuccessfully “lobbied” then DHS Secretary Nielsen for separation from the “gonzo civil enforcement” that ICE then was carrying out — concentrating on “terrorizing” local ethnic communities. Not surprisingly, this made local enforcement in many areas reluctant to cooperate with ICE on real law enforcement priorities — like that described in this case.

As this article suggests, there has been a real “mixed message” in DHS and DOJ in handling of asylum claims from the Northern Triangle. One arm acknowledges and prosecutes massive acts of persecution that are actually war crimes. Another arm, aided by bad judging at EOIR and poor leadership at DOJ, disingenuously denies that such persecutions took place — sometimes mischaracterizing it as “random violence” — and that violence amounting to persecution on account of a “protected ground,” particularly violence directed at women and children, remains widespread in Latin America today.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-25-22

⚖️👍😎NDPA+: “RESEARCH YOU CAN USE!” — NEW STUDY PROVIDES UNIQUE INSIGHTS, PRACTICAL GUIDANCE ON USE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS & AFFIDAVITS IN IMMIGRATION COURT!

http://jaapl.org/content/early/2022/04/20/JAAPL.210075-21

Immigration Judges’ Perceptions of Telephonic and In-Person Forensic Mental Health Evaluations

Aliza S. Green, Samuel G. Ruchman, Beselot Birhanu, Stephanie Wu, Craig L. Katz, Elizabeth K. Singer and Kim A. Baranowski

Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online April 2022, JAAPL.210075-21; DOI: https://doi.org/10.29158/JAAPL.210075-21

ArticleFigures & Data Info & Metrics PDF

Abstract

Clinicians affiliated with medical human rights programs throughout the United States perform forensic evaluations of asylum seekers. Much of the best practice literature reflects the perspectives of clinicians and attorneys, rather than the viewpoints of immigration judges who incorporate forensic reports into their decision-making. The purpose of this study was to assess former immigration judges’ perspectives on forensic mental health evaluations of asylum seekers. We examined the factors that immigration judges use to assess the affidavits resulting from mental health evaluations and explored their attitudes toward telehealth evaluations. We conducted semistructured interviews in April and May 2020 with nine former judges and systematically analyzed them using consensual qualitative research methodology. Our findings were grouped in five domains: general preferences for affidavits; roles of affidavits in current legal climate; appraisal and comparison of sample affidavits; attitudes toward telephonic evaluations; and recommendations for telephonic evaluations. Forensic evaluators should consider the practice recommendations of judges, both for telephonic and in-person evaluations, which can bolster the usefulness of their evaluations in the adjudication process. To our knowledge, this is the first published study to incorporate immigration judges’ perceptions of forensic mental health evaluations, and the first to assess judges’ attitudes toward telephonic evaluations.

expert witness forensic reports human rights research

Across the United States, clinicians working in collaboration with medical asylum clinics and torture treatment programs conduct forensic evaluations of asylum seekers.1,–,5 In such evaluations, clinicians investigate the physical and psychiatric sequelae of human rights abuses and document their findings in medico-legal affidavits that are submitted to the immigration judge as part of an individual’s application for immigration relief.1,6,7 The affidavits provide the evaluators’ written testimony explaining to a judge the relevance of their findings (e.g., the impact of trauma on memory). Medical providers experienced in conducting forensic evaluations have worked in consultation with attorneys to establish and disseminate best-practice guidelines for evaluations.6,–,10 Much of the best-practice literature reflects the perspectives of clinicians and attorneys, rather than the viewpoints of immigration judges who apply forensic reports in their decision-making. (One notable exception was a presentation of suggestions for writing medico-legal affidavits based on a qualitative study of a sample that included immigration judges, clinicians, and attorneys.11) As a result, forensic medical evaluators have limited insight into how immigration judges view the content of affidavits or how the documentation of forensic evaluations affects asylum cases.

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, medical human rights programs have transitioned to conducting forensic evaluations by telephone or video.12,13 Forensic clinicians have also been using telehealth modalities to evaluate asylum seekers who have poor access to forensic services because they live in geographically remote areas of the United States, immigration detention centers, or Mexico border cities.14 Mental health practitioners have reported both comfort with and concerns about the limitations of telehealth forensic evaluations.15 Most literature on telehealth forensic evaluations has focused on evaluators’ perceptions of video-teleconference, applied across multiple dimensions of forensic mental health.16,–,20 Assessing the acceptability of remote evaluations to adjudicators of immigration claims and incorporating their perspectives into broader practice recommendations is particularly critical at this time, given that telehealth visits and telephonic interviews of asylum seekers have become standard as a result of both the COVID-19 pandemic and the increased number of asylum seekers in immigration detention facilities.

This study was to explore former immigration judges’ perspectives on forensic mental health evaluations of asylum seekers. We examined the factors that immigration judges use to assess the medico-legal documents resulting from mental health evaluations. We also specifically identified participants’ attitudes and perceptions toward telehealth evaluations. This study adds to existing literature by incorporating immigration judges’ perceptions of forensic mental health evaluations and by assessing judges’ attitudes toward telephonic evaluations. We specifically investigated telephonic rather than video-based evaluations because asylum seekers may have limited access to the internet, and immigration detention centers often restrict access to video conferencing platforms.14 This study was approved by the Mount Sinai Institutional Review Board.

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

Full article at the above link.

This should be great information for practitioners, judges, ICE counsel, and administrators seeking a fairer, better functioning Immigration Court system.

This illustrates one of many “under-appreciated” aspects of modern immigration and human rights “practical scholarship:” Its virtually unmatched interdisciplinary usefulness and its “right off the shelf” ability to advance knowledge, fairness, 21st century efficiency, and best practices!

While EOIR might actually be “worse than your father’s and mother’s Immigration Courts,” not so the private bar, NGOs, and the academic (particularly the clinical) sectors! It’s where the action, upcoming talent, and quality is right now!

It’s a shame that more of those in charge of the Immigration Courts, the stumbling immigration bureaucracy, and the often behind the times “improperly above the fray” Article IIIs aren’t paying attention to both the types of individuals they should be hiring and the methods they should be using to improve the delivery of justice.

If change has to come from below, so be it! But, change and progress will eventually come to the broken and dysfunctional Immigration Courts and the bumbling bureaucracy surrounding and enabling this disgraceful systemic failure that is dragging down both our legal system and our democracy!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-25-22

⚖️🇺🇸🙏🏽READ DEAN KEVIN JOHNSON’S MOVING OBIT FOR ACADEMIC GIANT PROFESSOR MICHAEL OLIVAS, U. OF HOUSTON LAW (EMERITUS)

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2022/04/rip-michael-olivas-scholar-immigration-and-much-more-mentor-friend-and-colleague.html

Friday, April 22, 2022

RIP Michael Olivas: Scholar (Immigration and Much More), Mentor, Friend, and Colleague

By Immigration Prof

Share

I learned earlier today that we had lost a great one, my friend, colleague, and mentor Michael Olivas. It is with a profound sense of loss that I reflect on how much he has meant to me personally (including to my family, who he always asked about individually by name) as well as professionally. Michael followed by son Tomas’s Little League baseball career and asked for annual updates at the annual meeting of the Association of American Law Schools, mentored me through tenure, and helped me land the deanship at UC Davis (by calling the Chancellor and putting in a good word).

Michael was a wonderful scholar, including but not limited to immigration law. He once was this blog’s Immigration Professor of the Year. The book Law Professor and Accidental Historian: The Scholarship of Michael A. Olivas(Editor Ediberto Román, 2017) brought together a group of scholars to analyze Michael’s path-breaking scholarship. The publisher encapsulates the anthology as follows:

“Law Professor and Accidental Historian is a timely and important reader addressing many of the most hotly debated domestic policy issues of our times—immigration policy, education law, and diversity. Specifically, this book examines the works of one of the country’s leading scholars—Professor Michael A. Olivas. Many of the academy’s most respected immigration, civil rights, legal history, and education law scholars agreed to partake in this important venture, and have contributed provocative and exquisite chapters covering these cutting-edge issues. Each chapter interestingly demonstrates that Olivas’s works are not only thoughtful, brilliantly written, and thoroughly researched, but almost every Olivas article examined has an uncanny ability to predict issues that policy-makers failed to consider. Indeed, in several examples, the book highlights ongoing societal struggles on issues Professor Olivas had warned of long before they came into being. Perhaps with this book, our nation’s policy-makers will more readily read and listen closely to Olivas’s sagacious advice and prophetic predictions.” (bold added).

In an introduction to Accidental Historian, I offered some thoughts on how much Michael had done for so many, myself included. Here is that intro. Download Law Professor and Accidental Historian

Michael also worked for change. At great personal cost, he created the “Dirty Dozen” law schools without a Latina/o on the faculty. Michael recruited many Latina/os into legal academia. He mentored, advised, read drafts of articles, and much more for countless professors of color (myself included). Among many other service activities, Olivas helped lead an effort to file an amicus curiae brief on behalf of immigration law professors in the Supreme Court in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) case. As he was in that case, Olivas in my view was on the right side of the trajectory of history.

The University of Houston Law Center

1.27K subscribers

Professor Michael A. Olivas Tribute Video

<div class=”player-unavailable”><h1 class=”message”>An error occurred.</h1><div class=”submessage”><a href=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgn-M4bUbd0″ target=”_blank”>Try watching this video on www.youtube.com</a>, or enable JavaScript if it is disabled in your browser.</div></div>

There no doubt will be many stirring tributes to Professor Michael Olivas in coming days. Many will miss him immensely. I sure will miss my guiding light and guardian angel. RIP Michael Olivas.

KJ

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

Thanks, Kevin. Here’s more on Michael and his remarkable life and career:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/outsidenews/posts/another-giant-falls-prof-michael-a-olivas-r-i-p

RIP and Due Process Forever!🇺🇸

PWS

04-24-22

⚖️👍🏽NDPA: TWO BIG WINS FOR THE GOOD GUYS ! — Crime — Nunc Pro Tunc Order —Family-Based Asylum From El Salvador!😎

Matter of Dingus, 28 I&N Dec. 529 (BIA 2022)

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1496311/download

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/matter-of-dingus-28-i-n-dec-529-bia-2022#

“In a decision dated May 21, 2020, an Immigration Judge found the respondent to be removable as charged, denied her application for a waiver of inadmissibility under section 212(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h) (2018), and ordered her removed from the United States. On appeal, the respondent contests the Immigration Judge’s determination that her Virginia conviction for distributing a controlled substance renders her ineligible for a section 212(h) waiver, arguing that a State court issued a nunc pro tunc order reflecting that she was not convicted of distributing a substance controlled by Federal law. The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) opposes the appeal. Because the nunc pro tunc order reflects the respondent has not been “convicted” of an offense relating to a controlled substance within the meaning of the INA, the respondent’s appeal will be sustained and the record will be remanded for further proceedings.”

[Hats off to Ben Osorio!]

Daniel M. Kowalski

Editor-in-Chief

Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

cell/text/Signal (512) 826-0323

@dkbib on Twitter

dan@cenizo.com

Free Daily Blog: www.bibdaily.com

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

Many congrats, Ben!😎 A rare win for the rule of law and the “good guys” at the BIA. And, give the BIA panel (Judges Goodwin, Gorman, & Greer) credit for rejecting the ICE position and getting this one right under the categorical approach.

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

Hello all,

Just wanted to share some good news! A client had her merits hearing yesterday afternoon in Seattle. Her asylum claim was based on her PSG of being an immediate family member of a police officer. She had been threatened by some maras and approached because the maras knew her husband was an officer. She fled within 2 weeks. The judge granted and DHS surprisingly did not put up much of a fight.

Sincerely,

Ramon Trujillo

—

Ramon Trujillo

Law Offices of Ramon Trujillo

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

Many congrats, Ramon! Clearly the correct result under Matter of Fuentes, 19 I&N Dec. 658 (BIA 1988). A former policeman is a PSG; so, undoubtedly the immediate family is also. And certainly, that relationship was “at least one central reason” for the persecution.

Imagine what a “Better Immigration Court” could look like if everyone had the awareness and integrity of the group in court for this case. Justice is a “team effort,” and it sounds like that’s what happened in your case.

That’s what should happen every day in every case at EOIR!

Also, I’ll bet there are more cases like this that were unfairly “locked out of our refugee/asylum system” by abusive use of Title 42 by the Trump and Biden Administrations.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-23-22

From Jason “The Asylumist” Dzubow:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

From The Conversation:

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Here it is:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

“Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Rafael Bernal reports for the Hill:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Rebecca Beitsch @ The Hill:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

This from my good friend and Alexandria neighbor Professor Alberto Benitez over at GW Law:

From the above article by Kevin Sieff & Nick Miroff @ WashPost:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Immigration Judges’ Perceptions of Telephonic and In-Person Forensic Mental Health Evaluations

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

RIP and Due Process Forever!🇺🇸

Related posts:

Matter of Dingus, 28 I&N Dec. 529 (BIA 2022)

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts: