⚖️EXPERTS TO DISCUSS FUTURE OF IMMIGRATION COURTS ON JULY 23! — Join Judge Amiena Khan (NAIJ) & Julia Preston (Marshall Project, former NY Times) For An Enlightening Discussion From Two “Practical Scholars” Who Have Seen The Harsh Realities Of Today’s Broken & Dysfunctional EOIR “Up Close & Personal!” 

Judge Amiena Khan is the executive vice president of the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ)
Judge Amiena Khan Executive Vice President National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ)
Julia Preston
Julia Preston
American Journalist
The Marshall Project

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/outsidenews/posts/the-future-of-the-immigration-courts-free-webinar-july-23-2021

The Future of the Immigration Courts: Free Webinar, July 23, 2021

Documented Talks: The Future of the Immigration Courts

 

“The immigration courts were completely upended by the Trump administration, but what awaits them under this new administration? Join Immigration Judge Amiena Khan, President of the National Association of Immigration Judges, and Julia Preston, Contributing Writer at The Marshall Project, for a discussion on the future of the immigration courts.

The two will discuss where the judge’s union stands in its decertification fight; what judges are hoping to see from this administration and what the lasting impacts of the past 4 years will be.

Join us at 1 pm on July 23rd, 2021

Panelists:

Hon. Amiena Khan:

Judge Khan is the President of NAIJ. Judge Khan was appointed as a United States Immigration Judge in New York by Attorney General Eric Holder in December 2010. In her personal capacity, she is a member of the Federal Bar Association (FBA) and is the Vice-Chair of the Federal Bar Association Immigration Law Section.

Judge Khan is appearing in her capacity as President of NAIJ. Her views do not represent the official position of the Department of Justice, the Attorney General, or the Executive Office for Immigration Review. Her views represent her personal opinions, which were formed after extensive consultation with NAIJ membership.

Julia Preston:

Julia Preston is a Contributing Writer at The Marshall Project. Preston previously worked for 21 years at The New York Times. She was the National Correspondent covering immigration from 2006 through 2016, and a correspondent in Mexico from 1995 through 2001, among other assignments. She is a 2020 winner of an Online Journalism Award for Explanatory Reporting, for a series by The Marshall Project on myths about immigration and crime. She was a member of the Times staff who won the 1998 Pulitzer Prize for reporting on international affairs, for a series on the corrosive effects of drug corruption in Mexico.

Time

Jul 23, 2021 01:00 PM in Eastern Time (US and Canada)

* Required information

  • First Name *
  • Last Name *
  • Email Address *
  • Confirm Email Address *

Information you provide when registering will be shared with the account owner and host and can be used and shared by them in accordance with their Terms and Privacy Policy.

 

Register”

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

Should be a great panel from two real experts from the NDPA! 

Sadly, however, it’s not clear that Judge Garland, Lisa Monaco, Vanita Gupta, Kristen Clarke, and others who are supposed to be fixing the dysfunction will be among the audience. Nor do I see much concrete evidence that they have established a meaningful dialogue with those, like Amiena and Julia, who have the expertise and creative problem solving ability to fix the DOJ’s embarrassingly broken “courts” before more migrants and their attorneys are abused.

In my view, and the view of many others, the “destructive phase” of the last four years moved much more rapidly and with more purpose than the “reconstructive and improvement phase” that was promised by the Biden Administration.

There are still far too many of those who were “part of the problem” in key positions, and far, far too few, if any, dynamic new faces who have been brought in (or promoted from within) with the capability and the mandate to fix the mess, establish progressive values, and return to a due process/fundamental fairness/best practices focus!

There are “reliable rumors” of some better appointments in the offing. But, it hasn’t happened till it happens.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-20-21

 

⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️☹️GARLAND’S 10 NEW IJ APPOINTMENTS CONTINUE TO HEAVILY FAVOR GOVERNMENT OVER PRIVATE PRACTICE, CLINICS, ACADEMIA — Only 3 Came Directly From Private Practice — Biden Administration “Disses” Progressive Immigration/Human Rights Experts Who Helped Put Them In Office!

 

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1412741/download

    NOTICE

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Office of Policy

5107 Leesburg Pike

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

Contact: Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

Phone: 703-305-0289 Fax: 703-605-0365

PAO.EOIR@usdoj.gov @DOJ_EOIR www.justice.gov/eoir

July 16, 2021

EOIR Announces 10 New Immigration Judges

   FALLS CHURCH, VA – The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) today announced 10 new Immigration Judges (IJs), including one Assistant Chief Immigration Judge (ACIJ). ACIJs are responsible for overseeing the operations of their assigned immigration courts. In addition to their management responsibilities, they will hear cases. IJs preside in formal judicial hearings and make decisions that are final, unless formally appealed.

After a thorough application process, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland appointed Megan R. Jackler, Justin S. Dinsdale, Alexander H. Lee, Loi L. McCleskey, Edwin E. Pieters, Artie R. Pobjecky, Jodie A. Schwab, Kenneth S. Sogabe, Lydia G. Tamez, and Romaine L. White to their new positions.

Biographical information follows:

Megan R. Jackler, Assistant Chief Immigration Judge, New Orleans Immigration Court

Megan R. Jackler was appointed as an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge to begin supervisory immigration court duties and hearing cases in July 2021. Judge Jackler earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2003 from Barnard College and a Juris Doctor in 2008 from the American University Washington College of Law. From 2009 to 2021, she served as a U.S. Navy Judge Advocate, in the following locations: Norfolk, Virginia; Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; Gulfport, Mississippi; Mazar- e-Sharif, Afghanistan; and Yokosuka, Japan. From 2003 to 2005, she was a Litigation Paralegal with Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, in New York. Judge Jackler is a member of the District of Columbia Bar, New Jersey State Bar, New York State Bar, and Virginia State Bar.

Justin S. Dinsdale, Immigration Judge, Houston – Greenspoint Park Immigration Court

Justin S. Dinsdale was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in July 2021. Judge Dinsdale earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2000 from Texas Christian University and a Juris Doctorate in 2004 from South Texas College of Law Houston. From 2015 to 2021, he served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Texas, in Brownsville. From 2011 to 2015, he was in private practice with the Law Office of Justin S. Dinsdale, in Brownsville. From 2008 to 2010, he was an Associate Attorney with Rodriguez, Colvin, Chaney & Saenz LLP, in Brownsville. From 2004 to 2008, he served as an Assistant District Attorney with the Cameron County District Attorney’s Office, in Brownsville. Judge Dinsdale is a member of the Idaho State Bar and the State Bar of Texas.

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

 

EOIR Announces 10 New Immigration Judges

Page 2

Alexander H. Lee, Immigration Judge, Houston – Greenspoint Park Immigration Court

Alexander H. Lee was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in July 2021. Judge Lee earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1997 from Kenyon College and a Juris Doctor in 2002 from Chicago-Kent College of Law. From 2017 to 2021, he served as an Assistant Chief Counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, in Pearsall and San Antonio, Texas. From 2011 to 2017, he served as a Staff Attorney for the Washington State Department of Health, in Tumwater, Washington. From 2005 to 2011, he was in private practice in Olympia, Washington. Judge Lee is a member of the Washington State Bar.

Loi L. McCleskey, Immigration Judge, San Francisco Immigration Court

Loi L. McCleskey was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in July 2021. Judge McCleskey earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1996 from Capital University and a Juris Doctor in 1999 from Capital University Law School. From 2013 to 2021, she served as an Administrative Hearing Officer Supervisor; from 2011 to 2013, Senior Administrative Hearing Officer; and from 2003 to 2011, Administrative Hearing Officer for the State of Ohio in Columbus. From 2000 to 2003, she was in private practice in Columbus. Judge McCleskey is a member of the Ohio State Bar.

Edwin E. Pieters, Immigration Judge, New York – Federal Plaza Immigration Court

Edwin E. Pieters was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in July 2021. Judge Pieters earned a Bachelor of Science in 1987 from State University of New York at New Paltz; a Master of Political Science/Governmental Law in 1992 from City University of New York at Brooklyn College; a Master of Public Administration in 2000 from City University of New York at Baruch College; a Juris Doctorate in 2002 from the City University of New York Law School at Queens College; and a Master of Law in 2005 from the State University of New York at Buffalo Law School. From 2018 to 2021, he served as a Hearing Officer for the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings. From 2006 to 2017, he served as an Assistant District Attorney at the Kings County District Attorney’s Office, in Brooklyn. Judge Pieters is a member of the New York State Bar.

Artie R. Pobjecky, Immigration Judge, Houston – Greenspoint Park Immigration Court

Artie R. Pobjecky was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in July 2021. Judge Pobjecky earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1997 from the University of Central Florida and a Juris Doctor in 2001 from Baylor University School of Law. From 2007 to 2021, she was a Partner with Pobjecky & Pobjecky LLP, in Winter Haven, Florida. From 2015 to 2017, she served as Chair of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, Central Florida Chapter. From 2002 to 2007, she was an Associate Attorney with J. David Pobjecky PA, in Winter Haven. Judge Pobjecky is a member of the Florida Bar, Pennsylvania Bar, and the State Bar of Texas.

Jodie A. Schwab, Immigration Judge, Houston – Greenspoint Park Immigration Court

Jodie A. Schwab was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in July 2021. Judge Schwab earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1990 from the University of Texas at San Antonio and a Juris Doctor in 1993 from St. Mary’s University School of Law. From 2018 to 2021, she served as an Assistant Chief Counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, in Houston. From 2017 to 2018, she was Senior Counsel with Greer, Herz & Adams LLP, in League City, Texas. From 2006 to 2017,

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

 

EOIR Announces 10 New Immigration Judges

Page 3

she served as a Law Clerk to the Honorable Magistrate Judge John Froeschner, with the U.S. District Courts, Southern District of Texas. From 2005 to 2006, she served as a Deputy Attorney General, California Office of the Attorney General, in Sacramento, California. From 2004 to 2005, she was a Litigation Attorney for a Staff Counsel Office with Farmers Insurance Exchange, in Stockton, California. From 1994 to 2003, she was Counsel at United Services Automobile Association, in San Antonio. Judge Schwab is a member of the State Bar of California and State Bar of Texas.

Kenneth S. Sogabe, Immigration Judge, Seattle Immigration Court

Kenneth S. Sogabe was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in July 2021. Judge Sogabe earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1995 and a Master of Arts in 1996, both from San Francisco State University, and a Juris Doctor in 2001 from Golden Gate University School of Law. From 2018 to 2021, he served as Associate General Counsel, Office of General Counsel, Department of Defense Education Activity, in Okinawa, Japan. From 2014 to 2018, he served as an Attorney Advisor, Office of Chief Counsel, Customs and Border Protection, DHS, in San Francisco. From 2007 to 2014, he served as a Staff Attorney for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco. From 2001 to 2006, he served as an Assistant Chief Counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in San Francisco. Judge Sogabe is a member of the State Bar of California.

Lydia G. Tamez, Immigration Judge, Houston – Greenspoint Park Immigration Court

Lydia G. Tamez was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in July 2021. Judge Tamez earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1981 from Yale University and a Juris Doctor in 1985 from Yale Law School. From 2019 to 2021, she served as an Associate Judge for the City of Houston Municipal Courts. From 2016 to 2021, she was in private practice in Houston. From 2015 to 2016, she was a Counselor at Law with Graves and Graves LLP, in Houston. From 2012 to 2015, she was a Partner with Foster LLP, in Houston. From 2003 to 2011, she was an Associate General Counsel; from 1999 to 2003, a Senior Attorney; and from 1995 to 1999, an Attorney for Legal and Corporate Affairs, with Microsoft Corporation, in Redmond, Washington. From 1986 to 1995, she was an Attorney for Tindall and Foster PC, in Houston. Judge Tamez is a member of the State Bar of Texas and the Washington State Bar.

Romaine L. White, Immigration Judge, Houston – Greenspoint Park Immigration Court

Romaine L. White was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in July 2021. Judge White earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1983 from the University of Virginia and a Juris Doctor in 1986 from the University of Georgia School of Law. From 2012 to 2021, she served as an Administrative Law Judge for the Louisiana Division of Administrative Law, in New Orleans. From 2004 to 2021, and previously from 1999 to 2001, she was a sole practitioner with the Law Office of Romaine L. White LLC, in Houma, Louisiana. From 2001 to 2006, she served as an Assistant Parish Attorney for the Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government, in Houma. From 2001 to 2004, she was an Associate Attorney with McNabb and Associates, in Houma. From 1997 to 1998, she served as Deputy General Counsel for the State Bar of Georgia, in Atlanta. From 1991 to 1997, she served as a Senior Assistant City Attorney for the City of Atlanta. From 1986 to 1991, she was an Associate Attorney with Griffin, Cochrane, & Marshall, in Atlanta. Judge White is a member of the State Bar of Georgia and the Louisiana State Bar. Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

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

The three appointments from private practice include Judge Linda G. Tamez of Houston who appears to have served as a Municipal Judge in Houston while in private practice from 2019-21. Similarly, Judge Romaine L. White of Houston Greenspoint appears to have maintained a private practice while serving as a Louisiana State ALJ from 2012-21.

The sole new IJ to list AILA experience is Judge Artie J. Pobjecky of the Houston Greenspoint Immigration Court, who served as Chair of the AILA, Central Florida Chapter, from 2015-2017.  She is also the only new appointee who appears to have been working primarily in the private practice of immigration law at the time of her appointment.

Several other appointees did have some type of private sector  experiences, although they were serving in various government positions at the time of appointment. None, however, stood out as having much, if any, experience representing individuals in Immigration Court in this broken and dysfunctional system.

It’s super critical for NDPA members to 1) keep applying en masse for these jobs, and 2) let your extreme dis-satisfaction with Garland’s tone-deaf, one sided appointments to the Immigration Courts be known to the Biden Administration. 

We need to keep attacking until the walls of anti-expert, anti-advocate, anti-private-sector, anti-diversity bias that has been “baked into” the DOJ IJ and BIA selection process for the better part of several decades is finally broken and excellence and practical scholarship in immigration, human rights, and due process finally break through and prevail. Also, continuing to pummel the Garland EOIR’s substandard work product in the Article IIIs will keep illustrating the point that something has got to change here!

In the meantime, keep pushing Congress for an independent Immigration Court that will be free of the DOJ bureaucracy and will require a merit-based selection system with input from “outside experts!” 

🇺🇸Due Process Forever! Status quo, never!

PWS

07-19-21

Elizabeth Gibson
Elizabeth Gibson
Attorney, NY Legal Assistance Group
Publisher of “The Gibson Report”

THE GIBSON REPORT — 07-19-21 — Compiled By Elizabeth Gibson Esquire, NY Legal Assistance Group

ALERTS

Note: Policies are rapidly changing, so please verify information with the government and colleagues.

 

DACA: We are still waiting for more information on how USCIS will address the new decision freezing initial DACA applications (more details below), but it sounds like biometrics for pending applications have been canceled.

 

Telephonic & Video Hearings at Varick Immigration Court: See list of IJ preferences at the end of today’s briefing.

 

EOIR Portal: There is now a “View All” button that allows representatives to view a list of their cases in the EOIR portal. Also, the forms for entering appearances have been relocated to a tab at the top titled “Appearances.”

 

TOP NEWS

 

Judge Rules DACA Is Unlawful and Suspends Applications

NYT: The judge, Andrew S. Hanen of the United States District Court in Houston, said President Barack Obama exceeded his authority when he created the program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, by executive order in 2012. But the judge wrote that current program recipients would not be immediately affected, and that the federal government should not “take any immigration, deportation or criminal action” against them that it “would not otherwise take.”

 

AG revives immigration judges’ power to postpone deportation cases

Reuters: Garland in a four-page opinion said Sessions’ 2018 ruling in Matter of Castro-Tum, which has been rejected by three federal appeals courts, improperly parted from decades of practice by concluding that no federal law or regulation authorized so-called “administrative closure.”

 

Justice Department Grants Asylum to Salvadoran Woman at the Center of Illegal Trump Policy

CGRS: On July 14, on stipulation of the parties, the Board of Immigration Appeals finally granted asylum to Ms. A.B., the Salvadoran woman at the center of the Trump administration’s assault on asylum for domestic violence survivors.

 

Appropriations Committee Releases Fiscal Year 2022 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Funding Bill

Appropriations Committee: The bill additionally includes further responsible and effective investments in state and local justice, including:… $50 million for legal representation of immigrant children and families

 

Democrats eye immigration action in budget, but outlook hazy

AP: On immigration alone, the party will need solid support from vulnerable swing-district Democrats and moderates, whom Republicans are certain to accuse of favoring amnesty and open borders in next year’s elections for congressional control.

 

Biden ICE Nominee Says Deals With Local Police Won’t End

Law360: President Joe Biden’s nominee to lead U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement told lawmakers on Thursday that he won’t end collaboration between the agency and local law enforcement officials, despite having done so as sheriff in Texas’ most populous county.

 

The Biden administration is sending Afghan visa applicants to an Army base in Virginia.

NYT: About 2,500 Afghan interpreters, drivers and others who worked with American forces will be sent to Fort Lee, Va., south of Richmond, to complete their processing for formal entry into the United States, the officials said.

 

U.S.-Mexico border apprehensions for the fiscal year surpassed 1 million in June

WaPo: The government’s tally of individual people stopped at the border, as opposed to total apprehensions, shows 455,000 have been taken into custody so far this fiscal year, compared with nearly 490,000 at this time in 2019.

 

Biden administration warns Cubans, Haitians against fleeing to U.S. amid unrest

WaPo: Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas on Tuesday warned citizens of Cuba and Haiti against trying to flee to the United States amid unrest in those nations, saying they would be repatriated or referred to other countries for resettlement.

 

Hong Kong exodus gathers pace as thousands vote with their feet

WaPo: The exodus has picked up pace this month, with net outflows of residents regularly exceeding 1,000 a day, according to government figures compiled by activist investor David Webb, even as the pandemic continues to disrupt travel.

 

Noncitizens May Soon Be Eligible To Vote In New York City

Intercept: Under council rules, bills with supermajority support are guaranteed a public hearing within 60 days. No hearing is yet scheduled, but activists say they’re working to get something on the calendar.

 

Migrants Say They’re Being Electrocuted by ICE-Mandated Ankle Monitors

Vice: One in five surveyed individuals reported getting electric shocks from the ICE-mandated shackles, according to a new report by Freedom for Immigrants, the Immigrant Defense Project, and the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. The finding is “alarming and worrisome,” according to Layla Razavi, Deputy Executive Director of Freedom For Immigrants.

 

LITIGATION/CASELAW/RULES/MEMOS

 

AG Overrules Matter of Castro-Tum and Returns to Matter of Avetisyan and W-Y-U-

The Attorney General stated that while the rulemaking proceeds and except when a court of appeals has held otherwise, IJs and the BIA should apply the standard for administrative closure set out in Avetisyan and W-Y-U-. Matter of Cruz-Valdez, 28 I&N Dec. 326 (A.G. 2021) AILA Doc. No. 21071534

 

CA2 Finds That IJ Considered Sua Sponte the Social Groups Raised by Petitioner on Appeal

The court upheld the BIA’s denial of the petitioner’s withholding of removal claim, finding that the IJ sua sponte considered the social groups now identified by petitioner, and that the IJ’s decision to deny withholding was supported by substantial evidence. (Quintanilla v. Garland, 7/9/21) AILA Doc. No. 21071432

 

CA3 On “Something To Review” – Valarezo-Tirado V. A.G.

Lexisnexis: Valarezo-Tirado v. A.G. “We have previously granted a petition for review in which the alleged basis for the BIA’s denial of relief was that “the evidence is insufficient” and “the arguments made by the [government] on appeal . . . are persua[sive]” because we could not “perform meaningful review of [such an] order.” Here, we have even less to work with.

 

CA4 Finds Honduran Petitioner’s Membership in Her Nuclear Family Was At Least One Central Reason for Her Persecution

The court held that the BIA and IJ erred in concluding that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate that she was persecuted in Honduras on account of her membership in her proposed particular social group, namely her nuclear family. (Perez Vasquez v. Garland, 7/9/21) AILA Doc. No. 21071434

 

CA5 Grants Stay Pending Review of Petition to Political Dissident in India

The court found that the IJ’s incredibly high denial rate for asylum applications, along with her noncompliance with Matter of R-K-K-, presented a substantial likelihood that petitioner would be entitled to relief upon full consideration by a merits panel. (Singh v. Garland, 7/12/21) AILA Doc. No. 21071435

 

CA7 Upholds Denial of Asylum Based on Political Opinion to Ukrainian Petitioner

The court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s conclusion that the petitioner’s experience in Ukraine did not rise to the level of persecution, and that she had failed to show that the new Ukrainian government would persecute her if she returned. (Chuchman v. Garland, 7/12/21) AILA Doc. No. 21071436

 

CA8 Holds That IJ Articulated Specific and Cogent Reasons for Concluding That Petitioner Was Not Credible

The court upheld the BIA’s affirmance of the IJ’s denial of asylum, finding that the IJ had articulated specific, cogent reasons for concluding that the petitioner’s testimony was not credible, and that those reasons were supported by substantial evidence. (Coto-Albarenga v. Garland, 7/12/21) AILA Doc. No. 21071437

 

CA9 Remands Where IJ Failed to Credit Petitioner’s Specific Evidence of Taint

Granting in part the petition for review, the court held that the IJ erred by failing to credit evidence showing that proof of the petitioner’s alienage was tainted because it was obtained from his juvenile court records in violation of California privacy laws. (B.R. v. Garland, 7/12/21) AILA Doc. No. 21071439

 

CA9 Says Conviction for Forgery in California Is Categorically a Crime “Relating to Forgery” Under INA §101(a)(43)(R)

The court held that petitioner’s forgery conviction under section 470a of the California Penal Code categorically constituted an aggravated felony offense “relating to forgery” under INA §101(a)(43)(R), thus rendering him ineligible for voluntary departure. (Escobar Santos v. Garland, 7/9/21) AILA Doc. No. 21071438

 

9th Circ. Voids Order On Immigrant Insurance Rule

Law360: The Ninth Circuit doubled back on a previous order that reactivated a policy requiring green card applicants to prove they had health insurance within 30 days of arriving in the U.S., vacating its earlier decision as moot Friday.

 

District Court Blocks Filing of New DACA Applications

A district court found that DHS violated the APA with the creation of DACA and its continued operation, stating that the DACA memo and the DACA program that created it are hereby vacated and remanded to DHS for further consideration. (Texas v. United States, 7/16/21) AILA Doc. No. 21071636

 

District Court Approves Settlement Agreement in Litigation Related to UACs and Allegations of Gang Affiliations

A district court granted final approval of a settlement agreement in Saravia v. Barr, which applies to a class of unaccompanied minors, who were detained by HHS or ORR, and have a removability warrant based in whole or in part on allegations of gang affiliation. AILA Doc. No. 21071539

 

Feds Face New Lawsuits Over Spousal Green Card Delays

Law360: A U.S. citizen and a green card holder separately sued U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, accusing the agency of unlawfully delaying their foreign spouses’ green card applications for over 17 months.

 

Lawsuit Seeks to Advance Public Understanding of ICE and CBP Enforcement Operations and Practices

AIC: The American Immigration Council filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against DHS and its two primary immigration enforcement agencies requesting information about the obscure network of databases, information systems, and data sharing methods that are largely shielded from public view.

 

DHS Announces Extension and Re-Designation of Somalia for TPS

DHS announced an 18-month extension and re-designation of Somalia for TPS, effective from 8/18/21 through 3/17/23. A Federal Register notice explaining the procedures necessary to re-register or submit an initial registration application and apply for an EAD will be published soon. AILA Doc. No. 21071935

 

EOIR Announces 10 New Immigration Judges

EOIR: Attorney General Merrick B. Garland appointed Megan R. Jackler, Justin S. Dinsdale, Alexander H. Lee, Loi L. McCleskey, Edwin E. Pieters, Artie R. Pobjecky, Jodie A. Schwab, Kenneth S. Sogabe, Lydia G. Tamez, and Romaine L. White.

 

RESOURCES

 

 

EVENTS

 

 

ImmProf

 

Monday, July 19, 2021

Sunday, July 18, 2021

Saturday, July 17, 2021

Friday, July 16, 2021

Thursday, July 15, 2021

Wednesday, July 14, 2021

Tuesday, July 13, 2021

Monday, July 12, 2021

 

Varick IJ Motion for Remote Accommodation Preferences

 

Judge Auh (for NYV cases): No motion required. Parties may appear via Open Voice.

 

Judge Burnham: No motion required. Parties may appear via Open Voice.

 

Judge Conroy: Motion required, with evidence, indicating specific reasons party is requesting remote accommodation. If motion is granted, the party may appear via Open Voice.

 

Judge Drucker: Motion required, with evidence, indicating specific reasons party is requesting remote accommodation. If motion is granted, the party may appear via Open Voice.

 

Judge Haq: No motion required for UAC docket. Parties may appear via WebEx. To the extent Judge Haq covers any other judge’s docket, he will follow that judge’s practice.

 

Judge Henderson: No motion required. Parties may appear via WebEx or Open Voice.

 

Judge Hoover: Motion required, with evidence, indicating specific reasons party is requesting remote accommodation. If motion is granted, the party may appear via Open Voice.

 

Judge Kolbe: Motion required, with evidence, indicating specific reasons party is requesting remote accommodation. If motion is granted, the party may appear via Open Voice or other technical means, such as WebEx, as appropriate.

 

Judge Ling: Motion required, with evidence, indicating specific reasons party is requesting remote accommodation. If motion is granted, the party may appear via WebEx.

 

Judge Mulligan: Motion required, with evidence, indicating specific reasons party is requesting remote accommodation. If motion is granted, the party may appear via WebEx.

 

Judge Mungoven: Motion required, with evidence, indicating specific reasons party is requesting remote accommodation. If motion is granted, the party may appear via Open Voice.

 

Judge Norkin: Motion required, with evidence, indicating specific reasons party is requesting remote accommodation. If motion is granted, the party may appear via Open Voice.

 

Judge Prieto: No motion required. Parties may appear via Open Voice.

 

Judge Reid: No motion required. Parties may appear via Open Voice.

 

Judge Sagerman (for NYV cases): No motion required. Parties may appear via Open Voice.

 

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

Thanks, Elizabeth, for all you do!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

 

PWS

07-20-21

⚖️9TH CIR.’S PROGRESSIVES TAKE IT ON THE NOSE FROM CONSERVATIVE COLLEAGUES & SUPREMES — Dissent Matters — Immigration Among Key Supremes’ Reversals

 

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-07-13/with-trump-appointees-9th-circuit-suffers-another-year-of-reversals-at-supreme-court

David G. Savage & Maura Dolan report in the LA Times:

. . . .

“There is still a large cohort of liberal judges” on the 9th Circuit, said Ed Whelan, a conservative legal analyst in Washington, “but there are now many conservative appointees who are vigilant in calling them out.”

In total, 47 judges sit on the 9th Circuit — 24 appointed by Republicans going back to President Nixon, and 23 named by Democrats starting with President Carter.

Many of those judges work part time. Of the full-time jurists, 16 are Democratic and 13 are Republican appointees.

The size of the circuit — the nation’s largest — partly explains why its cases are often subject to Supreme Court review.

“The 9th Circuit is so vastly larger than any other circuit that it is inevitable they are going to take more 9th Circuit cases,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley’s law school.

Although this year’s 9th Circuit reversal rate was unusually high, the high court in fact overturned 80% of all the cases it reviewed, Chemerinsky noted.

Moreover, only a tiny percentage of appellate decisions are reviewed by the Supreme Court. Typically, the 9th Circuit hands down about 13,000 rulings a year.

Chemerinsky noted the Supreme Court overturned several 9th Circuit cases on immigration and habeas corpus, the legal vehicle for releasing someone from detention. “The 9th Circuit is historically more liberal on immigration and habeas cases,” he said.

Some reversals occurred in cases that were not ideological, however: The high court overturned a 9th Circuit decision by Republican appointees on what constitutes a robocall.

Though the Supreme Court split along ideological lines on property rights, voting rights and conservative donor cases from the 9th Circuit, the justices were unanimous in reversing the 9th Circuit in several immigration cases.

On June 1, they overturned a unique 9th Circuit rule set by the late liberal Judge Stephen Reinhardt. Over nearly 20 years, he had written that the testimony of a person seeking asylum based on a fear of persecution must be “deemed credible” unless an immigration judge made an “explicit” finding that they were not to be believed.

In one of his last opinions, Reinhardt approved of asylum for Ming Dai, a Chinese citizen who arrived in the U.S. on a tourist visa and applied for refugee status for himself and his family. He said they were fleeing China’s forced abortion policy.

Only later did immigration authorities learn that his wife and daughter had returned to China because they had good jobs and schooling there, but the husband had no job to return to.

An immigration judge had set out the full story and denied the asylum application, only to be be reversed in a 2-1 ruling by a 9th Circuit panel. The panel cited Reinhardt’s rule and noted that although evidence emerged casting doubt on Dai’s claims, there had been no “explicit” finding by an immigration judge so his story had to be accepted.

“Over the years, our circuit has manufactured misguided rules regarding the credibility of political asylum seekers,” Senior Judge Stephen S. Trott wrote in dissent. Later, 11 other appellate judges joined dissents arguing for scrapping this rule.

Last fall, Trump administration lawyers cited those dissents and urged the Supreme Court to hear the case. They noted the importance of the 9th Circuit in asylum cases. Because of its liberal reputation, “the 9th Circuit actually entertains more petitions for review than all of the other circuits combined,” the lawyers said.

In overturning the appeals court in a 9-0 ruling, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch began by noting that “at least 12 members of the 9th Circuit have objected to this judge-made rule.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered another 9-0 ruling holding that an immigrant arrested for an “unlawful entry” after having been deported years ago may not contest the basis of his original deportation. The 9th Circuit had said such a defendant may argue his deportation was “fundamentally unfair,” but “the statute does not permit such an exception,” Sotomayor said in U.S. vs. Palomar-Santiago.

The high court’s furthest-reaching immigration ruling did not originate with the 9th Circuit, but it nonetheless overturned a 9th Circuit decision.

At issue was whether the more than 400,000 immigrants who had been living and working in the U.S. under temporary protected status were eligible for long-term green cards. The Philadelphia-based 3rd Circuit said no, rejecting a green card for a Salvadoran couple who had entered the country illegally in the 1990s and had lived and worked in New Jersey ever since.

The 9th Circuit had taken the opposite view; Trump lawyers cited this split as a reason the high court should take up the New Jersey case. On June 7, Justice Elena Kagan spoke for the high court in ruling that the 3rd Circuit was right and the 9th Circuit wrong. To obtain lawful permanent status, the immigration law first “requires a lawful admission,” she said in Sanchez vs. Majorkas.

The 9th Circuit’s sole affirmance came in a significant case: By a 9-0 vote in NCAA vs. Alston, the justices agreed with the 9th Circuit that college sports authorities could be sued under antitrust laws for conspiring to make billions of dollars while insisting the star athletes go unpaid.

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

Read the complete article at the link.

This confirms the importance of the Biden Administration getting more progressive voices on Federal Courts at all levels, including the Immigration Courts!

First, not all important cases go to the Supremes, and those that do often take years to get there and be resolved. In the meantime, the rulings of BIA and the Circuits are often the “final word.” 

Even at the individual Immigration Judge level, only a small minority of cases are appealed. So the difference between progressive expert judges committed to due process, fundamental fairness, and humane practical interpretations and judges appointed because of a belief that they would “go along to get along” with DHS Enforcement is huge — basically life or death for many asylum seekers, other migrants, and their families (often U.S. citizens or LPRs).

Second, even where outvoted, progressive judges can often provide much more cogent, understandable, and practical alternatives to “knee jerk restrictionist/nativist” interpretations. Not only are these “better interpretations” often picked up and successfully argued and expanded by advocates, but they often expose shallow, specious reasoning by restrictionists and serve as “signposts to a better future” even if it sometimes takes years or even decades for the system to catch up. Also, dissents can prompt remedial legislation or needed oversight.

Indeed a number of the “Gang of Five” dissents from the “Schmidt-era BIA,” which basically cost us our jobs, still look very “spot on” decades later — particularly as Circuits continue to expose the intellectual dishonesty and corner-cutting sloppiness of far too many EOIR decisions in “life or death” matters!

Obviously, Trump McConnell and the right-wing activist organizations they parroted and enabled have had an immediate, large-scale, largely negative, effect on American Justice — from the Supremes all the way down to the Immigration Courts. It’s essential that the Biden Administration fight back with courageous, well-qualified, progressive “practical scholars” at all levels of the Federal Judiciary. Judges with the guts and integrity to expose and push back against the stilted, often anti-democracy, far right agenda of too many of the Trump-McConnell appointees.

In this respect, creating a progressive “model judiciary” to supersede the godawful, dysfunctional mess at EOIR should be the “low hanging fruit.” In practical terms, it also will help reduce backlog, raise the level of Immigration Court practice, and hold DHS accountable to the rule of law. It should also be a model for what a better progressive Article III Judiciary could and should look like, all the way up to the Supremes!

🇺🇸🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-19-21

☠️⚰️TRUMP/BIDEN ILLEGAL BORDER CLOSURES, DISMANTLING OF ASYLUM SYSTEM ARE KILLERS!🤮 —  Asylum Seekers Have A Right To Apply For Protection, & We Have A Legal & Moral Obligation To Protect Those Qualified Under An Honest Application Of Asylum Laws — Molly Hennessy Fiske Reports In LA Times On “Death By Scofflaw Policy” — Open The Ports Of Entry & Treat Asylum Seekers Fairly & Generously!

 

 

Molly Hennessy-Fiske
Molly Hennessy-Fiske
Houston Bureau Chief
LA Times

https://apple.news/AG5wZ–G0T-2-rX8YfJpNog

Losing Rosario: A mother sent her daughter across the border. Before they could reunite, one died

Texas’ Brooks County and the Rio Grande Valley to the south have been popular smuggling routes for decades. Six months into 2021, deaths in the county had already reached 55, up from a total of 34 last year.

FALFURRIAS, TEXAS — Black feathers fell from circling vultures and snagged in the matted yellow grass. The ranch manager eyed the terrain and followed the stench. He found the woman’s body, like so many others in the south Texas brush: splayed in the weeds, arms dark with decay, raised above her head as if in surrender. 

The rancher knew what to do. He had come upon 15 such migrants over the years. He called Brooks County sheriff’s dispatchers. They issued a Code 500, a dead body call, summoning a deputy, two Border Patrol agents, a justice of the peace and a funeral director.

They met the rancher shortly before noon at the gate of Los Palos Ranch, about 75 miles north of the border. Together they waded through knee-high, thorny weeds, mindful that the June heat rouses rattlesnakes from their burrows. The men gazed down to where she lay — face gone, skull picked clean by scavengers, hair and lower jaw dragged a few feet from a body not yet skeletal.

They guessed the woman had died of exhaustion or dehydration. 

“They wait over there and move at night,” said the rancher, pointing to a nearby stand of mesquite, where he and his wife sometimes spy the passing shadows of those heading north. 

The deputy wrapped the body in a white sheet. He then lifted it into a gray bag and helped the funeral director load it into the back of his Ford Explorer for transport to the sheriff’s morgue. It would be fingerprinted and tested for the coronavirus. The men found no trace of a name. It would be days before fingerprints told investigators that the woman was Rosario Yanira Girón de Orellana, a 41-year-old single mother who had traveled more than 1,500 miles from El Salvador. 

. . . .

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

Read the rest of Molly’s report at the link.

Rather than recognizing the realities of the refugee situation in the Northern Triangle, Administrations of both parties have engaged in “killer policies.” But, not surprisingly to those who understand the situation, it hasn’t stopped individuals fleeing for their lives from failed states (for which we bear substantial responsibility). 

Even death hasn’t proved to be a significant deterrent. So, why not just admit many of these folks legally, using available protection mechanisms administered by qualified Asylum Officers and better Immigration Judges? Why not encourage asylum seekers to apply at ports of entry by treating them fairly, respectfully, and humanely? Asylum is a legal and moral obligation, not an “option” or a “deterrent,”

We can diminish ourselves as a nation (and have done so), but it won’t stop human migration!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-18-21

⚖️😎👍🏼AFTER FOUR YEARS OF BACKLOG-BUILDING NATIVIST NONSENSE & XENOPHOBIA @ DOJ, JUDGE GARLAND RETURNS THE TOOLS IMMIGRATION JUDGES & PARTIES NEED TO MANAGE & REDUCE IMMIGRATION COURT DOCKETS — “Micromanagement” From DC & Falls Church By Politicos & Toadies Doesn’t Work! 🤮☠️ — Julia Edwards Ainsley 🌟 Reports For NBC News!

Julia Edwards Ainsley
Julia Edwards Ainsley
NBC Correspondent
Justice & DHS
Outside Justice Dep’t
Photo: Victoria Pickering https://www.flickr.com/photos/vpickering/

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/garland-reverses-trump-era-immigration-order-move-will-cut-huge-n1274077

IMMIGRATION

Garland reversesTrump-era immigration order in move that will cut huge backlog of asylum cases

The move will cut the ballooning backlog of 1.3 million immigration cases in the U.S. It is Garland’s third such reversal of Trump policy.

July 15, 2021, 1:28 PM EDT

By Julia Ainsley

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Merrick Garland on Thursday reversed an order from Trump’s Attorney Generald Jeff Sessions that barred immigration judges from closing cases and removing them from their docket if they deem them low-priority.

The move will cut down on the ballooning backlog of immigration cases in the U.S., now surpassing 1.3 million, according to data compiled by TRAC out of Syracuse University.

Garland said in his order that immigration judges’ ability to administratively close cases previously allowed “government counsel to request that certain low-priority cases be removed from the immigration judges’ active calendars,” thereby allowing judges “to focus on higher-priority cases.”

Garland previously overturned two other immigration court decisions by his Trump-era predecessors that had made it harder for victims of gang and domestic violence to win asylum.

. . . .

 

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

Thanks, Julia, for highlighting the “cosmic importance” of this decision and its “good  government” potential! Read the rest of Julia’s article at the above link.

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-18-21

⚖️YET ANOTHER “WAKEUP CALL” FOR JUDGE GARLAND, AS 3RD CIR. CASTIGATES THE “HASTE MAKES WASTE, FORM CHECKER, DEPORTATION ASSEMBLY LINE CULTURE” @ EOIR! — “We cannot allow an IJ or the BIA to dispense with an adequate explanation of a final decision merely to facilitate or accommodate administrative expediency.” 

EYORE
“Eyore In Distress”
Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca3-on-something-to-review—valarezo-tirado-v-a-g

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

CA3 on “Something to Review” – Valarezo-Tirado v. A.G.

Valarezo-Tirado v. A.G.

“We have previously granted a petition for review in which the alleged basis for the BIA’s denial of relief was that “the evidence is insufficient” and “the arguments made by the [government] on appeal . . . are persua[sive]” because we could not “perform meaningful review of [such an] order.” Here, we have even less to work with. …  The most fundamental notion of due process must include an opportunity for meaningful judicial review. We reiterate that “judicial review necessarily requires something to review and, if the agency provides only its result without an explanation of the underlying fact finding and analysis, a court is unable to provide judicial review.” The required review is simply not possible when we are provided with nothing more than the kind of one-line checklist that is relied upon here. We cannot allow an IJ or the BIA to dispense with an adequate explanation of a final decision merely to facilitate or accommodate administrative expediency. Since “the [IJ]’s failure of explanation makes it impossible for us to review its rationale, we [will] grant [Valarezo-Tirado’s] petition for review, vacate the [IJ’s] order, and remand the matter to [the IJ] for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” … A 2019 study found that “on average each [immigration] judge currently has an active pending caseload of over two thousand cases.” Nevertheless, we cannot allow incredibly difficult logistics to give license to IJs to skirt their responsibilities. This includes the obligation to inform the petitioner of the reasons for the IJ’s decision and provide an adequate explanation of the decision that does not require us to parse through the testimony in search of evidence that supports it. A two-sentence recitation on a bullet-point form will rarely, if ever, provide sufficient reasoning for a decision. A decision, such as the one here, that does not refer to record evidence will never suffice. Because, here, the IJ’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence, we will vacate the decision and order and remand to the IJ for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

[Hats off to pro bono publico counsel Robert D. Helfand and Charles W. Stotter!]

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

Hey, Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions said it: “Volume is critical.  It just is.” For him, and then Barr, it was “all about numbers,” never about quality, fairness, or judicial independence! 

SESSIONS USES SPEECH TO U.S. IMMIGRATION JUDGES TO SPREAD LIES, MOUNT ALL OUT ATTACK ON US ASYLUM LAW AND INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION LAWS – Targets Most Vulnerable Refugee Women Of Color For Latest Round Of Legal Abuses – Orders Judges To Prejudge Applications In Accordance With His Rewrite Of Law – It’s “Kangaroo Court” – The Only Question Now Is Whether Congress & Article III’s Will Let Him Get Away With Latest Perversion Of Justice @ Justice!

Interestingly, this was a “reasonable fear review” proceeding following “reinstatement” of a removal order. Even before the Trump kakistocracy, Immigration Judges once were told that there was no need for a reasoned decision because their actions were “non-reviewable” by the BIA or the Circuits. Later, in the Obama Administration, as some Circuits took an interest in these cases, judges were encouraged by EOIR HQ to enter brief decisions so that OIL could defend them on appeal, if their “no jurisdiction to review” argument failed.

There is a serious defect in a system that provides no meaningful review or appellate direction in cases with life or death consequences. Obviously, this is a system focused on something other than fairness, scholarship, quality, and justice!

After years of being told  (even forced, through bogus “production quotas’) to “cut corners” and “move ‘em out” by their political “handlers” at the DOJ, neither EOIR “management” nor the current BIA is capable of providing the bold leadership, progressive “fair but efficient” scholarship and direction, quality control, and positive precedents and systemic changes necessary to insure that EOIR’s “once and future vision” of “through teamwork and innovation, becoming the world’s best tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for ALL” is finally realized. After four years or intentional degradation and movement in exactly the OPPOSITE direction by Sessions, Barr, and their “Miller Lite” cronies and toadies, it’s time for a change!

Obviously, the due-process-denying and demeaning (to both IJs and those seeking justice) “production quotas” and equally bureaucratic and bogus “performance work plans” should already have been revoked by Garland. They could replaced with a meaningful system of appellate supervision and judicial professional responsibility and training modeled on that of “real courts.”  For example, check out the system used by the DC Court system to maintain professionalism, provide constructive feedback, and make recommendations for tenure decisions on judges, with both public and peer participation.

As the Third Circuit points out, high volume is not an excuse for sloppy work and denial of due process! The backlog can be slashed and justice restored, and even improved, while maintaining high standards of quality and implementing and enforcing best practices. EOIR indeed could become a “model progressive court system.” But, it’s going to take a new team of progressive judges and qualified progressive Administrators, folks with experience in the “horrors of today’s Immigration (not) Courts” and an unswerving commitment to due process and best practices to get the job done!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-16-21

🇺🇸AMERICA NEEDS MORE LEGAL IMMIGRATION, NOT MORE WALLS & JAILS! — Rampell Gets It Right @ WashPost!

 

Catherine Rampell
Catherine Rampell
Opinion Columnist
Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/07/15/worried-about-illegal-immigration-create-more-legal-immigrants/

If Republicans are truly worried about the supposed scourge of undocumented immigrants, they should start building that “big, beautiful door” on our borders that Donald Trump always talked about.

The solution to concerns about “illegal immigration” is creating more legal pathways to immigrate here.

Immigration reform has stalled for decades, despite widespread agreement that the existing system is broken, and occasional bipartisan attempts to fix it. The latest sweeping reform bill, backed by President Biden, has gone nowhere, unlikely to secure enough Republican votes to avoid a filibuster.

So now Senate Democrats are attempting a workaround. They’ve signaled that they’ll include a narrow subset of immigration issues in their forthcoming reconciliation bill, which could be passed with only Democratic votes.

Exact details are still being hashed out, but the bill is expected to contain a pathway to citizenship for certain categories of undocumented immigrants, including “dreamers” (unauthorized immigrants who came to the United States as children), those with temporary protected status (people from countries facing emergencies such as armed conflict or natural disaster), essential workers and farm laborers.

A majority of both Democratic and Republican voters support earned legalization of these groups, according to recent polls.

This legislative strategy is by no means a slam-dunk. Moderate Democratic lawmakers need to get on board, since passing the bill through the reconciliation process would require all 50 Senate Democrats’ votes. The biggest wild card, Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.), has already indicated his support, which seems promising.

The bigger hurdle involves legislative rules: The Senate parliamentarian must determine that these immigration measures are sufficiently budget-related to include in the reconciliation process. Legalizing millions of undocumented migrants would have some effect on federal budgets — for example, through more immigration application fees and taxes on legalized immigrants’ earnings. Activists also point to a 2005 reconciliation bill that included different immigration-related provisions. Even so, the parliamentarian may nix these particular measures.

None of this has stopped Republicans from preemptive scaremongering about the “illegal alien” hordes supposedly rushing our “open borders” to seize their “amnesty.”

“Democrats are trying to sneak mass amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants through Congress under the cover of their budget scheme,” warned Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.).

“The Democrats want to include a massive amnesty in that legislation,” echoed his colleague Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.). “That will simply act as a bigger magnet for more illegal immigration into this country.”

This is nonsense. First and foremost, the population eligible for legalization would likely be restricted to people who’ve already been here for some minimum period of time, rather than those contemplating coming, say, tomorrow. This is how that broader, Biden-backed bill works, and how previous legalization proposals have been structured.

More importantly, though, if these restrictionists are really so concerned about all the immigrants slipping in through the back door, the best solution is a more accessible, clearly monitored front door.

. . . .

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

Well and clearly said, Catherine! You can read her complete op-Ed at the above link. 

The solution to border “surges” has little or nothing to do with walls, jails, and more agents. The prerequisites are reopening the ports of entry, restoring the legal asylum system, staffing it with experts, and expanding other legal immigration opportunities as Catherine cogently suggests!

PWS

07-16-21

JUDGE HANEN (SD TX) THROWS DACA BACK INTO DOUBT! — Says Original Program Illegal, Bars New Apps, But Rules Gov. Can’t Pull The Rug Out From Under Those Currently Protected, For Now!

Mica Rosenberg
Mica Rosenberg
National Immigration Reporter, Reuters

https://reut.rs/36VDoK9

Mica Rosenberg reports for Reuters:

NEW YORK, July 16 (Reuters) – A U.S. federal judge in Texas on Friday blocked new applications to a program that protects immigrants who were brought to the United States as children from deportation but said the hundreds of thousands of people already enrolled would not be affected until further court rulings.

U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen sided with a group of states suing to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, arguing it was illegally created by former President Barack Obama in 2012.

Hanen found the program violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) when it was created but said that since there were so many people currently enrolled in the program – nearly 650,000 – his ruling would be temporarily stayed for their cases until further court rulings in the case.

“To be clear,” the judge said, the order does not require the government to take “any immigration, deportation or criminal action against any DACA recipient.”

. . . .

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

Read the rest of Mica’s article at the link.

The obvious solution is legislation. But, the GOP is likely to oppose any reasonable proposal, and the Dems might not have the votes to “go it alone.”

Stay tuned!

PWS

07-16-21

⚖️😎👍🏼DUE PROCESS PROGRESS! — House EOIR Appropriations Bill Contains $50 Million For Representation Of Kids & Families Seeking Asylum!

 

Kids in court
“This is due process?”
PHOTO: The Daily Beast

From: Jennifer Quigley <QuigleyJ@humanrightsfirst.org>

Subject: Fw: [EXT]-Good news on funding for legal representation!

Date: July 16, 2021 at 9:40:20 AM EDT

To: Asylum Working Group <asylum-working-group@googlegroups.com>

ICYMI

From: Greg Chen <GChen@aila.org>

Sent: Friday, July 16, 2021 9:30 AM

To: amigos@theimmigrationhub.org <amigos@theimmigrationhub.org>

Subject: [EXT]-Good news on funding for legal representation!

Email originates externally.

Greetings colleagues,

Yesterday House Appropriations Committee passed the CJS appropriations bill for FY 2022 for the Justice Department and other agencies. Importantly, the bill includes a historic $50 million for DOJ to pilot legal representation programs for people in removal proceedings. This is a big step for federal funding for legal counsel. Hooray!

Kudos to all the organizations in the working group on legal representation and access to counsel who have been fighting for this.Of course, we don’t have the money yet and will need to protect this language in the House and get comparable language, hopefully even more funding in the Senate. We have collectively been pushing for $200M.

The bill and draft report language are below.Collected resources on legal representation are available here: Ensuring Legal Representation for People Facing Removal. i

Committee-passed bill text on legal representation:

“(29) $50,000,000 for a grant pilot program to provide legal representation to immigrant children and families seeking asylum and other forms of legal protection in the United States;

Committee-passed report language on legal representation:

“Legal Representation Pilot for Immigrant Children and Families.—The Committee provides $50,000,000 for the Department to establish a competitive grant program to qualified non-profit organizations for a pilot program to increase representation for immigrant children and families in civil proceedings. The amount is $35,000,000 above the request and $50,000,000 above the fiscal year 2021 level. The Committee recognizes the compelling need to ensure due process for children and families who seek asylum and who must navigate a complex legal system for processing of asylum claims. The Committee supports coordination with grantees and organizations who offer other types of legal assistance or services to immigrants seeking asylum or other forms of legal protection. As with any new pilot program, the Committee expects the Department to assess this program with metrics that will be scaled appropriately to evaluate how this initial investment could be further enhanced to represent a larger portion of un-represented individuals and the impact that it may have on improving attendance rates and decreasing court costs. Within 90 days of enactment of this Act, the OJP shall brief the Committee on its implementation plan for this pilot.

Gregory Z. Chen, Esq.

Senior Director of Government Relations

Direct: 202-507-7615 I Cell: 202.716-5818 I Email: gchen@aila.org

American Immigration Lawyers Association

Main: 202.507.7600 I Fax: 202.783.7853 I www.aila.org

1331 G Street, NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20005

pastedGraphic.png

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “amigos” group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to amigos+unsubscribe@theimmigrationhub.org.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/theimmigrationhub.org/d/msgid/amigos/BLAPR17MB4146DD8C7890895D5A71BC94CC119%40BLAPR17MB4146.namprd17.prod.outlook.com.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Asylum Working Group” group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to asylum-working-group+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/asylum-working-group/MN2PR14MB4190DF799A8555389730297FA8119%40MN2PR14MB4190.namprd14.prod.outlook.com.

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

Congrats to all involved! Let’s keep up the momentum until we get universal representation!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-16-21

☠️🤮⚰️DUE PROCESS MOCKED: UNDUE POLITICAL INFLUENCE IN IMMIGRATION COURT LEADS TO IMPROPER DENIAL OF LIFE-SAVING PROTECTION TO KIDS! — “Political influence from the executive branch combined with local environmental pressures can affect how immigration judges rule. Most importantly, these influences can lead to some children not receiving asylum when they might otherwise be entitled to it.”

EYORE
“Eyore In Distress”
Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”

Unaccompanied immigrant minors wait on July 2, 2019 in Los Ebanos, Texas to be transported to a U.S. Border Patrol processing center after entering the U.S. to seek political asylum. John Moore/Getty Images

US immigration judges considering asylum for unaccompanied minors are ‘significantly influenced’ by politics

July 13, 2021 8.30am EDT

Authors

Disclosure statement

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Partners

pastedGraphic_2.png

Texas A&M San Antonio provides funding as a member of The Conversation US.

View all partners

We believe in the free flow of information

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.

Republish this article

The news over the past months has been saturated with stories about another “surge” of unaccompanied minors crossing the southern border of the U.S.

In March 2021, the number of unaccompanied minors apprehended in the U.S. reached an all-time monthly high of 18,890. This surpassed the previous monthly high of 11,681 in May 2019.

One question not addressed in many of these stories is: How many of these children actually receive asylum and are allowed to stay in the country?

The people who make those decisions are immigration judges. Their decisions are supposed to be based on whether these children have fears of being persecuted in their home countries and whether these fears are realistic.

But our research examining the period from early October 2013 until the end of September 2017 shows that these judges were influenced by factors outside of the case. Political factors such as ideology, political party of the president who appointed them and who was president at the time they decided the case significantly influenced whether these children were allowed to stay in the country.

Aside from political factors, immigration judges are also influenced by local contexts, such as unemployment levels, the number of uninsured children and size of Latino population in the places where they work.

Unaccompanied minors and asylum

Under U.S. law, an unaccompanied minor is a child under 18 years old who does not have lawful immigration status and no parent or legal guardian in the country who can provide care or custody.

Unaccompanied minors cannot be refused entry or removed from the country without legal process because of the 1993 Supreme Court case Reno v. Flores. In 2008, new legislation allowed asylum officers to grant these children asylum at the U.S. border. If the asylum officer denies asylum to the minor, the minor may request asylum before an immigration judge.

Because immigration judges are not appointed under Article III of the Constitution, as federal judges are, they have less independence than those federal judges. According to current Justice Department rules, immigration judges are appointed by the attorney general and they act as his or her delegates.

Political pressure

In order to learn what factors affect the grant of relief to unaccompanied minors, we obtained data on their asylum applications from Oct. 2, 2013 to Sept. 29, 2017, covering over 10,000 cases from 280 different judges in 46 counties and 27 states.

Only 327 of the unaccompanied minors actually received asylum; 2,867 were deported and 455 chose to voluntarily leave.

An additional 6,645 children were allowed to stay in the country. Of those, 3,589 had their case administratively closed, which allows judges to suspend the case indefinitely without hearing and deciding on it. The remaining 3,056 had their case terminated, which means that the case against the child was dismissed.

The fate of unaccompanied minors entering the US

A review of about 10,000 asylum applications for unaccompanied minors from October 2, 2013 to September 29, 2017 found the majority of the minors were allowed to stay (in green), most because a judge either dismissed or indefinitely suspended the case against them. Only 327 were granted asylum.

Bar charts grouped to show significantly more unaccompanied minors were allowed to stay.

2,000 cases

2,867

455

3,589

3,056

327

Removed

Voluntarily Departed

Administrative Closure

Case dismissed

Received asylum

Chart: The Conversation/CC-BY-ND Source: Daniel Braaten and Claire Nolasco Braaten Get the data

pastedGraphic_3.png

We ran a statistical analysis of political factors that may influence immigration judges’ decision: judicial ideology, political party of the appointing president and whether the decision was made before or during the Trump administration.

Following previous research on immigration judge’s ideology, we determined a judge’s ideology by considering their prior work experiences. Based on this research, we determined that some experiences, such as working for immigration agencies, are associated with more conservative views on immigration and asylum issues.

Conversely, work experiences in an immigration or non-immigration-related nonprofit or academia are associated with more liberal views. Our analysis showed that immigration judges with more liberal judicial ideology were more likely to rule in favor of granting asylum to these children.

Judges’ ideology can influence asylum decisions

Immigration judges who are more liberal tended to allow unaccompanied children to stay in the U.S. more often, compared to more conservative judges. Ideology was determined from each judge’s prior work and ranges from 1-11, most conservative to most liberal.

Area chart showing how children allowed to stay rose with more liberal judges.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

0

50

100%

Likelihood unaccompanied minor is allowed to stay

Data from 2013-2017

Chart: The Conversation/CC-BY-ND Source: Daniel Braaten and Claire Nolasco Braaten Get the data

pastedGraphic_3.png

We also found that judges who were appointed by a Democratic attorney general were more likely to rule in favor of the minors.

Political party of attorney general who appointed the judge

Immigration judges appointed by Democrats were more likely to allow unaccompanied minors seeking asylum to stay in the U.S. than those appointed by Republicans.

Bar charts showing judges appointed by Democrats were more like to allow unaccompanied children to stay in the U.S., but GOP-appointed numbers were also above 62%.

Republican

62.9%

Democratic

69.5%

Data from 2013-2017

Chart: The Conversation/CC-BY-ND Source: Daniel Braaten and Claire Nolasco Braaten Get the data

pastedGraphic_3.png

Finally, statistical analysis showed that immigration judges were less likely to grant relief during the eight months of the Trump administration compared to the last three years of the Obama administration.

President at the time the case was decided

Immigration judges were more likely to allow unaccompanied minors seeking asylum to stay in the U.S. during the Obama administration than during the Trump administration.

Trump

54%

Obama

67.7%

Data from 2013-2017

Chart: The Conversation/CC-BY-ND Source: Daniel Braaten and Claire Nolasco Braaten Get the data

pastedGraphic_3.png

Why did politics and judges’ ideology play into their decisions?

We believe it’s because immigration judges are subject to political pressure from the president, indirectly, because they are appointed by the attorney general, who is also a presidential appointee and carries out the president’s policies and wishes.

Local environment

Pressure from the executive branch was not the only factor we concluded had influenced whether these children got to stay in the U.S. or were turned away. Aside from political and ideological values, judges may also have been influenced by their local contexts.

For example, we found that immigration judges in places with more Latinos were more likely to let these children stay. Conversely, immigration judges in states with lots of poor children were less likely to let these children stay than judges in states with relatively fewer poor kids.

Latino population in the county

In counties with larger Latino populations, judges were more likely to allow unaccompanied minors seeking asylum to stay in the U.S. The horizontal axis shows the percentage of the county’s population that is Latino.

20% Latino

40

60

80

0

20

40

60

80

100% likelihood unaccompanied minor is allowed to stay

Data from 2013-2017

Chart: The Conversation/CC-BY-ND Source: Daniel Braaten and Claire Nolasco Braaten Get the data

pastedGraphic_3.png

Asylum decisions can be life-or-death matters. Although immigration judges consider the requirements of asylum law, they are also influenced by nonlegal factors when making decisions.

Political influence from the executive branch combined with local environmental pressures can affect how immigration judges rule. Most importantly, these influences can lead to some children not receiving asylum when they might otherwise be entitled to it.

[The Conversation’s Politics + Society editors pick need-to-know stories. Sign up for Politics Weekly.]

We need your help

The Conversation is a nonprofit organization working for the public good through fact- and research-based journalism. Nearly half of our budget comes from the support of universities, and higher education budgets are under unprecedented strain. Your gift can help us keep doing our important work and reach more people. Thank you.

Republished under Creative Commons license.

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

Go to this link for the original article with pictures and graphs:  https://theconversation.com/us-immigration-judges-considering-asylum-for-unaccompanied-minors-are-significantly-influenced-by-politics-160071

This article confirms two things I have said over and over:

  1. Garland’s failure, to date, to replace the BIA with better qualified progressive judges with expertise gained by representing asylum seekers; plus
  2. His “giveaway” of 17 critical Immigration Judge positions to those selected by “Billy the Bigot” Barr under badly flawed procedures;

will unquestionably cost some children and other refugees their lives. Immigration Judge positions are life or death — we need an Attorney General who treats them that way!

Immigration Judge appointments, particularly those at the appellate (BIA level), need to be treated by Democratic Administrations with the same care, seriousness, and strategy as Article III judicial appointments, perhaps more! Few Article III Judges, including the Supremes, affect more lives and have a bigger impact on America’s future than Immigration Judges. 

The last two GOP Administrations “got” the negative power for destruction and dehumanization inherent in a “captive” court system that actively pursues misguided nativist policies and receives only sporadic supervision and attention from the Article IIIs. By contrast, the Obama Administration failed to “mine EOIR’s potential” for progressive due process advancements and building a corps of dynamic, courageous progressive judges.  

So far, while perhaps exceeding the passively inept approach of the Obama Administration, the Biden Administration has also failed to achieve the radical, yet logical and obvious, reforms and decisive personnel actions necessary to undo the damage caused by the White Nationalist xenophobia of the Trump kakistocracy. 

The Immigration Courts have the potential to become “model progressive courts” that could lead the way to better practices and more constitutionally and legally sound jurisprudence throughout the Federal Judiciary. Whether the Biden Administration grasps and acts boldly on that potential, or squanders it as past Democratic Administrations have done, remains to be seen.

But, that question is far from “academic.” The survival of our democratic republic is likely to depend to a great extent on whether the Biden Administration can bring in the progressive experts who finally will “get EOIR right!”

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-16-21

😎👍YES! IN A HUGE WIN FOR DUE PROCESS, EFFICIENCY, JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE, & SANE GOVERNMENT, AG GARLAND OVERRULES SESSIONS’S IDIOTIC MATTER OF CASTRO-TUM PRECEDENT & RESTORES IJs’ AUTHORITY TO ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE CASES  — Matter of Cruz-Valdez, 28 I&N Dec. 326 (A.G. 2021)

Judge Merrick Garland
Atorney General Merrick B. Garland
Official White House Photo
Public Realm

 

The Attorney General has issued a decision in Matter of Cruz-Valdez, 28 I&N Dec. 326 (A.G. 2021).

(1) Matter of Castro‑Tum, 27 I&N Dec. 271 (A.G. 2018), is overruled in its entirety.

(2) While rulemaking proceeds and except when a court of appeals has held otherwise, immigration judges and the Board should apply the standard for administrative closure set out in Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I&N Dec. 688 (BIA 2012), and Matter of W‑Y‑U‑, 27 I&N Dec. 17 (BIA 2017).

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

Sessions’s Castro-Tum abomination had to be one of the stupidest and most maliciously incompetent aspects of his White Nationalist, anti-asylum, anti-due-process agenda! Not surprisingly, that decision and the illegal attempt to convert it into a regulation have mostly been losers in the Article III Courts.

Hats 🎩 off to Judge Garland for doing the right thing (even if it did take longer than some of us thought it should)! This also ties in perfectly with the recent common sense restoration of enforcement priorities and prosecutorial discretion at ICE by OPLA head John Trasvina! https://immigrationcourtside.com/category/department-of-homeland-security/immigration-customs-enforcement-ice/office-of-principal-legal-adviser-opla/john-d-trasvina/

After four years of virtually unrelenting illegality, mismanagement, and outright idiocy at DHS and DOJ, that has caused “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and generated ever-mushrooming court backlogs, finally some much-needed and long overdue teamwork and reasonability in restoring to Immigration Judges and the parties the necessary tools for rational, cooperative docket management. Presumably, the hundreds of thousands of cases “waiting in the wings” to be “re-docketed” pursuant to “Sessions’s folly” can now remain administratively closed or be “re-closed” and removed from the EOIR docket!

Jeffrey S. Chase
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase
Jeffrey S. Chase Blog
Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

Along those same lines, “Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports some more good news:

More Good News!

Ms. A-B- (i.e. the respondent in Matter of A-B-) was granted asylum yesterday.The BIA granted pursuant to a joint motion from DHS and respondent’s counsel to grant asylum.

It took far too long, but justice prevailed.

Best, Jeff

That’s the type of cooperative action among the parties and EOIR that, if repeated on a larger scale, could restore functionality and some semblance of justice to our broken Immigration Courts!

Karen Musalo
Professor Karen Musalo
Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Hastings Law

Also, many congrats to my friend Karen Musalo and her team at the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at Hastings Law for their outstanding, persistent, and ultimately successful defense of Ms. A-B- against Sessions’s misogynistic “war on asylum seekers of color.”

It’s a telling commentary that finally getting the law back to where it was in 2016, “pre-Sessions,” now seems like a major victory! Just think of what might have been accomplished if all the effort expended on combatting the Trump immigration kakistocracy’s illegality, nonsense, and wasteful gimmicks had instead been devoted to advancing and promoting due process and fundamental fairness for all persons in America!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-15-21

🇺🇸👍🏼⚖️🗽😂⚔️🛡NDPA WARRIORS MAKING A DIFFERENCE @ GW LAW!

 

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

 

Many congrats to my friends Professor Alberto Benitez, Professrial Lecturer Paulina Vera, and the GW Immigration Clinic on all of their achievements and the well-deserved recognition!

pastedGraphic.png
pastedGraphic_1.png
pastedGraphic_2.png
STUDENT-ATTORNEYS RISE TO CHALLENGES, INNOVATE ALONG THE WAY
pastedGraphic_2.png
Public Justice Advocacy Clinic (PJAC)
“[I]t really felt like we were first-year associates!” Laura Saini, JD ’21, a student-attorney in the Public Justice Advocacy Clinic (PJAC) commented about her clinic experience. A student team represented the Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless and filed a lawsuit under D.C.’s Freedom of Information Act to retrieve emails and other documents reflecting concerns with the Department of Human Services’s (DHS) homeless shelter service program. The lawsuit prompted DHS to locate over 20,000 pages of documents, but DHS was not going down without a fight.

“We were researching, drafting, and editing legal arguments under tight deadlines,” the student further explained. DHS refused to disclose most of the documents on the ground that they contained personal and private information. When Judge Puig-Lugo of D.C. Superior Court ordered DHS to redact information and release the documents, DHS countered with a motion to reconsider and a motion for an in-camera review. When denied, DHS filed another motion to stay the production of the emails pending appeal. Under the supervision of Professor Jeffrey Gutman, the student-attorneys drafted a brief urging the court to deny DHS’s motions. Based on their brief, the court ultimately rejected both DHS motions to reconsider and to allow an in-camera review. During a particularly challenging time for D.C.’s homeless population, this was a first step in creating accountability and ensuring programs are benefiting those who need them most.

pastedGraphic_3.png
pastedGraphic_3.png pastedGraphic_3.png
pastedGraphic_2.png
Vaccine Injury Litigation Clinic (VILC)
For the first time in the history of the Vaccine Injury Litigation Clinic (VILC), every student was assigned to the same case. A case that had been pending for eight long years finally culminated in a three-day trial. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the case presented unique logistical and technical challenges. The trial was conducted entirely online. The student-attorneys were in their homes, and experts were worldwide, from Delaware to California to Israel. Alexandra Marshall, Class of ’22, commented, “The breadth of matters that we had a chance to work on is more than some lawyers experience in a decade.” Each student rose to the challenge admirably.

Ms. Marshall worked on literature research, the prehearing brief, and the technical glossary for the court. Rebecca Wolfe, Class of ’22, delivered opening statements. Giavana Behnamian, Class of ’22, and Alfonso Nazarro, Class of ’22, conducted the direct examination of VILC’s expert. Ms. Wolfe and Kimberly Henrickson, Class of ’22, conducted the direct examination of VILC’s client. Ji Young Ahn, Class of ’22, delivered the closing argument, reminding the court of the human element. Ms. Behnamian expressed her gratitude for having this experience “with a great team of other GW student-attorneys.”

Though each student appreciated the learning experience, what meant the most to them was the difference they could make. Ms. Wolfe remarked, “After I gave the opening statement at [our client’s] hearing, she sent me a text telling me that she appreciated it.” Ms. Henrickson added, “Hearing her describe her experience in her own words was a salient reminder that beyond the briefs, motions, medical records, and filings that make up our everyday tasks are the real people for whom we advocate.”

pastedGraphic_3.png pastedGraphic_5.png
pastedGraphic_3.png pastedGraphic_3.png
pastedGraphic_2.png
Family Justice Litigation Clinic
The COVID-19 pandemic has thrown the world—and by extension the courts—into some chaos. The D.C. Superior Court estimates that 25 percent of all family law filings are currently stalled for lack of service, while hundreds of litigants are awaiting resolution of custody and divorce filings. To combat the backlog of cases this year, the Family Justice Litigation Clinic (FJLC) launched an innovative partnership with D.C. Superior Court to train student-attorneys to become mediators. The goal of this partnership was to help litigants resolve cases by consent and short-circuit the lengthy process of waiting for a court date. Using the court’s Webex technology, student-mediators met with pro se parties and mediated their matters in breakout rooms. Though mediation could not resolve some cases, the initiative successfully helped reduce the backlog of cases and facilitated access to justice for litigants.

The partnership allowed students to explore how they could use new technologies to resolve issues in the modern age. The project also allowed students to collaborate across law schools and train with student-mediators in Catholic University’s Families and the Law Clinic, led by Professor Catherine Klein. The clinic’s efforts did not end with the school year, however. Dean Laurie Kohn, Director of the FJLC, in collaboration with Professor Andrew Budzinski, Co-Director of the General Practice Clinic at University of the District of Columbia (UDC) Clarke School of Law, continued working with the court and local law schools to look for solutions for pro se litigants. Out of these efforts, the Family Law Access to Justice Project was born, a collaborative effort between GW Law, UDC Clarke School of Law, and Catholic University Columbus School of Law. Through this program, students will continue consulting with litigants about their options and provide them with required paperwork and support to navigate the court system in this trying time. (Pictured: Top: (left to right) Dean Laurie Kohn and Moheb Keddis, Class of ‘22; Bottom: Dana Gibson, Class of ‘22)

pastedGraphic_3.png pastedGraphic_6.png
pastedGraphic_3.png pastedGraphic_3.png
pastedGraphic_2.png
Immigration Clinic
Student-attorneys in the Immigration Clinic were hard at work this academic year, helping clients seeking asylum and improving services for asylum-seekers. Educational efforts came from a team of two student-attorneys, Tessa Pulaski, JD ’21, and Sarah Husk, JD ’21. The students addressed residents at the George Washington University Medical School. They taught residents in the psychiatric program about asylum law and the role psychiatric evaluations play for asylum seekers in the United States. It was a meaningful opportunity to teach physicians how they can help fight for justice and create a dialogue between schools and disciplines.

Thanks to the efforts of the clinic, a family of five will get to stay in the United States. When the mother, P.M., was a child, her stepfather worked for an African country’s embassy. At age 11, her stepfather brought P.M. and her mother to live in the United States. P.M.’s stepfather began isolating P.M. and sexually abusing her in their home and even inside the embassy. He would threaten to send P.M. back to Africa to live by herself if she told anyone what he was doing. The abuse continued for two years.

As a result of the sexual abuse P.M. faced as a child, she suffered from eating disorders and suicidal ideation as an adult. In 2019, with the support of her husband, A.M., P.M. reported her stepfather to the police. As a result, he was sentenced to eight years in prison. With her stepfather finally facing judgment and with the assistance of the Immigration Clinic, P.M. was granted a T-visa as a victim of trafficking.

The fight does not end here, however. A.M. is currently facing removal proceedings of his own. The clinic will move to terminate these proceedings based on A.M.’s derivative T-visa status. If successful, this will mean P.M., A.M., and their three small children will all get to stay in the United States together. (Pictured front row: Professorial Lecturer in Law Paulina Vera and Ann Nicholas, JD ’21. Back row: Sebastian Weinmann, JD ’21; Colleen Ward, JD ’21; Rachel Sims, JD ’21; and Professor Alberto Benitez)

pastedGraphic_3.png
pastedGraphic_3.png pastedGraphic_3.png
FACULTY NEWS
Professor Alberto Benitez

Director, Immigration Clinic

In the spring semester, Professor Benitez received the Silver Anniversary Faculty Award. The award is given to those professors in the George Washington University community who have completed 25 years of continuous full-time service.

pastedGraphic_3.png pastedGraphic_8.png
pastedGraphic_3.png pastedGraphic_3.png
pastedGraphic_2.png
Professor Jeffrey S. Gutman

Director, Public Justice Advocacy Clinic

Professor Gutman’s article, “Are Federal Exonerees Paid?: Lessons for the Drafting and Interpretation of Wrongful Conviction Compensation Statutes,” was published in the Cleveland State Law Review. Professor Gutman also was involved in two significant cases this semester. The first was Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless v. D.C. Department of Human Services, where the court in a D.C. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case ordered the disclosure of thousands of 2019 emails reflecting complaints and concerns with the D.C. shelter housing program. The other was Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, where a federal court denied the government’s motion for summary judgment in a federal FOIA case seeking records related to the Trump administration’s defunding of organizations fighting white nationalism. The court also ordered two new searches for potentially responsive documents.

pastedGraphic_3.png pastedGraphic_9.png
pastedGraphic_3.png pastedGraphic_3.png
pastedGraphic_2.png
Professor Susan R. Jones 

Director, Small Business and Community Economic Development Clinic

n February 2021, Professor Jones presented her paper “The Case for

Leadership Coaching in Law Schools: A New Way to Support Professional Identity Formation” (48 Hofstra Law Review 659 2020) at the Santa Clara University School of Law Symposium “Lawyers, Leadership, and Change: Addressing Challenges and Opportunities in Unprecedented Times.” The symposium was co-sponsored with the Association of American Law Schools’ (AALS) Section on Leadership Institute for Leadership Education. In May 2021, Professor Jones was a panelist at the AALS Clinical Conference concurrent session “Building the Future Through the Development of Leadership and Professional Identity in Clinical Programs.” Professor Jones continues to serve on the AALS Leadership Section Executive Committee. Her co-edited book Investing for Social & Economic Impact is forthcoming in 2022 from ABA Publishing.

pastedGraphic_3.png pastedGraphic_10.png
pastedGraphic_3.png pastedGraphic_3.png
pastedGraphic_2.png
Dean Laurie Kohn

Jacob Burns Associate Dean for Clinical Affairs

Director, Family Justice Litigation Clinic

In January 2021, the faculty voted to appoint Dean Kohn as the Jacob Burns Associate Dean for Clinical Affairs. Dean Kohn had served in this position on an interim basis since 2019. Dean Kohn organized and moderated a panel at the January 2021 meeting of the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) titled “How the Pandemic Made Me a Better Teacher. In May 2021, the California Court of Appeals Fourth Appellate District relied on Dean Kohn’s scholarship regarding the credibility of domestic violence survivors.

pastedGraphic_3.png pastedGraphic_11.png
pastedGraphic_3.png pastedGraphic_3.png
pastedGraphic_2.png
Professor Joan Meier

Director, Domestic Violence Project

Director, National Family Violence Law Center

Professor Meier was a featured commentator in parts 3 and 4 of HBO’s 4-part docuseries Allen v. Farrow, which ran in April 2021 and can be streamed on HBO Max. She is a co-author with Danielle Pollack of Allen v Farrow: Child Sexual Abuse is the Final Frontier. She was the keynote speaker of the New Jersey Family Division and Domestic Violence Education Conference, where she presented “Vicarious Trauma and Resilience.” She was a panelist for the Learning Network, Center for Research and Education on Violence Against Women and Children at Western University in Canada, where she presented “Family Court Outcomes in U.S. Custody Cases with Abuse and Alienation Claims.” She was a panelist for the GW Law Association for Women, where she presented “Paving Public Interest and Pro Bono.” She was also a panelist at the American Association of Law Schools Annual Meeting, where she presented “Dynamic Pedagogy in the Family and Juvenile Law Classroom: Experiential and In-Class Exercises.” Professor Meier has been featured on the episode “Testimony” of GW Law Dean Matthew’s podcast. She was featured with Sara Scott in the webinar “The Trauma We Carry” for the Center for Legal Inclusiveness and in the webinar “Family Court Outcomes in U.S. Cases with Abuse and Alienation Claims” for the N.Y. State Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Recently, Professor Meier’s manuscript, which she calls her “piece de resistance” on what is wrong in family courts and what can fix it, was accepted by Georgetown University Law Journal. Professor Meier also was appointed to the N.Y. Governor’s Blue-Ribbon Commission on custody evaluators as the only non-New York-based expert.

pastedGraphic_3.png pastedGraphic_12.png
pastedGraphic_3.png pastedGraphic_3.png
pastedGraphic_2.png
Professor Jessica Steinberg

Director, Prisoner and Reentry Clinic

Professor Steinberg published “Judges and the Deregulation of Lawyers” (89 Fordham Law Review 1315 (2021) (with Anna Carpenter, Colleen Shanahan, and Alyx Mark) and presented the paper as part of Fordham Law School’s Colloquium on Judging. In addition, Professor Steinberg received the Alfred McKenzie Award from the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights for “dismantling injustice” for prisoners during the COVID-19 pandemic by founding the compassionate release clearinghouse along with several partner agencies. She was quoted in The Washington Post article “Sick, Elderly Prisoners Are At Risk for Covid-19. A New D.C. Law Makes it Easier for Them to Seek Early Release,” which detailed the impact of the District of Columbia’s new compassionate release law, authored by Professor Steinberg.

pastedGraphic_3.png pastedGraphic_13.png
pastedGraphic_3.png pastedGraphic_3.png
pastedGraphic_2.png
Professorial Lecturer in Law Paulina Vera, JD ’15

Legal Associate, Immigration Clinic

Professor Vera was selected by the Hispanic National Bar Association (HNBA) as one of 26 attorneys nationwide to receive the HNBA 2021 Top Lawyers Under 40 Award in March 2021. The award recognizes legal achievement, integrity, commitment to the Hispanic community, and a dedication to improving the legal profession.

pastedGraphic_3.png pastedGraphic_14.png
pastedGraphic_3.png pastedGraphic_3.png
pastedGraphic_2.png
JOIN US ON SOCIAL MEDIA
In October 2020, the clinics launched a Facebook group page. Through this forum, current clinic students and alumni can now gather to exchange information, share campus events, and discuss employment opportunities. Please join us.
FOLLOW US:
pastedGraphic_15.pngpastedGraphic_16.pngpastedGraphic_17.png

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

Alberto Manuel Benitez

Professor of Clinical Law

Director, Immigration Clinic

The George Washington University Law School

650 20th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20052

(202) 994-7463

(202) 994-4946 fax

abenitez@law.gwu.edu

THE WORLD IS YOURS…

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

It’s no surprise to me and other members of the NDPA that clinics are leading the way in modern legal education. And, immigration clinics have been at the forefront of clinical education (“practical scholarship”). While academia is often slow to adjust to “marketplace changes,” it’s encouraging to see the long-overdue recognition that clinical teaching is finally getting as the “core” of modern legal education.

Hats off to Alberto, Paulina, my Georgetown CALS colleagues, and all the other amazing clinical professors out there! Clinical professors and other progressive practical scholars and litigators are the folks who belong on the Federal Bench at all levels, from the Immigration Courts to the Supremes, and who should be the political and private sector leaders of the future!

Immigration, human rights, and due process have for some time now been the “seminal fields” of Federal Law — the essence of what our 21st Century Justice system is all about and the key to our survival and future prosperity as a democratic republic. Unfortunately, the political, judicial, and legal “establishments” have been slow on the uptake. That’s a primary reason why our legal and political systems are now in crisis.

Hopefully, the “best and the brightest” who have been courageously serving on the front lines of protecting our democracy and advancing racial and gender justice will in the next generations assume the leadership positions that they have earned and that will be key to our nation’s survival and advancement!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-15-21

⚖️5TH CIRCUIT BELATEDLY “OUTS” IJ AGNELIS REESE (NOW RETIRED) FOR 99.5% ASYLUM DENIAL RECORD —  “We find it likely that a ‘reasonable man, were he to know all the circumstances, would harbor doubts about the judge’s impartiality.’” Inexplicably Garland & Co. Let Other “Asylum Deniers Club” Members Continue to Wreak Havoc On Asylum Seekers, Their Lawyers, & The Entire U.S. Justice System!🤮

Miller Lite
“Miller Lite” – Garland’s Vision of “Justice @ Justice” for Communities of Color  — As asylum seekers and their fearless advocates suffer and the Immigration “Courts” disintegrate, there appears to be no end to “Garland’s Miller-Lite Happy Hour” @ DOJ!

Dan Kowalski Reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/rare-ca5-stay-grant-singh-v-garland#

Rare CA5 Stay Grant: Singh v. Garland

Singh v. Garland

“Daljinder Singh applied for asylum and protection under the Convention Against Torture, claiming that he feared persecution in India based on his membership in the Akali Dal Amritsar (“Mann Party”), a Sikh-dominated political party. The presiding immigration judge (“IJ”) denied his application, finding Singh not credible. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissed Singh’s appeal. Singh filed a petition for review and moved for a stay of removal. We granted Singh an emergency stay of removal pending further order. We now grant Singh a stay pending review of his petition. … Singh raises two principal arguments in his petition for review. First, he contends that the IJ’s near total denial rate for asylum applications reflected a bias and violated Singh’s due process rights. Second, he challenges the BIA’s conclusion that the IJ adhered to the procedural safeguards the BIA adopted in Matter of R-K-K-, applicable when an IJ relies on inter-proceeding similarities for an adverse credibility determination. We conclude that Singh has made the requisite showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits of both claims. … The IJ here [Agnelis Reese] denied relief to asylum seekers in 203 of the 204 cases she presided over from 2014 to 2019, a denial rate of 99.5%. … … Given the accounts of multiple witnesses to the attacks on Singh, medical records, images of the attacks on his father, and witness testimony regarding the BJP’s continued pursuit of Singh, Singh has made the requisite showing that the totality of the evidence does not support the IJ’s credibility determination. The appearance of bias painted by the denial of 203 of 204 asylum applications and the IJ’s adverse-credibility determination, informed by her noncompliance with the procedural safeguards of Matter of R-K-K-, are here interlaced. We do not suggest that a high percentage of denials is sufficient to avoid an IJ’s otherwise valid credibility determinations. Indeed, patterns in applicants’ presentations are likely and may necessarily result in a higher denial rate if the shared basis for relief is inadequate. But here, the incredibly high denial rate, when coupled with the IJ’s noncompliance with Matter of R-K-K-, presents a substantial likelihood that Singh will be entitled to relief upon full consideration by a merits panel. … Accordingly, we GRANT Singh’s motion for a stay pending review of his petition.”

[Hats way off to Peter Rogers!]

pastedGraphic.png

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

So, if the 5th Circuit and a “reasonable man” could figure out this isn’t “justice,” by any stretch of the imagination, why on earth 1) can’t Garland do likewise, and 2) does he continue to have his lawyers defend this disgraceful nonsense and waste of taxpayer money?  Reese has previously been “featured” in Courtside for her “Kafkaesque” approach to “justice” for asylum seekers. Several years ago, I spoke at a Louisiana State Bar CLE event where attorney after attorney shared their “horror stories” about Reese. Yet, she managed to last for more than two decades over four different Administrations, two Democratic and two Republican. 

Thankfully for American justice, Judge Reese retired in 2020, after more than two decades of abusing asylum seekers and disgracing the Immigration Courts! But, she was by no means the only unqualified Immigration Judge who helped create disgraceful and illegal “Asylum Free Zones” in Immigration Courtrooms throughout America.

A number of members of the “Asylum Denial Club” remain on the bench @ EOIR. Outrageously, some of them were even “rewarded” with appointments to the BIA by the previous Administration!

Rather than swiftly moving to replace the BiA and then commencing a thorough, long overdue “housecleaning” of unqualified judges and managers at EOIR, Garland, Monaco, Gupta, and Clarke have dawdled as asylum seekers continue to be abused, mistreated, denied due process, and justice mocked at EOIR. A civil rights/racial injustice/due process crisis of gargantuan proportions is going on right under their noses, and they have done very little to acknowledge or address it!

Not to mention that under Garland’s lackadaisical leadership the Immigration Courts continue to build unnecessary backlog at “Trumpian” rates. It’s not like experts haven’t brought the grotesque injustices and defects of EOIR to the attention of the Biden Administration and Garland!

One might ask just what Garland and his top lieutenants are doing to earn their pay? The answer is “not much” to date from a progressive standpoint!   

Experts and advocates should be “raising hell” with the Biden Administration about the deficient due process and racial justice leadership at the DOJ! American justice deserves better!  Much better!

And, the other Circuit Courts (particularly the 11th Circuit) that have looked the other way at the biased decision-making and other unconstitutional travesties of justice going on in Immigration Court on a regular basis don’t look so good either!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-14-21

THE GIBSON REPORT — 07-12-21 — Compiled By Elizabeth Gibson Esquire, NY Legal Assistance Group

Elizabeth Gibson
U Elizabeth Gibson
Attorney, NY Legal Assistance Group
Publisher of “The Gibson Report”

ALERTS

Note: Policies are rapidly changing, so please verify information with the government and colleagues.

 

EOIR Non-detained Reopening

  • With courts reopening, please be aware that mask and courtroom policies may vary by judge/court. Judges have voted to require masks at 26 Federal Plaza, but this is not always the case at the other NY courts.
  • NY non-detained does have WebEx capabilities, but use is up to the discretion of the judge and be aware that bandwidth may be low.
  • Just a quick reminder that the NY Immigration Court home page has the wrong links to the standing orders, but you can find the correct links on the operational status page.
  • For courts that reopened last week, don’t forget that email filing will no longer be allowed as of September 4, 2021.
  • The attorney entrance to 26 Federal Plaza remains closed. Allow sufficient time to enter by the main security line.

 

Prosecutorial Discretion

  • See OPLA NYC instructions attached.
  • Despite the stated requirement for a certificate of good conduct for PD with OPLA NYC, it sounds like this is most relevant in cases where termination is being requested and there have not been biometrics taken.

 

NY no longer allows remote notarization: New York’s State of Emergency expired on June 24, 2021. The Executive Order authorizing remote notarization is no longer active. Notary publics can no longer perform notary services remotely.

 

TOP NEWS

 

Biden Will End Detention for Most Pregnant and Postpartum Undocumented Immigrants

NYT: Since 2016, ICE has arrested undocumented pregnant immigrants more than 4,000 times, according to internal government data shared with The Times.

 

‘Traumatizing and abusive’: Immigrants reveal personal toll of ankle monitors

Guardian: The news comes amid an effort by the Biden administration to boost the use of the monitors as an alternative to putting people in brick-and mortar prisons as they await the outcome of their immigration cases.

 

As migrants arrive from more nations, their paths to U.S. border diverge, new data show

WaPo: While social media and word-of-mouth play a role in channeling some migrants toward certain crossing points, smuggling organizations are taking advantage of uneven enforcement policies to convert sections of the U.S. border into designated entry lanes for specific nationalities and demographic groups.

 

States Plan to Deploy National Guard, Police to US-Mexico Border

VOA: In recent weeks, states including Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota and Wisconsin have announced plans to deploy National Guard troops or law enforcement personnel along the southern border. See also Almost 150 guards are staffing an empty Texas prison as state officials work on Gov. Greg Abbott’s plan to use it for immigrants.

 

The Trump administration used an early, unreported program to separate migrant families along a remote stretch of the border

WaPo: In May 2017, Border Patrol agents in Yuma, Ariz., began implementing a program known as the Criminal Consequence Initiative, which allowed for the prosecution of first-time border crossers, including parents who entered the United States with their children and were separated from them.

 

Settlement reached over free immigration detention hotline

AP: Immigrant advocates say they have reached a settlement with the U.S. government so they can keep operating a free hotline that lets detained immigrants report concerns about custody conditions.

 

Virus cases are surging at crowded immigration detention centers in the U.S.

NYT: As their populations swell nearly to prepandemic levels, U.S. immigration detention centers are reporting major surges in coronavirus infections among detainees.

 

LITIGATION/CASELAW/RULES/MEMOS

 

CA1 Says BIA Erred in Not Considering Individualized Hardship When It Reversed IJ’s Grant of Adjustment Application

The court held that the BIA erred in reversing the IJ’s grant of petitioner’s adjustment of status application, finding that it was required to consider in an individualized manner the hardship he might suffer if he were required to return to El Salvador. (Perez-Trujillo v. Garland, 6/28/21) AILA Doc. No. 21070734

 

CA2 Says Burden-Shifting Framework for Late-Filed Appeals Imposed by BIA in Matter of J.M. Acosta Is Unreasonable

The court concluded that the BIA’s interpretation of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRAIRA) to require a noncitizen pursuing a late-filed appeal to make a merits-based showing at the notice stage is unreasonable. (Brathwaite v. Garland, 7/1/21) AILA Doc. No. 21070933

 

CA4 Upholds Asylum Denial to Honduran Petitioner Convicted of Unlawful Wounding in Virginia

The court held that petitioner was ineligible for asylum based upon his conviction for unlawful wounding in Virginia, and found that the BIA did not err in denying his claims for withholding of removal or Convention Against Torture (CAT) protection. (Moreno-Osorio v. Garland, 6/23/21) AILA Doc. No. 21070736

 

CA5 Finds It Has Jurisdiction to Determine What Constitutes “Exceptional and Extremely Unusual Hardship”

The court held it had jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination that events that would befall the petitioner’s U.S.-citizen children if he were removed would not amount to “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” as Congress intended the phrase. (Guerrero Trejo v. Garland, 7/2/21) AILA Doc. No. 21070938

 

CA5 Finds That Petitioner’s Conviction in Texas Fell Within BIA’s Definition of “Crime of Child Abuse”

Where the IJ ordered the petitioner removed due to his conviction for online solicitation of a minor in Texas, the court held that the BIA did not err in determining that his conviction was a removable offense under INA §237(a)(2)(E)(i) for a crime of child abuse. (Adeeko v. Garland, 7/1/21) AILA Doc. No. 21070934

 

6th Circ. Revives Honduran Mother And Son’s Bid For Asylum

Law360: The Sixth Circuit has given a Honduran mother and her son another chance to seek asylum in the U.S., saying the Board of Immigration Appeals must take another look at her petition in light of changes in policy under the new administration.

 

CA7 Says Petitioner Forfeited Objection to Defect in NTA by Not Bringing It to Attention of IJ During Removal Proceeding

The court found that petitioner forfeited any objection to the deficiency in his Notice to Appear (NTA) by not timely raising it in the removal proceeding, and that he had not shown cause for forfeiture nor prejudice resulting from the defect in the NTA. (Mejia-Padilla v. Garland, 6/29/21) AILA Doc. No. 21070832

 

CA7 Says BIA Erred by Requiring Petitioner to Show Prejudice from His Defective NTA

Where petitioner received a procedurally defective Notice to Appear (NTA) for his removal proceedings and made a timely objection, the court held that BIA erred in finding he was not entitled to relief unless he could demonstrate prejudice from the NTA. (Avila de la Rosa v. Garland, 6/24/21) AILA Doc. No. 21070738

 

CA7 Holds That Illinois Burglary Statute Is Not Divisible

The court held that the BIA erred by applying the modified categorical approach to determine that the petitioner’s two Illinois convictions for burglary were removable offenses under federal law, finding that the Illinois burglary statute is not divisible. (Parzych v. Garland, 6/28/21) AILA Doc. No. 21070830

 

CA8 Upholds BIA’s Conclusion That Petitioner Could Reasonably Relocate Within Guatemala to Avoid Vigilante Group

Upholding the denial of withholding of removal, the court found that petitioner had failed to establish membership in a particular social group, and that BIA did not err in determining he could reasonably relocate in Guatemala to avoid a vigilante group. (Bautista-Bautista v. Garland, 7/6/21) AILA Doc. No. 21070940

 

CA9 Reverses Denial of Voluntary Departure Where NTA Lacked Date-and-Time Information

The court held that petitioner’s Notice to Appear (NTA)—which lacked the time and date of his removal proceedings—did not terminate his period of physical presence in the United States, and thus BIA erred in finding him ineligible for voluntary departure. (Posos-Sanchez v. Garland, 7/7/21) AILA Doc. No. 21071231

 

CA9 to Rehear En Banc Case Involving Illegal Reentry Under INA §241(a)(5)

The court ordered rehearing en banc and vacated its prior decision in Tomczyk v. Garland, which held that the act of reentering illegally under INA §241(a)(5) requires some form of misconduct by a noncitizen rather than merely the status of inadmissibility. (Tomczyk v. Garland, 7/6/21) AILA Doc. No. 21071230

 

CA9 Applies Circumstance-Specific Approach to Find That Amount of Marijuana in Petitioner’s Possession Exceeded 30 Grams

The court held that the circumstance-specific approach applies to the 30-gram limit of INA §237(a)(2)(B)(i)’s personal-use exception, and that the circumstances of the case established that the amount of marijuana in the petitioner’s possession exceeded 30 grams. (Bogle v. Garland, 6/23/21) AILA Doc. No. 21070834

 

CA9 Remands Where IJ Failed to Consider Favorable Factors in Denying Voluntary Departure to Petitioner

The court held that the IJ had failed to evaluate the factors weighing in favor of granting voluntary departure to the petitioner, and thus granted in part the petition for review and remanded to the BIA. (Zamorano v. Garland, 6/25/21) AILA Doc. No. 21070833

 

CA9 Upholds District Court Order Requiring DHS to Stop Detaining Certain Minors in Hotels for More Than Three Days

The court affirmed the district court’s order requiring DHS to apply the 1997 Flores Settlement Agreement to certain minors detained in hotels for more than a few days pending their expulsion from the United States under the CDC’s Title 42 order. (Flores v. Garland, 6/30/21) AILA Doc. No. 21070632

 

USCIS Settles Fight Over Blank Space Application Rejections

Law360: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has reached a tentative deal with three individuals whose applications for immigration benefits were rejected because they left fields empty, a settlement that could affect thousands of individuals.

 

Feds Buck Asylum-Seekers’ Requests For Waitlists

Law360: The Biden administration bucked asylum-seekers’ request that it retrieve waitlists of migrants who weren’t immediately allowed to enter the U.S., telling a California federal court that the request goes beyond their claims against the policy of “metering.”

 

Texas Sheriffs Seek To Force More ICE Arrests

Law360: A group of Texas sheriffs and a law enforcement nonprofit asked a federal judge for a sweeping block on current immigration policy, requesting a five-part injunction that would increase immigration detention and force authorities to arrest more migrants.

 

ICE and Detainees Reach Settlement Agreement over Implementation of COVID-19 Protocol

The district court released a proposed settlement agreement between ICE and detained immigrants at three detention centers in Florida, in which ICE agreed to implement certain COVID-19 vaccination guidelines and protocol, among other things. (Gayle, et al. v. Meade, et al., 6/28/21) AILA Doc. No. 21070831

 

ICE Agrees to Continued Use of National Immigration Detention Hotline for At Least Five Years

Freedom for Immigrants (FFI) reached a settlement with ICE, under which ICE agreed to provide uninterrupted access to FFI’s National Immigration Detention Hotline for at least a five-year period and to pay FFI $100,970 in attorneys’ fees. (Freedom for Immigrants v. DHS, 7/1/21) AILA Doc. No. 19121634

 

DHS Notice on Extension and Redesignation of Yemen for TPS

DHS notice of Temporary Protected Status extension and redesignation of Yemen for 18 months from 9/4/21 through 3/3/23. (86 FR 36295, 7/9/21) AILA Doc. No. 21070932

 

ICE Issues Updated Guidance in Identifying and Monitoring Pregnant, Postpartum, or Nursing Individuals

ICE issued a directive stating that it should not detain, arrest, or take into custody for an administrative violation individuals known to be pregnant, postpartum, or nursing, unless release is prohibited by law or exceptional circumstances. Guidance effective 7/1/21. AILA Doc. No. 21070930

 

Practice Alert: DOS Confirms NIEs Automatically Extended for 12 Months

AILA’s DOS Liaison Committee provides an alert concerning member reports received from posts in Europe and confirmed in official guidance from DOS that NIEs issued by DOS in the last 12 months have been automatically extended for 12 months.

 

RESOURCES

 

 

EVENTS

 

 

ImmProf

 

Monday, July 12, 2021

Sunday, July 11, 2021

Saturday, July 10, 2021

Friday, July 9, 2021

Thursday, July 8, 2021

Wednesday, July 7, 2021

Tuesday, July 6, 2021

Monday, July 5, 2021

 

pastedGraphic.png

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

Thanks, Elizabeth.

PWS

07-13-21