⚖️🗽TIRED OF BUREAUCRATIC DOUBLESPEAK & BS ON ASYLUM FROM EOIR & DHS? — Get The “Real Skinny” On How U.S. Asylum Should Operate From This Free ABA Seminar Featuring Round Table 🛡⚔️ Experts Judge Joan Churchill, Judge Paul Grussendorf, & Judge Jeffrey Chase On Wednesday, Nov. 10! (Registration Required)

Judge Joan Churchill — Honorable Joan Churchill
Retired U.S. Immigration Judge
Member Round Table of Retired Judges

Hon. Paul Grussendorf
U.S. Immigration Judge (Ret.)
Member, Round Table of Former IJs
Author
Source: Amazon.com

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

American Bar Association International Law Section

Program Spotlight: Refugees and Asylum in the U.S.

&

Review of Domestic Interpretations at Odds with International Guidance

Presented by the American Bar Association International Law Section, Immigration & Naturalization Committee, and the International Refugee Law Committee

Wednesday, November 10, 2021

12:00pm ET – 1:00pm ET

Register Today for this Free Program:

This program will review the differences between the Refugee and Asylum processes (which includes Withholding of Removal) in order to provide clarity to new practitioners about the stark contrasts between the two U.S. refugee programs and to inform on international law compliance.

Topic 1: Contrast and compare Refugees and Asylum law and process, and

Topic 2: Compare U.S. domestic interpretations of the legal criteria of Refugees and Asylum seekers with international law and policy.

Moderator and Chair: Joan Churchill (Former Immigration Judge)

Speakers:

Topic 1: The Hon. Paul Grussendorf

Paul Grussendorf has worked with both the refugee and asylum programs in the United States and abroad. He headed a law school legal clinic at the The George Washington University Law School representing asylum seekers, served as an Immigration Judge handling asylum cases, worked as a Supervisory Asylum Officer with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Citizenship and Immigration Services [CIS], as a refugee officer with Refugee Affairs Division of USCIS, and as a refugee officer and supervisor with the UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency.

Topic 2: The Hon. Jeffrey Chase

Jeffrey Chase is a retired Immigration judge for New York City. He has written extensively about the inter relationship of international law sources with the U.S. national law when administering cases involving asylum and refugee applications.

He has a blog entitled Opinions/Analysis on Immigration Law. He coordinates The Round Table of Retired Immigration Judges, an informal group of Retired Immigration Judges from both the trial and appellate level, who weigh in on topics relating to the administration of justice by the Immigration Court. The Round Table files amici briefs, and has issued position papers and testimony on issues affecting due process and the administration of justice by the Immigration Courts.

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

Many thanks to my round table friends and colleagues for putting this fantastic free program together and to the ABA International Law Section for sponsoring it!

In 1980, Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980 to bring the U.S. into compliance with the U.N. Convention & Protocol on The Status of Refugees, to which we are a signatory through the Protocol.

After some steady progress over the first two decades, today, as a result of actions taken by the last four Administrations since 2001, we are further away than ever from the goal of compliance. Bungling bureaucrats at DHS and DOJ wrongfully view large numbers of refugees and asylees as a “threat” to be “deterred,” rather than as the legal obligation and undeniable assets to our nation that they in truth are.

They fail miserably to fix systemic problems, to properly welcome refugees and asylees, and to adjudicate their claims in a fair and timely manner consistent with due process and racial justice. With stunning tone deafness, they eschew the advice of experts like Judges Churchill, Grussendorf, and Chase in favor of cruel, inept, and “bad faith” gimmicks, like gross misuse of Title 42 to suspend the asylum system indefinitely without Congressional approval.

One only has to look at the evening news to see firsthand what a horrible failure these “Stephen Miller Lite” policies have been and how they ruin lives and trash the reputation of our nation. The failure of the Biden Administration to make good on its campaign promises to migrants and refugees is nothing short of a national disgrace!

The first step in holding Mayorkas, Garland, and the others responsible for this ongoing mess accountable and restoring the rule of law is to understand how the system should and could work.

Then, you will have the tools to sue the hell out of the irresponsible public officials and their bumbling bureaucrats, lobby Congress for better protections for asylum seekers, and generate outraged public opinion until the rule of law, common sense, and human decency are restored to our land! And, we can save some lives that are well worth saving in the process!

Knowledge is power! The Biden Administration’s knowledge of how to implement an efficient, practical, legal, successful asylum system would fit in a thimble with room left over! Get the “upper hand” by listening to these Round Experts!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

11-02-21

⚖️🗽🇺🇸👍🏼👩🏻‍⚖️ JUSTICE FOR KIDS IN COURT — ROUND TABLE ⚔️🛡 “WARRIOR QUEEN” 👸🏻 HON. SARAH BURR SPEAKS OUT FOR “FAIR DAY IN COURT FOR KIDS ACT OF 2021!” — “We cannot in good conscience allow any unaccompanied children to appear in immigration court alone.”

Hon. Sarah Burt — Hon. Sarah Burr
Retired U.S. Immigration Judge
Knightess of The Round Table
Photo Source: Immigrant Justice Corps website

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/578076-why-are-children-representing-themselves-in-immigration-court

From The Hill:

As a retired immigration judge, I have watched with concern reports of the surge of unaccompanied immigrant children crossing the border into the United States. There are many reasons for concern—their housing, their health, their safety. To me, there is an additional, very real, and often overlooked question looming on the horizon: What will happen when these children, even toddlers and babies, appear alone in immigration court?

Yes, alone. While a person in immigration proceedings is entitled to be represented by a lawyer if they can afford it, there is no constitutional or even statutory right to appointed counsel in immigration proceedings. That means those who cannot afford a lawyer must appear in court alone, including children.

While I am pleased to see the Biden administration plans to provide government-funded legal representation for certain immigrant children in eight U.S. cities, this new initiative is still a far cry from the universal representation needed to support children in removal proceedings.

Imagine, if you can, a child — 2 years old, 10 years old or 17 years old — appearing before an immigration judge alone. How does a child, already intimidated and confused by the courtroom setting, understand the nature of the court proceedings and the charges against them? How can a child understand the complexities of immigration law, their burden of proof, and possible defenses against deportation? The short answer is they cannot.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of the op-ed at the above link.

The “Fair Day For Kids in Court Act of 2021” is endorsed by the “Round Table” ⚔️🛡 among many other groups in the NDPA!

Here’s a summary (courtesy of Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” S. Chase):

Senator Mazie Hirono (of [Round Table “Fighting Knightess” Judge] Dayna Beamer’s home state of Hawaii) plans to introduce the attached bill on Thursday, that would provide counsel for unaccompanied children in Immigration Court by:

Clarifying the authority of the federal government to provide or appoint counsel to noncitizens in immigration proceedings;
Requiring the appointment or provision of legal counsel to all unaccompanied children in proceedings unless they obtained counsel independently;
Mandating access to counsel for all noncitizens in CBP and ICE facilities;
Requiring that, if the government fails to provide counsel to an unaccompanied child and orders that child removed, the filing of a motion to reopen proceedings will stay removal; and
Requiring government reporting on the provision of counsel to unaccompanied children.

Here’s the text of the bill, which will be introduced by Sen. Hirono later this week:

Fair Day Text FINAL

Thanks Sarah and Jeffrey! So pleased to be part of the “support group” for this long-overdue and badly needed legislation that would do what to date Congress, the Federal Courts, and DOJ have failed to do: Enforce the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment in Immigration Court!

And, of course, we should never forget the ongoing, daily work performed by NDPA Superhero 🦸🏻‍♂️ Wendy Young and Kids in Need of Defense (“KIND”) in ending the disgraceful blot on American justice of unrepresented kids in Immigration Court:

Dear Paul,

I met Maria* in immigration court. The judge sat in his robes behind the bench when he called her deportation case.

A trial attorney from the Department of Homeland Security sat at the front, prepared to argue for Maria’s removal from the U.S.. Maria was by herself without a lawyer by her side.

She was five years old.

She approached the bench, wearing her nicest clothes, clutching a doll. She sat behind the respondent’s desk, barely able to see over the microphone. The judge asked her a number of questions about why she was in the US and about her life here, none of which she could answer. Her eyes grew bigger and bigger as she sat silently, until he finally dismissed her and told her to come back at a later date. As she left the court, he asked her what the name of her doll was. In Spanish, she replied, “Baby Baby Doll.” That was the only question she could answer.

That moment haunts me. I continually wonder about the insanity of asking a five year old to stand alone and defend herself against deportation in a federal courtroom. It should never happen. Which is exactly why KIND has mobilized and trained a powerful group of pro bono attorneys to represent and work with children just like Maria who deserve legal representation in a U.S. immigration court.

This October, KIND is honoring the pro bono attorneys who have helped more than 27,000 children referred to KIND receive legal representation that often means the difference between relief and deportation and, by extension, a child’s safety or danger.

Will you make a tax-deductible donation now to support the children we work with in and out of the courtroom?

Here’s the direct impact your gift today can have for children like Maria:

$75 will support a child’s success and provide a backpack and basic school supplies for a child beginning school in the U.S.

$100 will give nourishment, and provide groceries and essentials to help keep children fed and healthy while they await the outcome of their legal case.

$250 will give a child a voice by helping pay for an interpreter so an indigenous child can tell their story in court.

$500 will allow us to make a life-saving connection and train attorney’s across the country to evaluate and work with refugee children in need of representation and critical social services.

$1500 will help us connect kids to mental health resources, including psychological evaluation and other mental health services for a child seeking asylum in the U.S..

$5000 will provide hope and safety to a vulnerable child by ensuring we have the resources we need to offer comprehensive legal representation and social service needs for however long it takes to win their case.

Paul, these are just a few ways we’ll put your gift to work, but know that your donation in ANY amount is critical to the number of children we can reach, and represent, through the amazing efforts of our pro bono attorney network.

These kids are scared, they are traumatized. They are intimidated. And without the services provided by organizations like KIND, they are all alone.

But that’s why we’re here – and that’s why I hope you’ll consider making a gift today to support this life-changing work. Your donation today will have a direct impact on the lives of refugee children who deserve to have someone in their court.

Thank you so much for your generosity today, and always.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

10-26-21

⚖️🗽⚔️🛡 — ROUND TABLE COMMENTS ON PROPOSED ASYLUM REGS RIP LIMITATIONS ON IJ REVIEW, UNFAIR RESTRICTIONS ON DE NOVO HEARINGS, AMONG OTHER THINGS!

KEY EXCERPT:

III.E. Limitation on Immigration Judge Review

We strongly oppose the proposal to severely restrict the right of those denied asylum by USCIS to a full de novo merits hearing before an Immigration Judge.Given these significant increases in efficiency mentioned above, the proposed restrictions are unnecessary to reduce the backlog.Regardless, even if EOIR and DHS disagree with this assessment, regulations may neither contradict the Congressional intent of statutes they seek to interpret, nor deny due process in the name of efficiency.Yet the proposed rule would violate both of these principles in the changes they propose to the Immigration Court procedures.

EOIR and DHS claim that the statutory language of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1), requiring “further consideration of the application for asylum” to those found to have a credible fear of persecution, is ambiguous.In fact, the legislative history of that statute demonstrates that Congress intended for all of those found to possess a credible fear of persecution to be afforded full Immigration Court hearings. At a 1996 hearing on the bill, Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY) assured that “[a] specially trained asylum officer will hear his or her case, and if the [noncitizen] is found to have a ‘credible fear of persecution,’ he or she will be provided a full—full—asylum hearing.”EOIR and DHS are asked to note Sen. Simpson’s repetition of the word “full.”

This same sentiment was echoed by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who stated that those who establish credible fear “get a full hearing without any question,” and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), who emphasized that those with a credible fear of persecution “can go through the normal process of establishing their claim.”The regulatory proposal is thus improperly violative of Congressional intent.

As to due process, in a 2013 decision, Oshodi v. Holder, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that limiting an asylum seeker’s testimony to events that were not duplicative of the written application, on the belief that the written record would suffice for deciding veracity, was a violation of the asylum seeker’s due process rights. Yet the proposed regulations seek to codify what according to Oshodi the Constitution specifically forbids.

The court in Oshodi stated that “the importance of live testimony to a credibility determination is well-recognized and longstanding.”Our own experience supports this conclusion.Immigration Judges have long decided cases that were first heard by Asylum Officers. The outcomes of those cases offer strong reason to question the logic of what is now being proposed. EOIR’s Statistical Yearbook for 2016 (the last year such stats were made available) shows that 83% of cases referred by asylum officers were granted asylum that year by Immigration Judges conducting de novo hearings.

Having heard as Immigration Judges many cases referred from the Asylum Office, we believe that the right to a full de novo court hearing, in which attorneys were free to offer documents and briefs, and to present testimony as they saw fit, was the reason for the large disparity in outcomes. The current system itself recognizes this; it is why asylum officers, who need not be attorneys, are limited to granting clearly meritorious cases, and must refer the rest to courts better equipped to delve into the intricacies of a highly complex field of law.

We can vouch from our experience on the bench to the importance of hearing live testimony in reaching the correct decision.We decided many cases in which in-person demeanor observations were instrumental to our credibility findings.Credibility is often a threshold issue in applications for asylum and related relief.In 2005, Congress specifically amended the criteria Immigration Judges may rely on in deciding credibility.While those criteria include their observations of the “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witness” (observations which cannot be made unless testimony is witnessed), there is no provision in the statute for reaching credibility findings by reviewing an asylum officer’s opinion on the topic.The court in Oshodi cited language in a House conference report on the REAL ID Act of 2005, containing the following quote: “An immigration judge alone is in a position to observe an alien’s tone and demeanor, to explore inconsistencies in testimony, and to apply workable and consistent standards in the evaluation of testimonial evidence. He [or she] is, by virtue of his [or her] acquired skill, uniquely qualified to decide whether an alien’s testimony has about it the ring of truth.”

We can also state from experience that critical “Eureka” moments arise unexpectedly in the course of hearing testimony. A question from counsel, or sometimes from the judge, will elicit an answer that unexpectedly gives rise to a new line of questioning, or even a legal theory of the case. An example is found in last year’s Second Circuit decision in Hernandez-Chacon v. Barr. In that case, the Second Circuit found that a woman’s act of resisting rape by an MS-13 gang member could constitute a political opinion based on one sentence not contained in the written application, and uttered for the first time at the immigration court hearing: when asked why she resisted, the petitioner responded: “Because I had every right to.” From that single sentence, the Second Circuit found that the resistance transcended mere self-protection and took on a political dimension.

Under the proposed rules, the attorney would likely never have been able to ask the question that elicited the critical answer. At asylum office interviews, attorneys are relegated to sitting in the corner and quietly taking notes.Some of us teach trial advocacy skills to immigration attorneys, where we emphasize the importance of attorneys formulating a theory of their case, and then presenting documentary evidence and testimony in a manner best designed to support that theory.During our time on the bench, we looked forward to hearing well-presented claims from competent counsel; good attorneys increased efficiency, and usually led us to reach better decisions.And as former asylum officers have indicated that the concept of imputed political opinion was not available to them as a basis for granting asylum, questioning in support of such theory will not be covered in an asylum office interview.

But under the proposed procedures, attorneys are largely relegated to passive observer status.At asylum office interviews, attorneys are only provided a brief opportunity to speak after the interview has been completed.And in cases referred to the Immigration Court, the new restrictions may prevent attorneys from presenting any testimony at all.

As to the criteria that must be met in order to supplement the record before the Immigration Judge, whether evidence is duplicative or necessary is a fuzzy concept. For example, the law accords greater deference to government sources, such as State Department reports, and at times, Immigration Judges may find other evidence deserving of “little evidentiary weight.” Thus, sometimes duplicative evidence is necessary to persuade a judge who may otherwise not be sufficiently swayed by a single report. But that need might not become apparent until the hearing is concluded, whereas decisions to exclude additional testimony and documentary evidence are made much earlier, at the outset of the proceeding.

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

Read our full commentary,, including some parts of the proposal we endorse, here:

Comments NPRM Credible Fear procedures 10-19-21

Many, many, many thanks to “Sir Jeffrey” Chase for collecting the “sentiments of the group” and preparing these cogent comments under extreme pressure!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

10-20-21

HON. JEFFREY CHASE: BIDEN ADMINISTRATION PROPOSES LESS DUE PROCESS THAN TRAFFIC COURT FOR LIFE OR DEATH ASYLUM CASES! 🤮👎

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2021/10/6/the-need-for-full-fledged-asylum-hearings

JEFFREY S. CHASE | OPINIONS/ANALYSIS ON IMMIGRATION LAW

Blog Archive Press and Interviews Calendar Contact

The Need For Full-Fledged Asylum Hearings

It has been said that Immigration Judges hear death penalty cases under traffic court conditions.1 The death penalty cases are of course asylum claims, which, if wrongly denied, can result in the applicant being returned to their death.

The Biden Administration recently published proposed regulations seeking to revise the system for hearing the asylum claims of those arriving at the southern border. Any positives envisioned in the proposal are greatly outweighed by the damage the rules will do to the right to immigration court review. If enacted as drafted, traffic court conditions would be far preferable to the meager access to review that would remain for many asylum seekers.

To provide some context: presently, arriving asylum seekers who after screening by USCIS asylum officers are found to have established a sufficient risk of harm proceed directly to Immigration Court, where they have a full hearing on their claim before an Immigration Judge. In those proceedings, asylum seekers may freely submit documents, call witnesses, and elicit testimony.

This was as Congress intended it. In creating the present credible fear screening system in 1996, Congress made clear that those passing the screening, in the words of then Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY), “will be provided a full – full – asylum hearing.”2 This sentiment was echoed by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who stated that those who establish credible fear “get a full hearing without any question,”3 and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), who emphasized that those with a credible fear of persecution “can go through the normal process of establishing their claim.”4

Under the proposal, those who pass the preliminary screening (known as a credible fear interview) will instead have their full asylum claim heard by an asylum officer. This could be a positive development if the rules continued to assure the right to a full court proceeding to those not granted at this initial stage.

Unfortunately, the proposed rules would reduce Immigration Judges to reviewers of transcripts of the asylum office interviews. Additional evidence (including testimony) that was not provided at the Asylum Office will only be allowed if deemed to be “non-duplicative” and necessary to complete the record. If an Immigration Judge determines that the applicant (who may not have been represented by a lawyer) provided sufficient evidence to the asylum officer, the claim may be decided entirely on the record from that initial non-court interview.

It bears noting that the Immigration Judges making these determinations remain subject to the completion quotas imposed under the prior administration. While Immigration Judges must be guided by the requirements of due process and fairness in making such decisions, it would be remiss not to point out that for newly hired judges still on probation, the ability to exclude new evidence and essentially rubber stamp the asylum officer’s decision offers the prospect of a very quick completion for quota purposes. Judges should not be put in the position of choosing between the dictates of justice and their own job security.

As the drafters of the proposed rules are well aware, Immigration Judges have long decided cases that were first heard by Asylum Officers. The outcomes of those cases offer strong reason to question the logic of what is now being proposed. EOIR’s Statistical Yearbook for 2016 (the last year such stats were made available) shows that 83% of cases referred by asylum officers were granted asylum that year by Immigration Judges conducting de novo hearings.5

Having heard referred cases as an Immigration Judge, as well as having represented asylum applicants at the Asylum Office, I have no doubt that the right to a full de novo court hearing, in which attorneys are free to offer documents, briefs, and present testimony as they see fit, is the reason for that large disparity. The current system itself recognizes this; it is why Asylum Officers are limited to granting clearly meritorious cases, and must refer the rest to courts better equipped to delve into the intricacies of a highly complex field of law. Immigration Judges also enjoy greater decisional independence than asylum officers, who require supervisory approval of their decisions,6 are more susceptible to political pressure, and are more limited in the legal theories they may rely on.

As to the criteria for supplementing the record, whether evidence is duplicative or necessary is a fuzzy concept. For example, the law accords greater deference to government sources, such as State Department reports, and at times, Immigration Judges may find other evidence deserving of “little evidentiary weight.” Thus, sometimes duplicative evidence is necessary to persuade a judge who may otherwise not be sufficiently swayed by a single report. But that need might not become apparent until the hearing is concluded, whereas decisions to exclude additional testimony and documentary evidence are made much earlier, at the outset of the proceeding.

There are constitutional considerations as well. In a 2013 decision, Oshodi v. Holder, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that limiting an asylum seeker’s testimony to events that were not duplicative of the written application, on the belief that the written record would suffice for deciding veracity, was a violation of the asylum seeker’s due process rights. Yet the proposed regulations seek to codify what according to Oshodi the Constitution specifically forbids. The court in Oshodi stated that “the importance of live testimony to a credibility determination is well-recognized and longstanding.” Having heard live testimony as a judge, I can vouch for this. I decided many cases in which an in person demeanor observation was instrumental to my credibility finding.

I will also state from experience that critical “Eureka” moments arise unexpectedly in the course of hearing testimony. A question from counsel, or sometimes from the judge, will elicit an answer that unexpectedly gives rise to a new line of questioning, or even a legal theory of the case. An example is found in last year’s Second Circuit decision in Hernandez-Chacon v. Barr. In that case, the Second Circuit found that a woman’s act of resisting rape by an MS-13 gang member could constitute a political opinion based on one sentence not contained in the written application, and uttered for the first time at the immigration court hearing: when asked why she resisted, the petitioner responded: “Because I had every right to.” From that single sentence, the Second Circuit found that the resistance transcended mere self-protection and took on a political dimension. Under the proposed rules, the attorney would likely never have been able to ask the question that elicited the critical answer. At asylum office interviews, attorneys are relegated to sitting in the corner and quietly taking notes. Furthermore, I have been told by former asylum officers that the concept of imputed political opinion was not available to them as a basis for granting asylum, a fact that pretty much guarantees it will not be covered in an asylum office interview.

The proposed limitations on Immigration Judge review are not necessary to increase efficiency. Whatever cases asylum officers grant pursuant to their new up front review will significantly reduce the Immigration Court case load. And even an imperfect transcript from those interviews in claims referred to the court will provide attorneys for both sides the opportunity for advance conferencing to narrow down the issues in dispute, a practice which significantly reduces hearing times and which should be greatly encouraged.

According to the website of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, at a traffic court hearing, “you or your attorney may ask the officer questions. You may testify, bring witnesses or present evidence on your behalf.”7 The Biden Administration cannot provide less rights than these to those facing the life and death consequences inherent in asylum claims.

Those interested may submit their comments on the new regs by October 19.

Copyright 2021 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

Notes:

See, e.g., Dana Leigh Marks, “Immigration Judge: Death Penalty Cases in a Traffic Court Setting,” CNN, June 26, 2014, https://www.cnn.com/2014/06/26/opinion/immigration-judge-broken-system/index.html

104 Cong. Rec. S4457, S4461, https://www.congress.gov/104/crec/1996/05/01/CREC-1996-05-01-pt1-PgS4457.pdf.

Id. at 4492.

104 Cong. Rec. S4592, S4608, https://www.congress.gov/104/crec/1996/05/02/CREC-1996-05-02-pt1-PgS4592.pdf.

See EOIR FY 2016 Statistics Yearbook, https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/fysb16/download, at p. K-3. Figure 17 is a chart showing the Immigration Court grant rate of affirmative cases referred by the USCIS Asylum Offices. The chart shows a grant rate of 72% in FY 2012, steadily increasing each year to 83% in FY 2016.

Per the USCIS website: A supervisory asylum officer reviews the asylum officer’s decision to ensure it is consistent with the law. Depending on the case, the supervisory asylum officer may refer the decision to asylum division staff at USCIS headquarters for additional review. https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-and-asylum/asylum/the-affirmative-asylum-process. Immigration Judges require no supervisory review before rendering their decisions.

OCTOBER 6, 2021

NEXT

Linda Kenepaske

ARCHIVE

Blog | Archive | Press and Interviews | Calendar | Contact

Sign up with your email address to receive news and updates.

SIGN UP

We respect your privacy.

<img src=”https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/593d84191e5b6ca18cb547ee/1576527959952-C9MO449EII0SH3V1X9M7/Screen+Shot+2019-12-16+at+3.24.24+PM.png” alt=”Screen Shot 2019-12-16 at 3.24.24 PM.png” />

Jeffrey S. Chase is an immigration lawyer in New York City. Jeffrey is a former Immigration Judge and Senior Legal Advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals.He is the founder of the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, which was awarded AILA’s 2019 Advocacy Award.Jeffrey is also a past recipient of AILA’s Pro Bono Award.He sits on the Board of Directors of the Association of Deportation Defense Attorneys, and Central American Legal Assistance.

REPUBLISHED BY PERMISSION

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

Thanks, “Sir Jeffrey!”

Like many of our colleagues, I granted the majority of “referred” asylum cases, most without ICE appeal. It wasn’t that the Asylum Office did a bad job. The records were often poor or incomplete (as too many individuals attempted to represent themselves at the AO). With the additional information and elucidation from counsel provided at a full hearing, the merits of the case came into focus.

There were a few cases where the parties stipulated to the record before the AO, and just asked me for a legal ruling. This procedure would be available in appropriate cases, without any regulations changes, and should be encouraged for the parties, particularly ICE. Obviously, the key is that both parties must agree that the record before the AO was adequate.

Additionally, at the time, the AO could not grant withholding or CAT, so an inordinate number of one-year filling denial cases were in the referrals. As Jeffrey suggests, this could be fixed without eliminating the right to a full hearing upon referral.

Also, as I have said many times, instituting a new system that reduces the right to a full hearing, without first making badly needed major structural, personnel, training, and leadership changes at both the AO and EOIR is simply insane and another serious breach of trust by the Biden Administration!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

10-07-21

⚖️GARLAND’S BIA IMMEDIATELY “STUFFED” BY AMERICA’S MOST CONSERVATIVE CIRCUIT ON BOGUS ANTI-IMMIGRANT PRECEDENT! — Last Thursday, The BIA “Dissed” The Supremes Again In Arambula-Bravo — Yesterday, The Fifth Circuit Said “Not So Fast” In Rodriguez v. Garland! — Piecemeal Notice Cannot Be Basis For In Absentia Order!

Kangaroos — “Supremes? What Supremes? We work for Judge Garland @ DOJ, and he’s very, very tolerant of our anti-immigrant, pro-DHS ‘culture,’ and institutionalized poor decision-making over here at ‘his EOIR!’ Our jobs are safe, and that’s all that matters! To hell with ‘the others!’ ‘Jeffie Gonzo’ and ‘Billy the Bigot’ told us to treat migrants like the ‘trespassers’ and ‘scum of the earth’ they really are! It’s not like OUR families were ever migrants!”
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/
Creative Commons License

Rodriguez v.Garland, 5th Cir., 09-27-21, published

RODRIGUEZ V GARLAND, 5TH ON NIZ

PANEL: Higginbotham, Willett, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

OPINION: Judge Patrick Higginbotham

KEY QUOTE:

The initial NTA did not contain the time and date of Rodriguez’s hearing. The BIA found that the NTA combined with the subsequent NOH containing the time and place of Rodriguez’s hearing “satisfied the written notice requirements of [8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)],” directly contrary to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of § 1229(a) in Niz-Chavez which made clear that subsequent notices may not cure defects in an initial notice to appear. The BIA applied a “legally erroneous interpretation[].”23

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

Judge Higginbotham was appointed by President Ronald Reagan. Even conservative Article III Judges aren’t as anxious to snub the Supremes as the BIA.

After all, the BIA works for the Attorney General, not the Supremes. So, who cares whether their decisions comply with the rulings of the Article III Courts, so long as their political “handlers” at the DOJ are pleased with the pro-DHS outcome! That’s what happens when a “captive court” is encouraged to view itself as an extension of their “partners” at DHS enforcement, carrying out the political agenda of their DOJ superiors who control their paychecks and their career destiny!

Wow! It took fewer than three business days for Garland’s latest venture into obtuse anti-immigrant decision-making at the BIA, Matter of Arambula-Bravo, to hit a brick wall! In the 5th Circuit, no less! Back in the “old days” of the “Legacy INS,” it was a very bad sign when we couldn’t “sell” a position to the 5th Circuit!

“Courtside” saw this coming a mile away! https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/09/25/bia-going-for-trifecta-already-rebuked-twice-by-supremes-for-ignoring-statutory-definition-of-notice-to-appear-bia-chooses-to-snub-high-court-again/

Have to wonder if Judge Garland would have been so sanguine with the dissing of the Supremes by the BIA if he had actually become “Justice Garland?”

As my esteemed colleague Judge “Sir Jeffrey” Chase noted, the position adopted by the 5th Circuit in Rodriguez:

is the same argument we [the “Round Table”] made in our recent amicus brief to the Board – in a published decision, the 5th Cir. granted a PFR and vacated the Board’s decision denying a motion to rescind an in absentia order where there was no proper service due to a defective NTA under Niz-Chavez.

By failing to replace the BIA with better qualified progressive expert judges who will issue correct precedents (even when they might benefit immigrants) and require “best practices” in the now-totally-dysfunctional Immigration Courts, Garland is further building backlog by generating thousands of unnecessary remands and reopenings. How long will it take him to reach the 2 million case mark?

“Bogus dedicated dockets,” gross misuse of the discredited “Title 42” rationale to deny due process, increased use of “expedited removal,” proposals to “rubber stamp” asylum and credible fear denials, badly skewed pro-enforcement interpretations that throw the fate of hundreds of thousands of cases into the Circuits and the Supremes aren’t going to solve the problem!

Never underestimate the adverse effects of bad judging, particularly in a high volume system where incorrect precedents result in wrong decisions in hundreds of cases every day! Conversely, you can’t overestimate the positive potential of progressive expert judges who would get the results correct at the “retail level;” force some badly needed quality control, discipline, and consistency at both EOIR and DHS; and solve problems rather than creating them!

Sadly, Garland doesn’t “get it!” And that will be a continuing unmitigated disaster for our democracy and our justice system! Such a lost opportunity!

Has Alfred E. Neumann been “reborn” as Judge Merrick B. Garland? “Not my friends, relatives, or attorney buddies whose lives are being destroyed by my ‘Kangaroo Courts.’ Just ‘the others’ and their ‘scuzzy, unimportant immigration lawyers,’ so who cares, why worry about professionalism, ethics, and due process in Immigration Court?”
PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

09-28-21

BIA GOING FOR “TRIFECTA?” — Already Rebuked Twice By Supremes For Ignoring Statutory Definition Of “Notice To Appear,” BIA Chooses To Snub High Court Again — Matter of Arambula-Bravo

Obviously, THESE are the practical scholar/immigration experts who belong on the BIA:

Kit Johnson
Associate Professor of Law
University of Oklahoma Law School

Professor Geoffrey Hoffman
Immigraton Clinic Director
University of Houston Law Center

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2021/09/bia-distinguishes-niz-chavez-pereira-find-no-jx-problem-with-nta-lacking-timedate.html

Professor Kit Johnson reports for ImmigrationProf blog:

Thursday, September 23, 2021

BIA Distinguishes Niz-Chavez, Pereira, Finds No Jx Problem With NTA Lacking Time/Date

By Immigration Prof

Share

The Board of Immigration Appeals has issued a decision in Matter of Arambula-Bravo, 28 I&N Dec. 388 (BIA 2021). Here is the summary:

(1) A Notice to Appear that does not specify the time and place of a respondent’s initial removal hearing does not deprive the Immigration Judge of jurisdiction over the respondent’s removal proceedings. Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), and Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021), distinguished; Matter of Bermudez-Cota, 27 I&N Dec. 441 (BIA 2018), and Matter of Rosales Vargas and Rosales Rosales, 27 I&N Dec. 745 (BIA 2020), followed.

(2) A Notice to Appear that lacks the time and place of a respondent’s initial removal hearing constitutes a “charging document” as defined in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.13 (2021), and is sufficient to terminate a noncitizen’s grant of parole under 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(e)(2)(i) (2021).

In my 2018 article, Pereira v. Sessions: A Jurisdictional Surprise for Immigration Courts, I reached the exact opposite conclusion.

I am hardly the only one to argue that such an NTA should deprive the court of jurisdiction. Immprof Geoffrey Hoffman (Houston), frequent contributor to this blog, submitted an amicus brief to the BIA on this case arguing that an NTA without time or place information is “defective” under Niz-Chavez and cannot be cured by the later issuance of a Notice of Hearing.

Now the waiting game for SCOTUS intervention begins again. I’m hoping for another scathing opinion by Justice Gorsuch. His Niz-Chavez decision was fire.

-KitJ

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

INA section 239(a) defines a Notice to Appear, the document used to initiate a removal proceeding in Immigration Court, as including, among other statutory requirements: “G)(i) The time and place at which the proceedings will be held.” Could not be clearer!

The requirements of section 239(a) are hardly onerous. Indeed, several decades ago, the Government had developed an “interactive scheduling system” that allowed DHS to specify the exact time, place, and date of a respondent’s initial Master Calendar hearing in Immigration Court.

However, rather than expanding and improving that system, DHS and EOIR decided to cut corners to accommodate the “uber enforcement” agendas pushed by Administrations of both parties over the past two decades. Their “haste makes waste, good enough for Government work approach” led them to ignore the requirements for a proper NTA and instead issue “piecemeal notices.”

This, of course, increased the unnecessary workload for already-stressed, overwhelmed EOIR Immigration Court clerks, resulted in many more defective notices, more unnecessary bogus “failures to appear,” more improper “in absentia removal orders,” more Motions to Reopen those wrongfully issued orders, and more appeals from improper failures to grant such motions. It also sent more of these preliminary matters into the Circuit Courts for judicial review.

Basically, it’s a microcosm of how an unconstitutional, non-independent “wholly owned court system” “pretzels itself” to accommodate DHS enforcement, misconstrues the law, and attempts to legitimize “worst practices” to please its political overlords, thereby creating endless and largely avoidable case backlogs — now at an astounding 1.4 million cases!

Even worse, when the backlogs finally capture public attention and “hit the fan,” EOIR, DHS, and DOJ disingenuously attempt to shift the blame and the consequences for their failures onto the VICTIMS: respondents and their long-suffering, often pro bono, attorneys! The incompetents at EOIR then cut even more corners and issue more bad precedents misconstruing the law in an attempt to cover up their own wrongdoing and that of their political masters. The latter’s understanding of how to run an efficient, due-process oriented, fair and impartial court system could be put in a thimble with space left over!

The vicious cycle of unfairness, injustice, and incompetence at EOIR continues endlessly, toward oblivion.

As Kit cogently points out, better interpretations, ones that complied with the statute and could be tailored to achieve practical solutions were available and actually submitted to the BIA. The BIA, as usual, brushed them off in favor of trying to please DHS and avoid both the statutory language and the Supremes’ clear direction.

So, something that a properly comprised BIA, composed of true progressive immigration experts and practical scholars, could have solved in a legal and practical manner, will undoubtedly head to the Supremes for a third time. We might not know the result for years, during which the BIA’s bad interpretation will generate additional potential backlog as well as unjust removals.

So, our Round Table ⚔️🛡can start perfecting our Arambula-Bravo amicus briefs now!

It’s time for a change at EOIR!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

09-25-21

⚖️🗽🇺🇸👍🏼FOLLOWING A HIDEOUS 0-27 START, GARLAND HITS A HOME RUN! ⚾️ AMAZING PRACTICAL SCHOLAR & NDPA SUPERSTAR ANDREA SAENZ TO BE BIA APPELLATE IMMIGRATION JUDGE — Hopefully, The First Of Many Progressive Judicial Appointments To Come, As Experts Cheer Infusion Of Human Rights Expertise, Lifelong Commitment To Due Process, & Actual Experience Representing Immigrants Into Now Dysfunctional Judiciary!

Here’s Andrea’s bio:

Andrea Sáenz

Andrea Sáenz [was] Attorney-in-Charge of the New York Immigrant Family Unity Project (NYIFUP) at Brooklyn Defender Services. NYIFUP is New York’s first-in-the-nation immigration public defender program representing detained immigrants facing removal. Prior to joining BDS in 2016, Andrea was a Clinical Teaching Fellow in the Immigration Justice Clinic at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, teaching, litigating, and working on the advocacy that grew NYIFUP at the city and state levels. Andrea has previously worked as an Immigration Staff Attorney at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, a judicial law clerk at the Varick Street Immigration Court in Manhattan, an Equal Justice Works Fellow at the Political Asylum/Immigration Representation (PAIR) Project in Boston, and a high school ESL teacher. She teaches and trains widely on criminal immigration, detention, and litigation issues. Andrea graduated from Harvard Law School cum laude in 2008 and received her B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles in 2002.

KEY QUOTE:

Andrea Sàenz, Attorney-in-Charge of the New York Immigrant Family Unity Project (NYIFUP) at Brooklyn Defender Services

“Our platform calls for universal representation of immigrants facing deportation, because when the stakes are often literally life, death, or permanent family separation, no one should be deported simply because they couldn’t afford an attorney. We need to change, shrink, and defund the deportation system and reinvest in our communities. ICE enforcement, detention and other cruel immigration policies tear apart families, and we urge the Biden administration and the new Democratic majority congress to listen to our neighbors’ voices.”

https://bds.org/?s=Andrea+Saenz

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

Congratulations, Andrea! As one of my esteemed Round Table colleagues said: “Incredibly great news. I couldn’t think of anybody better and more deserving!” Nor can I!

This is great news for American Justice and for the NDPA. It’s even better news for the long suffering victims of perverted justice at EOIR and their courageous attorneys, like members of the NDPA, who have fought in the trenches for due process, human rights, and human dignity against an intentionally rigged and gamed system designed to deny all three of the foregoing. Andrea also has “EOIR creds,” having been a JLC at the Varick Street Immigration Court.

Finally, someone who has witnessed the waste, unfairness, illegality, and human carnage of failed policies enabled by EOIR’s feckless, tone deaf, careless, and complicit performance of their life-determining quasi-judicial duties. This breaks the scandalous two-decade plus exclusion of the “best and brightest” progressive expert judges from the BIA, the nation’s highest immigration and human rights tribunal, that has helped reduce due process and justice for women and people of color before EOIR to a “sick joke!”

I know that’s it’s impossible for any one person, no matter how brilliant, hard-working, and dedicated, to change the anti-asylum, anti-due process, anti-gender-fairness “culture” encouraged @ EOIR by the past Administration and, to date, not effectively repudiated by Garland. But, it is important that the voice of reason, practicality, due process, fundamental fairness, and humanity once again be heard at EOIR!

We all hope and trust that others will follow in your footsteps, Andrea, and eventually form the “new majority” of a much, much better Immigration Judiciary: That the properly generous, sensible, and humane view of asylum law established in Cardoza-Fonseca and Mogharrabi will again become the guiding lights of immigration jurisprudence rather than being parroted (but not followed), mocked, and dishonored by those whose job it is to protect individual Constitutional, legal, and human rights from Government overreach: That “through teamwork and innovation becoming the world’s best tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all” once again becomes the vision of our Immigration Courts at all levels!

Speaking in behalf of the NFPA, we all appreciate the dedication, hard work, consistent excellence, and intellectual and moral courage it took for Andrea to put herself forward and be a pioneer for the better Immigration Judiciary of our future! On behalf of a grateful NDPA and an appreciative Round Table, thanks, congratulations again, and may the forces of due process guide you and be with you forever!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

09-24-21

⚔️🛡⚖️🗽👨🏻‍⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️🇺🇸 ROUND TABLE AGAIN STEPS UP @ SUPREMES — Patel v. Garland: Issue = Judicial Review Of EOIR’s Non-Discretionary Decisions!

Here’s our amicus brief drafted by the pro bono “All-Star Team” of Richard W. Mark, Amer S. Ahmed, & Chris Jones @ Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, NY:

1419000-1419434-20210907134938198_patel amicus brief

Our effort was featured in an article by Jennifer Doherty at Law360 for those with Law360 access.

More coverage here from Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/supreme-court-amicus-briefs-filed-in-patel-v-garland

“Due Process Forever!” Hmmm, where have I herd THAT before? Thanks, Dan, for all you do for the NDPA!

The American Immigration Council, the National Immigration Alliance, and the Law Professors, all representing a number of other organizations, also filed in behalf of the “good guys, truth, justice, and the American way,” in this case. The respondents are expertly represented by my friend and legendary immigration advocate Ira J. Kurzban, Esquire, of Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt PA.

Ira Kurzban ESQUIRE
Legendary American Immigration Lawyer

One could not imagine a group MORE in need of thorough, critical, independent Article III judicial review of its decisions than today’s dysfunctional EOIR! There, potentially fatal errors have been “institutionalized” and even “normalized” as just another “unavoidable” consequence of the anti-immigrant, “haste makes waste,” “culture” that constantly places churning out removal orders above due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices!

Ironically, doubling the number of Immigration Judges, eliminating expertise as the main qualification in judicial selections, and forcing yet more “gimmicks” down their throats has actually nearly tripled the case backlog to an astounding 1.4 million cases, without producing any quantifiable benefit for anyone!

Obviously, it’s high time for Garland to “reinvent” EOIR with progressive experts, many with private sector Immigration Court experience, as judges and leaders at both the appellate and the trial level! Who knows what wonders might result from an emphasis on quality, humanity, and getting decisions correct in the first instance? Progressives are used to creatively solving difficult problems without stepping on anyone’s rights or diminishing anyone’s humanity! Those skills are in disturbingly short supply at today’s failed and failing EOIR! And, they aren’t exactly DOJ’s “long suit,” either.

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

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

09-08-21

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🛡⚔️ ROUND TABLE HERO 🥇JUDGE PHAN QUANG TUE @ WASHPOST ON BEING A REFUGEE IN AMERICA: “But now is when the American people can step in and provide the Afghan refugees a haven whereby they can join ‘we the people’ to ‘form a more perfect Union’ for themselves, their children and their grandchildren.’”

Honorable Phan Quang Tue — Honorable Phan Quan Tue
Retired U.S. Immigration Judge
Member, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/08/24/phan-quang-tue-vietnam-refugees-united-states-afghanistan/

Opinion by Phan Quang Tue

August 24 at 8:16 AM ET

Phan Quang Tue is a retired San Francisco Immigration Court judge.

As I sit down to start writing this piece, the chaotic scenes of group panic at the Kabul airport in Afghanistan continue to unfold. They bring back memories of similar painful images at the Tan Son Nhat airport in Saigon 46 years ago.

Our family of four, including my pregnant wife and our two small children, then 4 and 8 years old, were sitting on the floor of a C-130 about to take off. The aircraft was crowded but strangely quiet. Everyone stared down and avoided eye contact. It was a moment of collective humiliation, to have to leave one’s country under these circumstances. The irony was that we knew we were being saved by the very same foreign government that did not stand behind its commitment to its allies in South Vietnam. We did not know where exactly we were heading, or what to expect in the days and months ahead of us. It was a moment of total uncertainty.

Although 46 years apart, the parallels between the events in Saigon and Kabul are striking. Once again, we see scenes of a capital in agony, with everyone taking to the streets with no clear direction. We remember images of people climbing over the walls of the U.S. Embassy in Saigon; now in Kabul, it’s people climbing over barriers at Hamid Karzai International Airport or chasing military airplanes on the tarmac. But the similarities do not stop there.

The Americans are withdrawing their troops after 20 years in Afghanistan. That is almost the same as the 21 years between the beginning of U.S. political involvement in Vietnam starting with the 1954 Geneva agreements and the Communist takeover of Saigon on April 30, 1975. And there is more. As in Vietnam, the Americans in Afghanistan treated their opponents with more respect than their allies. Though their opponents have easily identified names — the Vietcong and then the Taliban — they minimized their own allies as temporary “regimes” based in Saigon or Afghanistan.

The Vietnamese refugees who arrived in the United States starting in April 1975 were not always made welcome, as the winners of a popular war might have been. Even the veterans — American and Vietnamese alike — were not warmly received everywhere, despite the service they had given to their countries. This country does not like to lose and does not know how to lose. Afghan refugees should not expect to be welcomed with parades like the gold medalists returning from the Tokyo Olympics.

. . . .

The United States did not win the war against the Taliban. But now is when the American people can step in and provide the Afghan refugees a haven whereby they can join “we the people” to “form a more perfect Union” for themselves, their children and their grandchildren.

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

Read the rest of the op-ed at the above link.

Thanks, my friend and colleague, for sharing, for all you have done for America, and for your continuing important contributions. It’s an honor to know you and to be working with you on our Round Table!🛡⚔️

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-290-21

⚔️🛡ROUND TABLE FILES LATEST AMICUS ON NIZ-CHAVEZ ISSUE @ BIA!

Here’s the full brief, drafted by our fearless leader “Sir Jeffrey” Chase:

BIA Niz-Chavez Amicus18078 Final

HERE’S A “KEY QUOTE” FROM THE CONCLUSION:

For the reasons provided above, in absentia orders involving proceedings commenced through a defective NTA are rendered invalid by Niz-Chavez. This is true whether the Board ultimately determines that the decision impacts the Immigration Courts’ jurisdiction, or is in the alternative a claim-processing rule.

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

Thanks so much, “Sir Jeffrey,” my friend and colleague!

Unfortunately, the recent practice of the BIA has been to construe Supreme Court decisions favoring respondents narrowly against them in Immigration Court. Thus, the BIA has needlessly protracted litigation, produced conflicting results, and lessened justice, all while dramatically increasing backlogs. We’ll see whether that practice, apparently designed to appease and please DHS Enforcement and litigators at the DOJ, holds true here.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-11-21

⚖️🗽”SIR JEFFREY” CHASE & I QUOTED BY LAW360’S JENNIFER DOHERTY ON MATTER OF A-C-A-A-

Excerpts from Jennifer’s article:

. . . .

Garland’s latest vacatur was well-received by Jeffrey S. Chase and Paul W. Schmidt, who were among 40 retired immigration judges to sign a letter last spring urging Garland to undo all 17 BIA decisions issued by his Trump-appointed predecessors.

“Prohibiting an appellate body from accepting party stipulations below or honoring concessions on appeal is simply insane. Why would any party stipulate to an issue if it will simply be ignored on appeal?” Judge Schmidt said in a statement to Law360, calling such agreements “a really important part of encouraging efficiency in litigation and reducing backlog.”

According to Judge Chase, Monday’s order “will again allow valuable court time to be spent focusing only on issues actually in dispute between the parties, a practice that could save hours of hearing time on a single case.”

“And limiting the scope of administrative review to the issues actually raised on appeal by the parties eliminates the need to sacrifice fairness in order to achieve that increased efficiency,” he continued.

. . . .

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

Those with Law360 access can read Jennifer’s full article, entitled “Garland Deals 4th Blow To Trump Policy In Asylum Order.” https://www.law360.com/articles/1406716/garland-deals-4th-blow-to-trump-policy-in-asylum-order

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-28-21

🏴‍☠️SUPREMES’ GOP MAJ. SLAMS GULAG DOOR SHUT ON REFUGEES IN “WITHHOLDING ONLY PROCEEDINGS” 👎🏽 — “NO BOND HEARINGS FOR YOU, ALIENS!” — Johnson v. Guzmán Chavez (6-3) — Oh, To Be A “Pipeline Builder” Endowed With Legal & Human Rights That Even Elite GOP Supremes Will Recognize!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-deported-immigrants-penneast-pipeline/2021/06/29/3e83164e-d8dc-11eb-8fb8-aea56b785b00_story.html

This WashPost headline and Post Supreme Court reporter Robert Barnes’s summary say it all!

Supreme Court rules against immigrants claiming safety fears after deportation and for pipeline builders

By Robert Barnes

June 29 at 5:22 PM ET

. . . .

In the immigration case, the court was considering the rights of a relatively small subset of immigrants: those who were deported once before but reentered the United States illegally because they say they faced threats at home.

At issue was a complex federal law that authorizes the government to detain immigrants and which section of it applies to these types of cases.

One piece of the law says, “the alien may receive a bond hearing before an immigration judge” and thus the chance to be free while proceedings continue, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the majority. In the other, the immigrant is considered “removed,” and indefinite detention is warranted.

Alito and his fellow conservative justices said it was the second that applied, and the detainees do not get a bond hearing. The court’s three liberals objected.

The case involved people who an immigration officer found had credible fears of danger or persecution in their home countries. For instance, Rodriguez Zometa said he was threatened with death by the 18th Street Gang when he was removed to his home country of El Salvador.

The question of whether the government could hold the immigrants without a hearing before an immigration judge had divided courts around the country. The case was argued before President Biden took office, and lawyers for the Trump administration told the court immigrants were not entitled to a hearing.

Alito said Congress had good reason to be more restrictive with those who came back into the country after being deported. “Aliens who reentered the country illegally after removal have demonstrated a willingness to violate the terms of a removal order, and they therefore may be less likely to comply with the reinstated order” that they leave, he said.

He was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

The court’s liberals, Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, saw it differently and would have affirmed the victory the plaintiffs won at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond.

“Why would Congress want to deny a bond hearing to individuals who reasonably fear persecution or torture, and who, as a result, face proceedings that may last for many months or years?” Breyer wrote. “I can find no satisfactory answer to this question.”

The case is Johnson v. Guzman Chavez.

. . . .

Here’s the “full text” of the decision:

19-897_c07d

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

Nice summary, Robert! You can read the rest of Barnes’s report at the link. Indeed, Justice Breyer’s cogent question quoted in the article remains unanswered by the wooden legal gobbledygook in the majority decision, devoid of much understanding of how the dysfunctional Immigration Courts and the DHS “New American Gulag” actually operate and dismissive of what it actually means to be a refugee seeking to exercise legal rights in today’s world.

At issue: The right of non-criminal foreign nationals who have established a “reasonable fear” of persecution or torture if deported to apply for bond pending Immigration Court hearings on the merits of their cases. Getting a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge does not in any way guarantee release; just that the decision to detain or release on bond will be based on the individual facts and circumstances. Individuals released from detention have a much better chance of obtaining counsel and gathering the documentation necessary to win their cases. They are also much less likely to be “coerced” by DHS detention into surrendering viable claims and appeal rights.

Majority’s response: These “aliens” have neither rights nor humanity that any life-tenured GOP-appointed judge is bound to respect.

Alternative: There is a readily available alternative statutory interpretation, adopted by the 4th Circuit and the dissent, that would recognize the human and legal rights of vulnerable refugees seeking legal protection and give them hearings on continuing custody in substandard conditions (in some instances, conditions in the “DHS New American Gulag” fall well below those that would be imposed on convicted felons).

You can’t win ‘em all: The Round Table was one of many organizations filing an amicus brief on behalf of the refugees and in support of the position adopted by the 4th Circuit and the dissent. While we were unsuccessful on this one, at least we are on the “right side of history.”

Creative suggestion: Detainees should incorporate, perhaps as a pipeline company, or better yet a gun rights’ group, so that they would have legal rights and be treated as “persons” (e.g., “humans”) by the Supremes’ GOP majority.

Next steps:

Advocates should prevail on the Biden Administration to change the regulations to give this limited subclass of applicants for protection a chance to seek bond before an Immigration Judge;
Advocates should keep up the pressure on the Biden Administration and Garland to appoint better judges at EOIR: progressive practical experts, who know how to grant legal protection efficiently and fairly and who will establish appropriate legal precedents to help these cases move through the EOIR system on the merits in a timely and fundamentally fair manner consistent with due process. The length of time it takes “Withholding Only” cases to move through the Immigration Courts has lots to do with: unfair, coercive detention practices by DHS; poor judging and bad precedents at EOIR; incompetent “judicial administration” and politicized “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” @ EOIR by DOJ politicos and their EOIR “retainers.”

Long term solution:

Support and vote for progressive legislators who will revise the immigration laws to do away with the unnecessary and wasteful “New American Gulag;”
Vote progressive candidates for President and the Senate: political officials committed to putting better Federal Judges on the bench at all levels — “practical scholars” with real experience representing the most vulnerable in society and who will tirelessly enforce due process, equal protection, human rights, and fundamental fairness for all persons regardless of race, religion, or status; judges who understand and will seriously reflect on the “real life” human consequences of their decisions. Better judges for a better America!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-30-21

🛡⚔️BREAKING: ROUND TABLE, ALLIES OUT-JOUST GARLAND’S BIA YET AGAIN! — This Time It’s A Smashing El Salvadoran Asylum Victory @ The En Banc 4th Cir. — Portillo-Flores v. Garland (9-6)

Here it is, opinion by Judge Stephanie Thacker:

Portillo-Flores-4th-ElSal-EnBancThe concurring opinion by Judge James Wynn says:

Generally, when the Board of Immigration Appeals errs, “the proper course . . . is

to remand to the agency for additional investigation or explanation.” Alvarez Lagos v. Barr, 927 F.3d 236, 249 (4th Cir. 2019) (quoting INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16 (2002) (per curiam)). “But that is not an invariable rule.” Id. If the record evidence, considered as a whole, “would compel ‘any reasonable adjudicator’ to reach the opposite conclusion, then a remand is unnecessary, and [this Court] will reverse the Board’s finding.” Id. (quoting Cruz v. Sessions, 853 F.3d 122, 130 (4th Cir. 2017)).

II.
Here, as the majority opinion holds, the immigration judge and the Board of

Immigration Appeals erred by applying the wrong legal standards, arbitrarily disregarding relevant evidence, and failing to explain their decisions adequately. See Maj. Op. at 3, 12– 13, 16–18, 20–21, 25–26, 27–33. And based on such errors, the majority vacates the agency’s determination as to each prong of the asylum analysis—persecution, nexus to a protected ground, and government control—and remands for reconsideration. See id. at 3, 18, 21, 27–33. But when all relevant evidence in the record is properly considered under

the correct legal standards, any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude 35

that Petitioner suffered past persecution as a child and that his membership in his nuclear family was at least one central reason for that persecution.

. . . .

I conclude by adding that Petitioner has been seeking protection in the United States for more than five years. We should not prolong his quest any more than necessary.

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

Hats off to everyone involved in this!

Particular kudos to Judge Stephanie Thacker who wrote the majority and whose vigorous dissent from the wrong-headed panel decision undoubtedly helped secure en banc review. She stuck to her guns!

Judge Stephanie D. Thacker — Honorable Stephanie D. Thacker
U.S. Circuit Judge
Fourth Circuit
Photo From Ballotpedia

Also, much appreciation to Judge James Wynn for his separate opinion 1) calling out the” poppycock” in the dissent; and 2) drawing attention to the highly improper and recurring problem with EOIR keeping deserving asylum seekers dangling for many years while they think of bogus reasons to deny asylum to please their “enforcement masters” at DOJ and DHS. This is neither due process nor justice! No wonder the backlogs are sky high!

Honl. James Wynn — Hon. James Wynn
U.S. Circuit Judge
Fourth Circuit
PHOTO: Wikipedia

As my esteemed Round Table colleague Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase said:

“It’s remarkable how much good law is packed into this one decision.”

The corollary to that is: “It’s remarkable how much bad law and poor judicial performance is packed into EOIR’s bungling of these life or death cases which deserve and require both expert judges and fair, timely adjudication in accordance with asylum law and due process.”

When are Garland, Monaco, Gupta, and Clarke finally going to pull the plug on “Club Denial” at the BIA and bring in some real judges who will respect individuals’ civil, constitutional, and human rights, and start setting forth much better precedents that incorporate the wise teachings of folks such as Judge Thacker and Judge Wynn? The latter two jurists certainly appear to understand the Immigration Court system and its many (potentially fixable, but not the way Garland is going about it) flaws and shortcomings much better than anyone in EOIR HQ or on Garland’s staff.

The ongoing travesty of justice @ EOIR and the lives threatened thereby continue to be a national disgrace on Garland’s watch!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-29-21

HISTORY: YOUNGER THEN THAN NOW! — “Sir Jeffrey” Chase & Me @ The International Association of Refugee Law Judges’ Seminar in Nijmegen, The Netherlands, 1997

“Sir Jeffrey and Me — “Sir Jeffrey & Me
Nijmegen, The Netherlands 1997
PHOTO: Susan Chase

Well, we’re not as young as we were. But, we’re still working together to raise awareness and advance the principles of the U.N.Convention & Protocol on the Status of Refugees and to restore due process and fundamental fairness to the dysfunctional Immigration Courts through all of our amazing colleagues on the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-27-21

⚔️⚔️🛡ROUND TABLE SALLIES FORTH AGAIN AS 9TH VACATES GARLAND BIA’S PRECEDENT IN MATTER OF K-S-E-, 27 I&N Dec. 818 (BIA 2020) (misconstruing “firm resettlement” in effort to punish, harm asylum seekers)

Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports:

Hi all:We filed an amicus brief in the attached case (drafted for us by Sullivan Cromwell) challenging the BIA’s precedent decision in Matter of K-S-E- before the 9th Circuit. K-S-E- held that firm resettlement can be found based on the availability of permanent residence in a third country, regardless of the asylum seeker’s unwillingness to pursue such status.

The 9th Cir. yesterday vacated the Board precedent and remanded for the Board to further consider the firm resettlement issue, inter alia.

Best, Jeff

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

To quote one of my esteemed Round Table colleagues:

Excellent news! Should an ethnic Korean from China or Japan be forced to accept an offer of firm resettlement from North Korea? To quote our President, “C’mon, man!”

“C’mon, man,” indeed! For Garland’s BIA it’s just a question of “what can we do to screw asylum seekers today!” The level of absurdity, irrationality, and/or illegality is largely irrelevant.

It’s not like Sessions and Barr had any concern for the law. The BIA knew there would be no meaningful consequences as long as they carried out the White Nationalist anti-immigrant agenda of the Trump regime!

But, you could say much the same about Garland! There was more than ample evidence and documentation of anti-asylum bias and deficient decision making to replace of the BIA with “real judges” from among progressive experts on the day Garland was sworn in as AG.

Yet, three months later, nothing much has changed and the assault on asylum seekers and justice at Garland’s EOIR continues largely unabated. Indeed, Garland’s totally inappropriate, due process damaging, appointment of yet more (17) “Barr-picked judges” has further aggravated the problem to a simply astounding degree! It’s like you’re behind by three touchdowns in the fourth quarter and your so-called “head coach” awards your opponents 17 more points for no particular reason! What on earth is going on in Garland’s head?

Real judges on a “Reform BIA” from the ranks of progressive experts would have Matter of K-S-E-, Matter of A-B-, Matter of L-E-A-, Matter of Castro-Tum and a host of other Trumpist garbage “sorted” in no time and the now-dysfunctional EOIR system back on track to due process and functionality. What’s glaringly missing is any semblance of awareness, urgency, and competent progressive leadership from Garland and those surrounding him!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-11-21

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

From The Hill:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

KEY EXCERPT:

Many, many, many thanks to “Sir Jeffrey” Chase for collecting the “sentiments of the group” and preparing these cogent comments under extreme pressure!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Rodriguez v.Garland, 5th Cir., 09-27-21, published

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Obviously, THESE are the practical scholar/immigration experts who belong on the BIA:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Here’s Andrea’s bio:

KEY QUOTE:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Here’s our amicus brief drafted by the pro bono “All-Star Team” of Richard W. Mark, Amer S. Ahmed, & Chris Jones @ Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, NY:

More coverage here from Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Here’s the full brief, drafted by our fearless leader “Sir Jeffrey” Chase:

HERE’S A “KEY QUOTE” FROM THE CONCLUSION:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Excerpts from Jennifer’s article:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

This WashPost headline and Post Supreme Court reporter Robert Barnes’s summary say it all!

Supreme Court rules against immigrants claiming safety fears after deportation and for pipeline builders

Here’s the “full text” of the decision:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Here it is, opinion by Judge Stephanie Thacker:

The ongoing travesty of justice @ EOIR and the lives threatened thereby continue to be a national disgrace on Garland’s watch!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts: