"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals PAUL WICKHAM SCHMIDT and DR. ALICIA TRICHE, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
Sloan, Tupper: Immigrants deserve right to legal representation
00:00
03:16
Sloan, Tupper: Immigrants deserve right to legal representation
Andrea Sloan and Leni Tupper
June 06 2021
The Honorable Andrea Sloan is a retired Portland Immigration Court judge. Leni Tupper is a former attorney adviser in the Portland Immigration Court, and current co-director of Portland Community College’s CLEAR Clinic and co-chair of PCC’s Paralegal Program.
ANDREA SLOAN
LENI TUPPER
Legal representation in immigration court can mean the difference between someone being allowed to remain home, safely in the United States, or being permanently torn from their family, deported and placed in harm’s way.
It can mean access to interpreters in a person’s correct language and dialect so they can fully express their experiences, trauma, and fear. It can mean access to the mental health services and diagnosis necessary to support their wellbeing and their immigration case. Most importantly, it can mean the realization of a right that everyone should be guaranteed: the right to a fair trial.
Instead, most non-citizens in immigration court proceedings are left to navigate the system, commonly referred to as second in complexity only to the U.S. Tax Code, completely alone. That includes children, sometimes very young children. The U.S. immigration court system, unlike our criminal legal system, does not provide court-appointed counsel to immigrants facing deportation who are unable to afford a lawyer. Only 37% of all immigrants and 14% of detained immigrants are represented by attorneys in immigration court, according to a 2016 American Immigration Council study.
Most importantly, immigrants with legal representation are far more likely to be released from detention and succeed in their removal defenses than unrepresented people. According to an AIC study, 63% of non-detained represented immigrants were granted relief in immigration court, while only 13% of unrepresented immigrants were. And tellingly, people appearing before the Portland Immigration Court without legal representation are nearly five-and-a-half times more likely to lose their cases and be deported than those who have an attorney.
As a retired immigration judge and former attorney advisor in the Portland Immigration Court, we have seen these struggles firsthand. We know the trauma that our immigration system inflicts on people, often with an existing history of trauma. And we know that legal representation can lessen the trauma of navigating this virtually incomprehensible system.
But most importantly, we know that legal representation can help avoid the ultimate trauma of deportation. The lack of legal representation for people in the immigration court system, which decides “death penalty cases in a traffic court setting,” is unsustainable not only for the vulnerable members of our community who are subject to its whims, but for those who work in it as well.
Our immigration legal system should be based on facts, law, and justice, not access to wealth and resources. If passed, House Bill 3230 will allow our immigrant community members to exercise their full right to due process under the law and provide access to legal representation. Oregon could be a national leader in ensuring immigrant rights by providing access to counsel.
Please join us in supporting HB 3230 to make this vision of Oregon a reality.
The Honorable Andrea Sloan is a retired Portland Immigration Court judge. Leni Tupper is a former attorney adviser in the Portland Immigration Court, and current co-director of Portland Community College’s CLEAR Clinic and co-chair of PCC’s Paralegal Program.
**********************
Given the lack of responsiveness by the DOJ to our suggestions and recommendations, we’re going to have to fight for due process on all fronts. State and local universal representation programs are a huge opportunity.
Represented individuals are more likely to be able to hold the Government accountable and force change that ultimately will save lives and benefit all.
Thanks for speaking out so forcefully and articulately, Andrea and Leni!
GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL v. MING DAI CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 19–1155. Argued February 23, 2021—Decided June 1, 2021*
In each of these cases, a foreign national appeared before an immigration judge (IJ) and requested that he not be returned to his country of origin. For Cesar Alcaraz-Enriquez, the IJ first had to determine whether Mr. Alcaraz-Enriquez had committed a disqualifying “partic- ularly serious crime” based on his prior California conviction for “in- flicting corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant.” See 8 U. S. C. §1231(b)(3)(B)(ii). The IJ considered both the probation report issued at the time of the conviction (which detailed a serious domestic vio- lence incident) and Mr. Alcaraz-Enriquez’s own testimony at the re- moval proceeding (which included an admission that he hit his girl- friend but allegedly did so in defense of his daughter). Relying in part on the version of events in the probation report, the IJ held Mr. Al- caraz-Enriquez ineligible for relief. On appeal, the Bureau of Immi- gration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. In Ming Dai’s case, he testified that he and his family had suffered past persecution by Chinese officials and expected future persecution upon return. But Mr. Dai initially failed to disclose that his wife and daughter had both returned volun- tarily to China since accompanying him to the United States. When confronted, Mr. Dai told the “real story” of why he remained in the United States. The IJ found that Mr. Dai’s testimony undermined his claims and denied relief. On appeal, the BIA affirmed. Mr. Alcaraz- Enriquez and Mr. Dai each sought judicial review, and in each case, the Ninth Circuit noted that neither the IJ nor the BIA made an ex- plicit “adverse credibility determination” under the Immigration Na- tionality Act (INA). §§1158(b)(1)(B)(iii), 1231(b)(3)(C), 1229a(c)(4)(C).
——————
* Together with No. 19–1156, Garland v. Alcaraz-Enriquez, also on cer- tiorari to the same court.
2 GARLAND v. MING DAI Syllabus
Applying its own judge-made rule that a reviewing court must treat the noncitizen’s testimony as credible and true absent an explicit ad- verse credibility determination, the Ninth Circuit granted relief.
Held: The Ninth Circuit’s deemed-true-or-credible rule cannot be recon- ciled with the INA’s terms. Pp. 6–15.
(a) The Ninth Circuit’s rule has no proper place in a reviewing court’s analysis. The INA provides that a reviewing court must accept “administrative findings” as “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudi- cator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” §1252(b)(4)(B). And a reviewing court is “generally not free to impose” additional judge-made procedural requirements on agencies. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U. S. 519, 524.
Judicial proceedings in cases like these do not constitute “appeals” in which the “rebuttable presumption of credibility on appeal” applies absent an explicit credibility determination. §§1158(b)(1)(B)(iii), 1231(b)(3)(C), 1229a(c)(4)(C). Here, there is only one appeal—from the IJ to the BIA. See §§1158(d)(5)(iii)–(iv). Subsequent judicial review takes place not by appeal, but by means of a “petition for review,” which the INA describes as “the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an order of removal.” §1252(a)(5). A presumption of credi- bility may arise in some appeals before the BIA, but no such presump- tion applies in antecedent proceedings before an IJ or in subsequent collateral review before a federal court. This makes sense because re- viewing courts do not make credibility determinations, but instead ask only whether any reasonable adjudicator could have found as the agency did. The Ninth Circuit’s rule gets the standard backwards by giving conclusive weight to any testimony that cuts against the agency’s finding. Pp. 6–9.
(b) Mr. Alcaraz-Enriquez and Mr. Dai offer an alternative theory for affirming the Ninth Circuit. Because, they say, they were entitled to a presumption of credibility in their BIA appeals, they are entitled to relief in court because no reasonable adjudicator obliged to presume their credibility could have found against them. Even assuming that there was no explicit adverse credibility determination here, the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning is flawed for at least two reasons. Pp. 10–15.
(1) The presumption of credibility on appeal under the INA is “re- buttable.” And the INA contains no parallel requirement of explicit- ness when it comes to rebutting the presumption on appeal. Reviewing courts, bound by traditional administrative law principles, must “up- hold” even “a decision of less than ideal clarity if the agency’s path may reasonably be discerned.” Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., 419 U. S. 281, 286. In neither case did the Ninth
Cite as: 593 U. S. ____ (2021) 3 Syllabus
Circuit consider the possibility that the BIA implicitly found the pre- sumption of credibility rebutted. The BIA expressly adopted the IJ’s decision in Mr. Alcaraz-Enriquez’s case, which, in turn, noted that Mr. Alcaraz-Enriquez’s story changed from the time of the probation report to the time of the hearing—a factor the statute specifically identifies as relevant to credibility, see §§1158(b)(1)(B)(iii), 1231(b)(3)(C), 1229a(c)(4)(C). And in Mr. Dai’s case, the BIA also adopted the IJ’s decision, which discussed specific problems with Mr. Dai’s demeanor, candor, and internal inconsistency—an analysis that certainly goes to the presumption of credibility even if the agency didn’t use particular words. See ibid. In each case, the Ninth Circuit should consider whether the BIA in fact found the presumption of credibility overcome. If so, it seems unlikely that the conclusion in either case is one no rea- sonable adjudicator could have reached. Pp. 10–13.
(2) The presumption of credibility applies with respect to credibil- ity but the INA expressly requires the noncitizen to satisfy the trier of fact on credibility, persuasiveness, and the burden of proof. §§1158(b)(1)(B)(ii), 1231(b)(3)(C), 1229a(a)(4)(B). Even if the BIA treats a noncitizen’s testimony as credible, the agency need not find such evidence persuasive or sufficient to meet the burden of proof. Here, the Ninth Circuit erred by treating credibility as dispositive of both persuasiveness and legal sufficiency. Pp 13–15.
884 F. 3d 858 and 727 Fed. Appx. 260, vacated and remanded. GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
*********************************
Can’t win ‘em all: The Round Table filed an amicus brief on behalf of the respondent in this case. Sadly, on this occasion, we didn’t convince anyone.☹️
Thanks to Round Table “Fearless Knightess” Judge Sue Roy of NJ for spearheading this effort and taking the drafting lead. Now, a private practitioner, Sue is one of the thousands of lawyers and millions of individuals and family members directly affected by the continuing dysfunction at EOIR and Garland’s failure to bring in progressive leadership from the NDPA to make long-overdue “no brainer” reforms @ EOIR.🆘
In an interesting coincidence, the 17 improperly certified precedents from Sessions, Whitaker, and Barr matches the 17 inappropriate and insulting “Miller Lite/Barr Leftover” Immigration Judge appointments that Garland just made!
One thing is for sure: Garland its NOT getting the job done for progressives nor is he restoring due process at EOIR. Instead, the deadly,☠️ disgusting 🤮downward spiral continues every day!
“Eyore In Distress” — Ethics have long been “on vacation” at EOIR. Sitting judges are muzzled from speaking publicly and can be disciplined for minor transgressions. But, some judges accused of serious misconduct get away scott free under an intentionally opaque process that operates without public input or oversight. Meanwhile DOJ politicos and EOIR Senior Execs operate in open violation of 5th Amendment Due Process and the most basic conflict of interest requirements. The end result is that individuals systematically are denied the “fair and impartial adjudicator” that our Constitution requires! Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”“Let’s hop on over to ICE and see what our “partner” Kent Frederick wants us to do today to help out our masters at DHS enforcement!” https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports to the Round Table:
From: Frederick, Kent
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2018 12:59 PM
To: Weil, Jack (EOIR)
Subject: Matter of Castro-Tum/ IJMorley
Dear Judge Weil:
Just for reference, here is the portion of the decision that 1.1Morley violated:
Matter of Castro-Tum, 27 l&N Dec. 271 (AG 2018), which explicitly directed the matter be remanded “to the Board with instructions to remand to the Immigration Judge to issue a new Notice of Hearing within 14 days of the date of this order. If the respondent again fails to appear, the Immigration Judge should proceed according to 8 U.S.C. §
1229a(b)(5).”) Matter of Castro-Tum, 27 l&N Dec_ at 294. Moreover, the Attorney General explicitly rejected the option to terminate or continue this matter on remand if Castro-Tum again failed to appear. Castro-Tum,27l&N Dec.at291 n.12 (“DHS adequately alleged that it provided sufficient notice because the Notice to Appear informed the respondent of all statutorily required information about the proceedings…. DHS also adequately alleged that the form of the notice was sufficient. DHS personally served the Notice to Appear on the respondent and mailed the Notice of Hearing to the address the respondent repeatedly provided the government.”(internal citations omitted)).
Kent J. Frederick
Chief Counsel
Office of the Chief Counsel
U.S. Deportment of Homeland Security immigration and Customs Enforcement 900 Market Street, (b)(6).(b)(7)(C) Philadelphia, PA 19107
(267) 479 —___(2_622_479-3456 (fax)
(b)(6),(b)(7XC)
**********************
Thanks to Judge Sue Roy for forwarding this:
[Above] please find a redacted email obtained through a FOIA request by private attorney Matthew Hoppock. It is a private email between Kent Frederick, the ICE District Counsel in Philadelphia, and Jack Weil, who at the time was the Philadelphia court’s ACIJ. Although the first part of the email is redacted, in the second part, the ICE District Counsel provides Jack with the basis that led to removing Castro-Tum from the case’s proper IJ, Steve Morley.
It should be noted that this is not a motion with service on opposing counsel; this is a private email between ICE and the ACIJ about the handling of a particular case.
While the Chief Immigration Judge should be taking steps to prohibit these types of communications, it bears noting that the present Chief Immigration Judge is the former Atlanta ICE District Counsel.
Best, Jeff
*********************
Thanks to NDPA warrior Matthew Hoppock for once again having the perseverance to use the FOIA to document and “out” misconduct @ DOJ, EOIR, and DHS! What’s the purpose of an “appeals process” if DHS can just raise its dis-satisfaction with legal issues to their “partners” in EOIR “administration” and ask them to take action? For the record, Judge Morley eventually was removed from the case and replaced with an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge who carried out Sessions’s wishes.
I think this is EXACTLY the type of misconduct that “Gonzo” Sessions intended to promote when he unethically exhorted “his judges” to “partner with DHS” to deny due process, target refugee women for abuse, torture, and death, and speed up removals. (However, because Sessions’s undeniable maliciousness was accompanied by mind-boggling and resource squandering incompetence, the overall result was to exponentially increase backlogs while institutionalizing injustice, unethically endangering the lives of migrants, and falsely smearing the professional reputations of their attorneys.)
Sessions, unethically acting as a “quasi-judicial official,” in violation of every ethical rule of judicial disqualification for overt bias, prejudgement, lack of impartiality (every case in which “Gonzo” Sessions participated is a grotesque violation of this — a man whose overt racism once led HIS OWN PARTY to find him unqualified for a Federal Judgeship!), appearance of conflict, and actual conflict of interest, unleashed a torrent of gross unethical behavior at DOJ and DHS. But, there were plenty of lawyers already “on the payroll” who were perfectly happy to engage in unethical conduct in support of the Trump kakistocracy’s White Nationalist, racist, xenophobic, misogynist agenda.
I’ll let the various comments I have received speak for themselves:
When I was an IJ . . . I complained about this practice to Chief IJ Creppy at an open forum at the IJ conference involving an ex parte complaint Frederick had lodged against . . . . Creppy just brushed it off as interagency cooperation.
**********************
At the least, these two should be referred to their state bars for disciplinary proceedings for engaging in impermissible ex parte communication.
**************
WOW! This is crazy.
*******************
Wow! Just WOW! We always knew it was happening, but this is pretty blatant evidence!
****************
Utterly unacceptable! It may seem ludicrous or petty, but it is far more than an objectionable practice. It optimizes a fundamental violation of due process that is routinely accepted and even expected.
******************
Shameful, what happened to the appeal process Mr. Fredrick!
***************************
Is anyone really surprised?
***************
Disappointed, but not surprised.
******************
And has been happening ever since I started practicing in the mid-eighties. I agree it is totally unacceptable.
***********************
Jack has been nothing but a profound disappointment. I’m sure you all remember his arrogant and almost insane boast that he. could teach constitutional law to a child respondent. This email is both unethical and stupid: what kind of intellect allows for this response to him to put in writing? I never expect much from an ICE official, but I am always go smacked when a judge acts like a Watergate miscreant.
**********************
Completely shameful, but not surprising. We frequently suspected this kind of thing went on.
*******************
The conduct of “Gonzo” Sessions, then-Director McHenry (still on the EOIR payroll, although thankfully removed from participation in the Immigration Courts), and the EOIR and DOJ officials involved in this sorry incident is reprehensible.
BUT, HERE’S THE REAL PROBLEM:AG Merrick Garland, a respected Article III Judge and one-time Supreme Court nominee, was appointed by President Biden supposedly to clean up the ungodly mess at Justice left by the Trump kakistocracy. He isn’t getting the job done! Not even close!
EOIR requires immediate due process reforms, competent administration, a complete “housecleaning,” and, most of all, progressive leadership by “practical scholars.”
Yet, after three months in office Garland has nary lifted a finger to institute even rudimentary progressive reforms to restore due process at EOIR. Things are just as bad in our disgracefully dysfunctional Immigration Courts as they were on Jan. 20, 2021, in some cases even worse!
Beyond this indolence, Garland outrageously affirmatively appointed 17 non-expert, non-diverse, non-progressive “judges” who were recruited and hand-picked by Billy Barr. Along with Gonzo Sessions, Barr is one of the most unethical, unqualified, un-indicted (yet) AGs in American history. Garland’s lack of awareness, absence of immigration expertise, disrespect for progressive “practical scholars,” and trashing of humane values is super-damaging to our nation!
Of course, nobody can be an “expert” in every legal subject. But, the job of an effective leader is to pick folks who are experts to manage and staff these areas. I don’t see that type of expertise at today’s DOJ or EOIR Headquarters (although there are some well-qualified progressive Immigration Judges on local courts who could have been immediately detailed to EOIR HQ to stabilize the out of control situation).
Garland presides over a massive, deadly, systemic failure and chaotic “Clown Show” 🤡 @ EOIR that threatens the entire U.S. Justice system. I’ve actually known excellent Immigration Judges who have been suspended, docked pay, or threatened with removal for ex parte communications far, far, far less serious than that described above.
How do we teach ethics to an upcoming generation of lawyers when AG Garland and his senior managers are unwilling to hold accountable those who participated in the Trump White Nationalist kakistocracy @ Justice?
Team Garland daily mocks justice by not instituting standards that require demonstrated subject matter expertise, unswerving commitment to due process, fundamental fairness, and a record of ethical behavior from those appointed to, and continuing to serve in, Immigration Judgeships.
Under Garland, EOIR is a life threatening, democracy destroying “disaster zone.” “Team Garland’s” inexcusable failure to appoint qualified progressive experts and to undertake the “no brainer” immediate reforms essential to get the EOIR system back on track has, sadly, become a major problem for the Biden Administration and our nation.
It’s all so unnecessary, so aggravating, so damaging to humanity and American democracy. It’s even worse because the “complicit culprits” are folks (Biden appointees) who were “supposed to know better” and had the incredible, unprecedented advantages of potentially drawing on years of exceptionally high quality research, overwhelming documentation, smart, creative, practical recommendations, and extraordinarily qualified progressive “practical scholars and advocates” ready to solve problems from “inside Government.”
But, they can’t solve the problems solely “from the outside.” It takes an unrelenting combination of progressive experts pushing from the outside and receptive progressive judges and officials on the inside to make the radical changes necessary to save our nation!
Garland’s disrespectful, indolent, and tone deaf treatment of migrants, progressives, and simple human dignity, as well as his gross misunderstanding and diminution of what continues to drive racial and social injustice in America, will certainly come back to haunt the Biden Administration!
Let me reiterate: There will be neither racial justice nor social justice in America as long as our Immigration Courts operate as White Nationalist enforcers of “Dred Scottification of the other.” Immigration/human rights are where “the rubber meets the road” for racial and social justice in America! Immigrants’ rights are human rights, are civil rights, are constitutional rights! As MLK, Jr., said “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere!”
Grundoon From Walt Kelly’s “Pogo” SOURCE: Pininterest
Grundoon: A diapered baby groundhog (or “woodchunk” in swamp-speak). An infant toddler, Grundoon speaks only gibberish, represented by strings of random consonants like “Bzfgt”, “ktpv”, “mnpx”, “gpss”, “twzkd”, or “znp”. Eventually, Grundoon learns to say two things: “Bye” and “Bye-bye”. He also has a baby sister, whose full name is Li’l Honey Bunny Ducky Downy Sweetie Chicken Pie Li’l Everlovin’ Jelly Bean. [From the Walt Kelly comic strip “Pogo.”]
In a recent blog post, I discussed the difficulty in establishing asylum based on a political opinion expressed against MS-13. In the specific case discussed, the Board of Immigration Appeals reversed the Immigration Judge’s finding that the asylum-seeker had expressed a political opinion to MS-13 members.1 In reversing the Immigration Judge, the BIA specifically stated as to MS-13 that “the gangs are criminal organizations, and not political or governmental organizations and gang activities are not political in nature.” The BIA has repeatedly expressed this same view (using this or similar boilerplate language) in its decisions denying asylum. In the particular case discussed in my blog post, a split panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals could not find enough evidence of record to compel the majority to overturn the BIA’s conclusion.
The BIA is of course a part of the U.S. Department of Justice; its judges are appointed by and employed by the Attorney General. Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was one of the Department officials to make the following point to a class of new Immigration Judges in March 2019:
Immigration judges appointed by the Attorney General and supervised by the Executive Office for Immigration Review are not only judges. First, you are not only judges because you are also employees of the United States Department of Justice. It is a great honor to serve in this Department. In the courtyard just outside the entrance to this Great Hall, high up on the interior wall of the Main Justice building, there is a depiction of the scales of justice and an inscription that reads, “Privilegium Obligatio.” It means that when you accept a privilege, you incur an obligation. In this Department, our duty is in our name. We are the only cabinet agency with a name that articulates a moral value.
Justice is not measured by statistics. Our employees learn from day one that their duty is to gather the facts, seek the truth, apply the law, and respect the policies and principles of the Department of Justice.
The second reason that you are not only judges is that in addition to your adjudicative function – finding facts and applying laws – you are a member of the executive branch. You follow lawful instructions from the Attorney General, and you share a duty to enforce the law.2
The clear message being conveyed is “Don’t get any big ideas of judicial independence and neutrality; you work for ‘Team Justice,’ and you will behave accordingly.” Am I alone in thinking that the motto cited by Rosenstein, “when you accept a privilege, you incur an obligation,” here comes across as a boss reminding new employees where their loyalties lie rather than as a commitment to truth and justice?
As wrong as this message is when conveyed to judges who are supposed to enjoy the independence and neutrality to rule against the Department of Justice and the Attorney General when the facts and law compel such an outcome, let’s examine this view for the consistency of its application as to all DOJ employees. Presumably, the Board’s official stance that MS-13 is not a political organization and that its activities are criminal and not political in nature enjoys the Department’s seal of approval. In fact, other Department of Justice attorneys, working for the Office of Immigration Litigation, defend that view when the BIA”s decisions are reviewed on appeal by the Circuit Courts. I’m not aware of any Attorney General action to certify a BIA decision expressing this view in order to correct the Board’s position on this issue, or even to remand to the Board for further consideration of its position in light of other conflicting views within the Department.
Regarding such conflicting views, I was recently made aware of a criminal indictment drafted by the U.S. Attorneys’ Office in the Eastern District of New York.3 The indictment was filed in December, 2020, while the Trump Administration was still in office. The opening paragraph of the indictment states that MS-13 is a transnational criminal organization engaged in terrorist activity, and that its members use violence “in order to obtain concessions from the government of El Salvador, achieve political goals and retaliate for government actions against MS-13’s members and leaders.” (emphasis added).
The indictment contains a specific section titled “Political Influence in El Salvador.” The indictment states that a unit of MS-13, the Ranfla Nacional, “gained political influence as a result of the violence and intimidation MS-13 exerted on the government and population of El Salvador.” It continued that the organization exercised leverage on the Salvadoran government through its control on the level of violence. The indictment states that in 2012, MS-13 exercised its leverage to negotiate a truce with the ruling FMLN party and its rival 18th Street “to reduce homicides in El Salvador in return for improved prison conditions, benefits and money.” According to the indictment, MS-13 also negotiated a similar agreement with the rival ARENA party, promising to deliver votes in return for benefits. The indictment states that over time, “the Ranfla Nacional continued to negotiate with political parties in El Salvador and use its control of the level of violence to influence the actions of the government in El Salvador.”
The indictment also contains a section explaining the purpose of the Ranfla Nacional. The second specific goal listed is: “Influencing the actions of governments in El Salvador and elsewhere to implement policies favorable to MS-13.”
The attorneys who made the above claims in an indictment filed in Federal District Court are also employees of the U.S. Department of Justice. They are also members of the executive branch, following lawful instructions from the Attorney General, and sharing a duty to enforce the law. In the Second Circuit case I recently discussed, other Department of Justice attorneys in their brief to the court defended the Board’s decision by depicting MS-13 as “an institution that is entirely non-governmental – that is…a group of criminals who, in fact, reject the rules set out by the government.” Noticeably absent from the same brief was any mention that this “rejection of the rules set out by government” includes strategies to pressure said government into undertaking specific actions, as well as its entering into negotiations and ultimately agreements with political parties, the terms of which include MS-13’s delivering votes in return for the parties’ commitment to enacting beneficial policies.
So how can it be that attorneys in one office of the Department of Justice argue that MS-13 as an organization is engaged in exerting political influence to achieve its political goals, and at the same time, another group of attorneys within the same Department of Justice can sign orders sending victims of the same MS-13 to their death by employing a boilerplate sentence that MS-13 is not a political organization and its activities are not political in nature? And that the decisions of that latter group are then defended by a third group of Department attorneys on appeal who make no mention of the conflicting arguments? Let’s remember that, according to Rosenstein, these attorneys were taught from day one that their duties as Department of Justice employees include gathering the facts and seeking the truth.
In 1997, a very different BIA wrote the following in a decision that, although still binding as precedent, seems long forgotten:
immigration enforcement obligations do not consist only of initiating and conducting prompt proceedings that lead to removals at any cost. Rather, as has been said, the government wins when justice is done. In that regard, the handbook for trial attorneys states that “[t]he respondent should be aided in obtaining any procedural rights or benefits required by the statute, regulation and controlling court decision, of the requirements of fairness.” Handbook for Trial Attorneys § 1.3 (1964). See generally Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas Co. v. FERC, 962 F.2d 45, 48 (D.C. Cir. 1992)(finding astonishing that counsel for a federal administrative agency denied that the A.B.A. Code of Professional Responsibility holds government lawyers to a higher standard and has obligations that “might sometimes trump the desire to pound an opponent into submission”); Reid v. INS, 949 F.2d 287 (9th Cir. 1991)(noting that government counsel has an interest only in the law being observed, not in victory or defeat).4
This matter deserves the immediate attention of Attorney General Merrick Garland. The ability of asylum seekers to receive a fair review of their claims based on accurate information is a matter of life and death. At this early stage of the Biden Administration, it is critical that the Department send a clear message that the “obligation” mentioned in its motto is to serve an ideal of justice that is independent of the particular politics of those temporally in charge.
Copyright 2021 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
Matter of S-M-J-, 21 I&N Dec. 722, 727 (BIA 1997).
APRIL 29, 2021
Reprinted by permission.
*************
As most outside the nativist world know, the BIA’s position that Northern Triangle gangs aren’t political in nature and action is absurd! For Pete’s sake, these guys negotiate “peace treaties” with governments, control large swaths of territory, manipulate “public death rates” for political gain, aid or punish political candidates and police, collect taxes, control jobs, and have economic policies. Sure sounds like a quasi-governmental, clearly political entity to me. Somewhere, there is a dissent of mine in an old published CAT case saying approximately that.
At least at one point, gangs in El Salvador controlled more jobs than did the Salvadoran Government! No competent, unbiased group of adjudicators (not to mention supposed “experts”) could have reached the BIA’s ridiculous, clearly politicized conclusions!
Sadly, to date, Judge Garland has followed in the footsteps of his dilatory Dem predecessors by destroying lives, promoting injustice, and blowing the Dems’ best chance to build a progressive, due process oriented, human rights advancing judiciary that also would help resolve America’s failure to come to grips with the 1951 U.N. Refugee Convention and its key role in our legal immigration system as well as being a prerequisite to achieving racial justice in America.
Supposedly, these are the goals of the Biden Administration. Unfortunately, Garland, Monaco, and Gupta haven’t gotten the message, although it has been “delivered” time after time by numerous experts and advocates!
A few historical notes:
I was on the en banc BIA that decided Matter of S-M-J-, cited by Jeffrey. It was written by Judge Michael J. Heilman, a fellow Wisconsinite who once had worked for me at the “Legacy INS” General Counsel, following service as a State Department consular officer. That case “originated” on a three-member panel of Heilman, the late Judge Lauri Steven Filppu, and me. It reflects the “government wins when justice is done” message that I had incorporated into INS attorney training years earlier, as well as fealty to UN Handbook standards encouraged by the Supremes in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, and the “best practices” that bygone BIA was consciously and aggressively advancing.
Former DAG Rod Rosenstein was once a respected career prosecutor who served Administrations of both parties. Then, he “sold out” to the Trump Administration and its neo-fascists. Although that probably should have ended his legal career, he’s currently enjoying life in “big law” while those victims harmed and wronged by the illegal and unethical policies (or, in some cases their survivors) he furthered continue to suffer.
Radical progressive due process reforms @ EOIR, starting with wholesale personnel changes and revocation of restrictionist, racist, misogynist policies and practices is long overdue. Nearly two months into his tenure Judge Garland has yet to demonstrate awareness of the need for immediate, decisive action. Meanwhile the bodies continue to pile up and the “adverse decisions” from the Article IIIs bearing his name and tarnishing his reputation continue to roll in!
Actually, Judge, each wrong decision from the BIA represents a human life ruined, often irrevocably. Is that the type of “impact” on American justice that you intend to leave as your “legacy?”
EOIR HQ, Falls Church, VA (a/k/a “The Tower of Babel”) By Pieter Bruegel The Elder Public Domain
NIZ-CHAVEZ v. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
No. 19–863. Argued November 9, 2020—Decided April 29, 2021
Nonpermanent resident aliens ordered removed from the United States under federal immigration law may be eligible for discretionary relief if, among other things, they can establish their continuous presence in the country for at least 10 years. 8 U. S. C. §1229b(b)(1). But the so- called stop-time rule included in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) provides that the pe- riod of continuous presence “shall be deemed to end . . . when the alien is served a notice to appear” in a removal proceeding under §1229a. §1229b(d)(1). The term “notice to appear” is defined as “written notice . . . specifying” certain information, such as the charges against the al- ien and the time and place at which the removal proceedings will be held. §1229(a)(1). A notice that omits any of this statutorily required information does not trigger the stop-time rule. See Pereira v. Ses- sions, 585 U. S. ___. Here, the government ordered the removal of pe- titioner Agusto Niz-Chavez and sent him a document containing the charges against him. Two months later, it sent a second document, providing Mr. Niz-Chavez with the time and place of his hearing. The government contends that because the two documents collectively specified all statutorily required information for “a notice to appear,” Mr. Niz-Chavez’s continuous presence in the country stopped when he was served with the second document.
Held: A notice to appear sufficient to trigger the IIRIRA’s stop-time rule is a single document containing all the information about an individ- ual’s removal hearing specified in §1229(a)(1). Pp. 4–12.
(a) Section 1229b(d)(1) states that the stop-time rule is triggered by serving “a notice,” and §1229(a)(1) explains that “written notice” is “re- ferred to as a ‘notice to appear.’ ” Congress’s decision to use the indef- inite article “a” suggests it envisioned “a” single notice provided at a
2
NIZ-CHAVEZ v. GARLAND Syllabus
discrete time rather than a series of notices that collectively provide the required information. While the indefinite article “a” can some- times be read to permit multiple installments (such as “a manuscript” delivered over months), that is not true for words like “notice” that can refer to either a countable object (“a notice”) or a noncountable abstrac- tion (“sufficient notice”). The inclusion of an indefinite article suggests Congress used “notice” in its countable sense. More broadly, Congress has used indefinite articles to describe other case-initiating plead- ings—such as an indictment, an information, or a civil complaint, see, e.g., Fed. Rules Crim. Proc. 7(a), (c)(1), (e); Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 3—and none suggest those documents might be delivered by installment. Nor does the Dictionary Act aid the government, as that provision merely tells readers of the U. S. Code to assume “words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things.” 1 U. S. C. §1. That provision means only that terms describing a single thing (“a no- tice”) can apply to more than one of that thing (“ten notices”). While it certainly allows the government to send multiple notices to appear to multiple people, it does not mean a notice to appear can consist of mul- tiple documents. Pp. 4–9.
(b) The IIRIRA’s structure and history support requiring the govern- ment to issue a single notice containing all the required information. Two related provisions, §§1229(e)(1) and 1229a(b)(7), both use a defi- nite article with a singular noun (“the notice”) when referring to the government’s charging document—a combination that again suggests a discrete document. Another provision, §1229(a)(2)(A), requires “a written notice” when the government wishes to change an alien’s hear- ing date. The government does not argue that this provision contem- plates providing “the new time or place of the proceedings” and the “consequences . . . of failing . . . to attend such proceedings” in separate documents. Yet the government fails to explain why “a notice to ap- pear” should operate differently. Finally, the predecessor to today’s “notice to appear” required the government to specify the place and time for the alien’s hearing “in the order to show cause or otherwise.” §1252(a)(2)(A). The phrase “or otherwise” has since disappeared, fur- ther suggesting that the required details must be included upfront to invoke the stop-time rule. Indeed, that is how the government itself initially read the statute. The year after Congress adopted IIRIRA, in the preamble to a proposed rule implementing these provisions, the government acknowledged that “the language of the amended Act in- dicat[es] that the time and place of the hearing must be on the Notice to Appear.” 62 Fed. Reg. 449 (1997). Pp. 9–13.
(c) The government claims that not knowing hearing officers’ avail- ability when it initiates removal proceedings makes it difficult to pro-duce compliant notices. It also claims that it makes little sense to re- quire time and place information in a notice to appear when that in- formation may be later changed. Besides, the government stresses, its own administrative regulations have always authorized its current practice. But on the government’s account, it would be free to send a person who is not from this country—someone who may be unfamiliar with English and the habits of American bureaucracies—a series of letters over the course of weeks, months, maybe years, each containing a new morsel of vital information. Congress could reasonably have wished to foreclose that possibility. And ultimately, pleas of adminis- trative inconvenience never “justify departing from the statute’s clear text.” Pereira, 585 U. S., at ___. The modest threshold Congress pro- vided to invoke the stop-time rule is clear from the text and must be complied with here. Pp. 13–16.
789 Fed. Appx. 523, reversed.
GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. KAVANAUGH, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and ALITO, J., joined.
*************************
This is the type of case where I had hoped that Justice Gorsuch would “stick to his interpretative guns” by stopping the Government from basically redesigning clear statutory requirements “willy nilly” to suit their own purposes and disadvantage respondents. And, he came through! Big time! I’ve been critical of Justice Gorsuch in the past and am likely to be so again in the future. But, in this case, he did the right thing, and I, for one, am grateful!
Most encouraging, Justice Gorsuch “got” the way that the DHS and EOIR, with the deck already unfairly stacked in their favor, manipulate clear legal requirements for their own nefarious purposes and to the disadvantage of those struggling for justice in an inherently unfair system. There is absolutely no doubt that receiving “piecemeal notice” — incomplete and often sent to incorrect addresses or “personally served” without the proper reading and explanations — works to further disadvantage respondents.
Indeed, illegal, ineffective notices — some setting hearings on “phantom dates” and “imaginary times” — lead directly to an over abundance of “in absentia” orders and consequent illegal removals. Some unrepresented individuals understand how to reopen their hearings for lack of notice — but many are clueless; the Government system strives to keep them that way to “jack up the numbers,” meet “quotas,” and improve stats. Worse yet, Congress sometimes uses the “bogus stats” generated by DOJ and DHS to write legislation, conduct oversight, and establish policy. This is an astoundingly broken, dysfunctional, and intentionally unfair system — a disgrace to our entire justice system and our national conscience each day it is allowed to continue to operate in its abusive ways!
The majority in this case was both very interesting, and at least mildly encouraging, for those of us who believe in due process and fundamental fairness for all persons, including migrants, under law. In addition to Trump appointees Justice Gorsuch and Justice Barrett, another GOP conservative appointee, Justice Thomas, joined Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor in the majority!
And, although this case has (incorrectly) seemed “hyper technical” to some Supremes’ watchers unfamiliar with immigration, it will have huge impact — forcing reopening and “redos” in tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of cases in the already backlogged (1.3 million cases) Immigration Court. That will be the direct result of poor jurisprudence by the BIA, lousy court administration by EOIR, and horrible policy decisions by DHS.
Just another prime example of how “haste makes waste” enforcement gimmicks continue to cause unnecessary chaos in the system. Why not just appoint progressive experts as Immigration Judges and BIA Appellate Judges. Qualified jurists who will understand immigration law, due process, and “get in right” in the first instance? Certainly seems like a reasonable approach. What is Judge Garland waiting for?
This, in turn should add to the already loud cries (from virtually everywhere outside Judge Garland’s universe and the restrictionist right) for sensible, readily available backlog reductions and accelerated movement toward better judges and independence in the Immigration Courts, not to mention better management in the DHS enforcement programs.
Here’s my favorite quote from Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion:
In the end, though, all this speculation is beside the point. The dissent tries to predict how the government will react to a ruling that requires it to follow the law and then pro- ceeds to assess the resulting “costs” and “benefits.” Post, at 17, 20–21. But that kind of raw consequentialist calcula- tion plays no role in our decision. Instead, when it comes to the policy arguments championed by the parties and the dissent alike, our points are simple: As usual, there are (at least) two sides to the policy questions before us; a rational Congress could reach the policy judgment the statutory text suggests it did; and no amount of policy-talk can overcome a plain statutory command. Our only job today is to give the law’s terms their ordinary meaning and, in that small way, ensure the federal government does not exceed its statutory license. Interpreting the phrase “a notice to ap-pear” to require a single notice—rather than 2 or 20 docu- ments—does just that.
*
At one level, today’s dispute may seem semantic, focused on a single word, a small one at that. But words are how the law constrains power. In this case, the law’s terms en- sure that, when the federal government seeks a procedural advantage against an individual, it will at least supply him with a single and reasonably comprehensive statement of the nature of the proceedings against him. If men must turn square corners when they deal with the government, it cannot be too much to expect the government to turn square corners when it deals with them.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Cir- cuit is
Reversed.
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
And, here’s some “immediate commentary” by Round Table spokesperson “Sir Jeffrey” Chase:
Victory!This was the case in which our Round Table amicus brief was specifically referenced in oral argument.
Knightess of the Round Table
Congrats to all involves, and Due Process Forever!
Suzanne Monyak Senior Reporter, Immigration
Hon. Susan G. Roy Law Office of Susan G. Roy, LLC Princeton Junction, NJ Member, Round Table of Former Immigration JudgesKnightess of the Round Table
Garland has yet to indicate whether he will rescind several decisions penned by attorneys general under the previous administration. In the last four years, Trump officials limited asylum eligibility for those fleeing violence by private actors, like gang members and domestic partners, and immigration judges’ ability to maintain their own dockets.
“There’s no reason that Attorney General Garland hasn’t done a thorough review of the attorney general certifications from the last administration,” said Susan Roy, a former immigration judge. “He should rescind any of them which he can. He has the authority to do that.”
. . . .
The Biden administration has also inherited a lengthy immigration court backlog — containing roughly 1.3 million cases — that have kept immigrants facing deportation and asylum-seekers waiting years for decisions in their cases.
The Biden administration has recognized that immigration judges may be key to processing these claims quickly and efficiently. In a preview of its budget request released earlier this month, the White House proposed increasing funding for the Justice Department’s immigration court agency from $734 million to $891 million to hire 100 new immigration judges.
Immigrant advocates and former judges say freeing the immigration court system from political influences is also critical to this effort.
“Without a union, there’s no way to protect judges against political ideologies of a given administration,” Roy said.
While judicial independence has “always been a concern” with a court system housed within a federal agency, “rarely has that been as problematic as it was under the Trump administration,” she said.
. . . .
Some advocates also want to see immigration courts be removed entirely from the DOJ and made an independent court system. The issue is on the agenda for the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s virtual “day of action” on April 22.
Roy, the incoming chair of AILA’s New Jersey chapter, acknowledged that Garland faces a number of competing priorities outside of the immigration courts. But she urged the administration against letting the system fall to the wayside.
“The immigration court is a subject that needs immediate attention,” she said. “Otherwise, it’s going to collapse under its own weight.”
**************
Thanks, Sue!
Today’s Immigration Courts, hotbeds of inefficiency, worst practices, racial bias, misogyny, and unnecessary backlogs, undermine everything that Biden and Harris campaigned on. They also make Judge Garland’s pledge to return justice and independenceto the Department of Justice look like a farce.
You simply can’t be responsible for something as totally broken, biased, and due process denying as the current Immigration Courts and have ANY shred of credibility on racial justice, independence, and “good government!”
“Eyore In Distress” “Why won’t Judge Garland help me get back on my feet? I”m so tired of being ‘belly up!’”“We were waiting for Judge Garland to free us from this chamber designed by Sessions, Miller, and Barr? Why is Garland diddling as we suffer and die?” Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Judge Garland’s concept of “justice” for refugee women and people of color seems a little out of touch — anti-asylum, misogynistic, anti-due process, xenophobic, racially charged precedents remain in place; regressive, unqualified judges on the bench; “worst practices” continue to flourish; 1.3 million case backlog builds; & He hasn’t spoken to the naij:
Woman Being “Tried By Ordeal”
17th Century Woodcut
Public Realm
Source: Ancient Origins Website
https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160
Woman Being “Tried By Ordeal” 17th Century Woodcut Public Realm Source: Ancient Origins Website https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160He doesn’t look like Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions or “Billy the Bigot” Barr, but does he think like them? Or does he just not care about the lives of people of color at the border and in his Immigration “Courts” that aren’t “courts” at all by any Constitutional or rational standard? Has he ever studied “The St. Louis Incident?” He’s basically repeating it! Official White House Photo Public Realm
Judge Garland is looking for 100 new Immigration Judges to eliminate the 1.3 million backlog by the end of the century. No expertise necessary! PHOTO: Thomas Hawk Creative CommonsAline Barros Immigration Reporter VOA News PHOTO: Twitter
U.S. immigration courts, already swamped with a backlog of 1.3 million cases, are ill-prepared to handle a crush of new asylum claims filed by a rising number of people crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, especially children traveling alone, current and former immigration judges told VOA.
. . . .
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
“The backlog has grown,” said Jeffrey Chase, a former immigration judge and senior legal adviser at the Board of Immigration Appeals. He added there are two ways to handle the situation.
“The response to this usually is: Hire more judges. And I think the response should be: Let’s be smarter about who we put into court and how we prioritize the cases and how we handle the cases,” Chase told VOA.
. . . .
Hon. Dana Leigh Marks U.S. Immigration Judge San Francisco Immigration Court Past President, National Association of Immigration Judges
Dana Marks, a sitting immigration judge in San Francisco who spoke with VOA in her capacity as president of the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), said the increase in immigration court cases has been gradual and “that’s why I think it stayed under the radar.”
. . . .
U.S. immigration courts are not like the federal courts that most people are familiar with. For one thing, they are housed within the executive branch — specifically, the U.S. Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).
In addition, immigration cases play out differently than regular court cases where litigants often feel pressure to avoid trial.
“One of the problems with the immigration system, as it currently is — we don’t have plea agreements or stipulations that handle a lot of these cases like you do in a criminal court setting where the parties meet and come up with a mutual compromise and a settlement,” Marks explained. “So every case goes to trial.”
A recent TRAC report concluded that even if the administration of President Joe Biden halted immigration enforcement entirely, “it would still take more than Biden’s entire first term in office — assuming pre-pandemic case completion rates — for the cases now in the active backlog to be completed.”
. . . .
“Our organization has long advocated that the immigration court system be taken out of the Department of Justice, and restructured, like the Article 1 [federal] tax courts,” Marks said.
Aaron Hall, an immigration lawyer in Denver, Colorado, said the immigration court system is currently subject to the whims of whichever party controls the executive branch. But he added that making the courts independent is not enough.
“We still have 1.3 million people in the system,” he said. “There’s no way to both respect due process and push all these cases through in any kind of timely manner. The resolution needs to be immigration reform.
“Having an independent immigration court system is better than having [the courts] in the Department of Justice, but what really needs to change is our [immigration] law,” Hall added.
While the Biden White House has criticized Trump’s handling of immigration cases, the new administration has yet to announce concrete measures to reform the immigration court system or take a position on calls to make it independent from the Justice Department.
***********************
Read the complete article at the link.
Those of us who have served in the Immigration Courts are used to a struggling system unnecessarily in crisis because of a combination of inept bureaucratic management (duh, you can’t treat a court system like an agency, particularly one somewhat resembling the “Legacy INS”) and counterproductive, often ignorant, sometimes malicious, political interference from “Downtown.”
But, the prospect for improvements are bleak, with nobody currently at the “Main DOJ” or at “EOIR Headquarters” who is qualified to lead the way toward rebuilding EOIR so that “teamwork, innovation, and best practices would create a functioning court system that would guarantee fairness and due process for all.” Doesn’t sound like “rocket science” to me.
Let’s be clear about one thing.Not every asylum case needs to go to “full hearing” in a properly staffed Immigration Court system with expert judges trained in asylum law, positive precedents setting forth generous reasonable criteria for granting asylum, and a qualified BIA willing to hold accountable those unqualified Immigration Judges who have established and maintained illegal and disgraceful “Asylum Free Zones” in Immigration Courts throughout America!
Almost 100% of the “asylum precedents” issued by the AG and BIA in the last four years, and the vast bulk of those issued after 2001, tell Immigration Judges how to, and encourage them to, deny asylum, often based on specious reasoning or in conflict with earlier, more generous court and administrative precedents, not to mention the letter and spirit of the U.N. Convention and sometimes the language of the statute and the regulations.
And, due process for asylum seekers and other migrants is mocked in Immigration Court on a daily basis, even as their courageous, often pro bono counsel, are systemically abused! Is this what Judge Garland REALLY stands for? If not, why is he letting it happen?
With competent counsel representing asylum seekers and documenting their cases, and thoughtful well-trained ICE Assistant Chief Counsel with senses of justice, many positive asylum cases can be well-documented, “pre-tried” by the parties, completed, and granted in Immigration Court in a one-hour time slot or less. Indeed, before Sessions and Barr intentionally, senselessly, and maliciously destroyed what was left of justice for asylum seekers in Immigration Court, so called “A-R-C-G- domestic violence cases,” Kasinga FGM cases, family-based asylum cases, Ethiopian and Eritrean political persecution cases, evangelical Christian cases, and LGBTQ+ cases were all staples of my “short docket” — usually conducted every other Friday, at the Arlington Immigration Court. In those days, the parties worked together to get clear grants of relief that were “buried in the backlog” advanced for short hearings, with my active encouragement.
Another largely unexplored alternative is to give Immigration Judges authority to return certainly prima facile grantable asylum cases to a revived and functioning Asylum Office for completion. There are lots of ways that a different group of qualified, well-trained, practical Immigration Judges, and a BIA with Appellate Judges drawn from the ranks of “practical scholars” who are experts in asylum and due process working with (not “under”) professional judicial administrators, could get this system functioning and force those judges who are members of the “Asylum Denial Society” to shape up or ship out. That would keep Immigration Courts from building future unmanageable backlogs by focusing docket time on those cases with real issues needing full hearings. And, nobody’s due process rights would be trampled in the process by mindless “haste makes waste deny everything” enforcement gimmicks such as those the Trump regime constantly tried to impose.
Real court systems are about justice, not “deterrence” or “sending messages,” or even “carrying out Administration policies,” although there shouldn’t be much of a conflict with the latter if the Biden Administration actually lived up to its promises to asylum seekers and other migrants (something it hasn’t shown any inclination to honor, to date). The Immigration Courts, much like Article III Courts, need better judges, not necessarily more of them! Unlike the Article IIIs, which are a long term project, Judge Garland could engineer a solution for the Immigration Courts that would show drastic improvements before the end of this year and get better every year thereafter!
But, with the current gang at DOJ and Falls Church, (remarkably still riddled with Trump holdover bureaucrats and anti-asylum “appellate judges” churning out negative precedents) it’s “mission impossible.” Not a professional judicial administrator or qualified appellate judge among them!
There are folks who could institute the bold, yet obvious, steps necessary to clean up the backlog in relatively short order without stomping on individual rights; come up with merit-based judicial hiring criteria; issue precedents that would advance, not retard, due process for asylum seekers; institutionalize best (rather than worst) practices; “kick tail” until some working basic modern technology (like e-filing) is in place; learn from the private bar’s in-court experiences; put some professional judicial training in place; and return docket control and administration to local courts, where even a minimally competent judicial administrator (in other words, NOT an agency bureaucrat or DOJ politico) would know it belongs.
Now is the time to toss the deadwood and get this system back on track — before the next wave of asylum cases hit the mind-boggling dysfunction in today’s Immigration Courts. How does anyone think that throwing 100 additional Immigration Judges into this disaster zone (the Administration’s budget proposal) will solve the systemic mess and the institutionalized failure to provide anything resembling justice?
Unfortunately, the folks who could do the job are either sitting judges in the Immigration Courts or in the private/NGO sector. And, despite warnings and pleas from those of us who actually understand the system, what’s wrong with it, and how it might be fixed, Judge Garland appears uninterested in engaging in the dialogue or making the obvious personnel moves necessary to build a functioning, due-process-oriented, expert court system. So right now, the chances of avoiding further disaster look pretty grim.
Wonder what the Judge’s“emergency plans” are for when the tsunami finally hits 10th & PA, NW, in D.C.? Like most past AGs not named Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions, Garland might trivialize the importance of immigration and EOIR in his own mind. Maybe that’s because so few immigration cases came before the D.C. Circuit, and the ones that did involved regulations, statutes, and policy issues, usually not “individual removal cases” where human lives were at stake in an immediate context.
Perhaps it’s because EOIR is “across the river” in Falls Church, out of sight, out of mind. Maybe it’s because the unending damage that a dysfunctional and unfair EOIR inflicts on men, women, children, and their lawyers, happens across the U.S., out the Judge’s presence or consciousness. Occasionally, the Post and other national media pick it up. But the human trauma, cruelty, unfairness, and real life stories of EOIR’s disreputable conduct go largely untold and unnoticed. Even the victims and their loved ones are often too deep in the throes of these officially-sanctioned and unnecessarily-harsh injustices to worry about complaining or seeking redress.
I can, however, predict to Judge Garland that if he continues on his current tone-deaf, inept course, both his tenure as Attorney General and his legacy will forever be identified with lousy, inhumane, dysfunctional immigration policies and his inexcusable failure to fix EOIR, or even make a good faith attempt at it!
A longtime Nassau County, New York, district court judge and New York Supreme Court justice, Feuerstein was appointed to the federal bench by former President George W. Bush in 2003 and was serving as a judge in the Eastern District of New York in Central Islip. She and her mother, Judge Annette Elstein, who died in 2020, made history as the first mother and daughter in the United States to serve as judges as the same time.
At the time of her death, Feuerstein was presiding over a high-profile murder-for-hire case in which a former New York Police Department officer is accused of hiring a hitman to kill her estranged husband. It’s unclear how Feuerstein’s death will impact the case.
Mark Lesko, the acting U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, issued a statement expressing condolences to Feuerstein’s family.
“As we mourn her tragic death,” Lesko said, “we also remember Judge Feuerstein’s unwavering commitment to justice and service to the people of our district and our nation.”
ABC News’ Benjamin Stein contributed to this report.
***********
Judge Feuerstein’s mother, the late Judge Annette Elstein of the N.Y. Immigration Court was deeply beloved for her legal acumen, energy, kindness, and compassion by all who knew her, appeared before her, or had the privilege of learning from her. Judge Feuerstein was 75 years old.
The hearts of all of us in the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges go out to Judge Feuerstein’s family.
Hi all:The Round Table was on the winning team in a (lengthy) decision issued yesterday by the NJ Supreme Court concerning the detention of criminal defendants who are noncitizens based on the possibility of their removal by ICE.
Thanks to Sue Roy, who solicited the Round Table’s involvement, and then drafted our brief!
Except from the decision:
A group of fifty immigration law scholars and clinical professors (Professors), and a second group of twenty-five former immigration judges and members of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Former Judges), submitted comprehensive overviews of the immigration process. They highlight the complex, dynamic, and discretionary nature of the removal process and argue that state trial courts are ill-equipped to evaluate a defendant’s likelihood of removal, which is too speculative even for experts to predict. They submit that a civil immigration detainer, like an individual’s immigration status, is not a reliable indicator that a person will be removed from the country.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) and the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, the Immigrant Defense Project, and the Harvard Law School Crimmigration Clinic echo concerns about how difficult it is to forecast the risk of removal for a non- citizen. AILA adds that permitting pretrial detention based on a person’s risk of removal will have the disproportionate effect of incarcerating low-level offenders, the vast majority of whom are recommended for release under the CJRA.
Finally, Legal Services of New Jersey (LSNJ) and Make the Road New Jersey, joined by twelve other organizations (Make the Road), highlight the consequences of pretrial detention for non-citizens, their families, and their communities. LSNJ also challenges the need for pretrial detention given the avenues non-citizens have to resolve their criminal cases while in ICE custody. Make the Road adds that allowing pretrial detention based on immigration status undermines trust in law enforcement in immigrant communities and makes it harder for law enforcement to investigate and prosecute crimes.
Below is the summary from petitioner’s counsel, NJ Immigration Attorney Jerry Gonzalez:
Our firm represented Mr. Lopez-Carrera, who was ordered removed and physically removed from the US while his criminal case was pending (he had lost at the BIA and state was trying to get him back).
Props to our Amicus friends!Patrick McGuinness(Immigration counsel), Sue Roy, Eric Mark, Michael Noriega, Raquiba Huq and Professor Joanne Gottesman.Great team work!!!
Issue: In these consolidated appeals, the Court considers whether the Criminal Justice Reform Act (CJRA or Act), N.J.S.A. 2A:162-15 to -26, empowers judges to detain defendants who are non-citizens to prevent immigration officials from removing them from the country before trial.
Holding: The CJRA favors pretrial release over detention; it authorizes judges to detain defendants when the State has shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that no conditions of release would reasonably assure the eligible defendant’s appearance in court when required, would protect the public, or would prevent the defendant from obstructing the criminal justice process…. The Court agrees with the Appellate Division that the CJRA does not authorize judges to detain defendants to thwart their possible removal by ICE.
Enjoy the light reading!
Jerry
****************************
Many thanks to all involved, with particular thanks to Judge Sue Roy for her energy, scholarship, advocacy and continuing dedication to due process under law. It’s an honor to work with and be inspired by you, my friend.
“Stepchild” is hardly a new word, without legal roots.Nor is it new to common usage.Does anyone think that Cinderella stopped being the wicked stepmother’s stepchild once Cinderella’s natural father died, ending the marriage? She was still a stepchild even after she married Prince Charming and moved to the palace.
***********************
Thanks to my good friend, fellow blogger, and Round Tablecolleague “Sir Jeffrey” Chase ⚔️🛡for sending this in!
I never thought of Judge Easterbrook as being a particularly jocular jurist.😎 But, after working in immigration for awhile, I guess it comes down to either laughing 😆 or crying 😢 . And, I definitely see the benefit of the former.
Thanks, Judge Easterbrook for both getting it right and giving me new material for my Immigration Law & Policy class!
Here’s an excerpt from a report by Nichols Iovino @ Courthouse News:
. . . .
The judge added that she found an amicus brief submitted by 37 former immigration law judges particularly illuminating because it helped illustrate some of “real-life consequences” of the rule.
The former immigration judges wrote that the rule “makes it more difficult for applicants and defense counsel to brief relevant issues and present evidence, creates new challenges for immigration judges to consider extraordinary changes in circumstances and to control the timing of their own docket, and severely limits the [Board of Immigration Appeals’] authority to make legally sound decisions and remain an apolitical rung in the immigration system.”
A motion for a preliminary injunction is also pending in separate lawsuit challenging the same Trump-era rule in the District of Columbia.
Judge Illston referenced our brief four times throughout the opinion (p.5, n.2, and pp. 39, 52, and 55).
Jeffrey also added:
The brief (drafted by Steven Schulman and his team at Akin Gump) was based on our Round Table’s comments to the proposed regs. [Judge] Ilyce [Shugall] organized and filed the comments, and the drafting committee was made up of [Judges] Ilyce [Shugall], Rebecca [Jamil], Joan [Churchill], Cecelia [Espenoza] and myself.
So proud to be part of this team that is “making a difference for the NDPA,” and more importantly, for the vulnerable human lives at stake in the EOIR Star Chambers. 🏴☠️ And thanks so much to Steven Schulman and his pro bono team at Akin Gump for making this happen.
So, here’s my question:Why is the Biden Administration defending this totally illegal, disingenuous, not to mention stupid, attempt byEOIR to deny due process and fundamental fairness while implementing the “worst practices imaginable?”
Judge Garland must get a handle on the awful, festering mess 🤮🤡☠️ at EOIR sooner rather than later!
Reade Levinson Reporter, ReutersKristina Cooke Reporter, ReutersMica Rosenberg National Immigration Reporter, ReutersBIA Asylum Panel In Action Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Reade Levinson, Kristina Cooke, & Mica Rosenberg report for Reuters:
(Reuters) – On a rainy September day in 2018, Jeff Sessions, then U.S. attorney general, addressed one of the largest classes of newly hired immigration judges in American history.
“The vast majority of asylum claims are not valid,” he said during a swearing-in ceremony in Falls Church, Virginia, according to his prepared remarks. If judges do their job, he said, “the number of illegal aliens and the number of baseless claims will fall.”
It was a clear message to the incoming class: Most of the immigrants who appear in court do not deserve to remain in the United States.
As U.S. President Joe Biden works to undo many of the restrictive immigration policies enacted by former President Donald Trump, he will confront one of his predecessor’s indelible legacies: the legion of immigration judges Trump’s administration hired.
The administration filled two-thirds of the immigration courts’ 520 lifetime positions with judges who, as a whole, have disproportionately ordered deportation, according to a Reuters analysis of more than 800,000 immigration cases decided over the past 20 years.
Judges hired under Trump ordered immigrants deported in 69% of cases, compared to 58% for judges hired as far back as the administration of President Ronald Reagan. Because hundreds of thousands of immigrants have cases before the court each year, that 11 percentage-point difference translates to tens of thousands more people ordered deported each year. Appeals are rarely successful.
Biden has promised to dramatically expand the courts by doubling the number of immigration judges and other staff. That’s a worthwhile effort, said Stephen Legomsky, a former chief counsel of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services who is now a professor emeritus at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis. “But the challenge is going to be tremendous.”
Although there are no statutory limits on the number of judges who can be hired, expanding the court would be costly and could take years, immigration law experts said.
“The fact that these (Trump-era) judges are already in place inhibits him a great deal,” Legomsky said of Biden.
Stephen Miller, the key architect of Trump’s immigration agenda, told Reuters that the administration had aimed to hire more immigration judges as part of an effort to “create more integrity in the asylum process” and quickly resolve what he termed meritless claims to cut down on a massive backlog.
“Most of the people that are coming unlawfully between ports of entry on the southwest border are not eligible for any recognized form of asylum,” Miller said in an interview. “There should be a very high rejection rate.”
Under U.S. law, immigrants are eligible for asylum only if they can prove they were being persecuted in their home countries on the basis of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or their political opinions. Miller said many migrants arriving at the border are coming for economic reasons and present fraudulent asylum claims.
Sessions, who as attorney general had the final say in hiring immigration judges, told Reuters that “the problem is not with the Trump judges. The problem was with some of the other judges that seemed to not be able to manage their dockets, or, in many cases, rendered rulings that were not consistent with the law.
The Trump administration’s successors to Sessions, who was forced out in 2018, did not respond to requests for comment.
. . . .
“There has been a significant lack of basic understanding of immigration law and policy with many – not all – but many of the new hires under the Trump administration,” said Susan Roy, an attorney and former immigration judge appointed during the administration of President George W. Bush who has represented immigrants before some new judges.
Reuters spoke with eight other former immigration judges, five of whom served under Trump, who generally echoed her view. Sitting immigration judges are not permitted to speak to the media.
Even for judges with immigration backgrounds, the type of experience they have has been controversial. In 2017, a report commissioned by the Justice Department found a lack of diversity of experience among judges hired, due to an excess of former prosecutors here from Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
. . . .
******************
Read the rest of the report at the link.
Hon. Sue Roy is a distinguished member of our Round Table of Former Immigration Judges 🛡⚔️ now in private practice representing asylum seekers and other migrants in Immigration Court.
Hon. Charles Honeyman, quoted elsewhere in the article, is also a member of the Round Table who actually was removed from a case for failing to carry out what he believed to be improper instructions from his “supervisors” who were implementing Sessions’s anti-immigrant policies.
Stephen Legomsky is a former USCIS SeniorExecutive and esteemed retired Professor who generally is acknowledged as one of American’s leading scholar-experts on immigration and human rights.
Judge Dana Leigh Marks, quoted elsewhere in the article, is a former President of the NationalAssociation of Immigration Judges who also successfully argued the landmarkSupreme Courtcase INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, which established the generous well-founded fear standard for asylum.
Sessions and Miller are notorious White Nationalist xenophobes who have neither represented asylum seekers nor been Immigration Judges. Their efforts to eradicate international norms and legal protections for vulnerable asylum seekers, and their particular bias against female asylum seekers, have been widely criticized and panned by human rights experts throughout the world, as well as enjoined or overruled by some U.S. Courts. They were architects of the widely condemned child separation policy and the New American Gulag (“NAG”).
EOIR is the failed DOJ agency that houses the dysfunctional Immigration Courts.
A finding of ‘probation before judgment’ should never lead to deportation | COMMENTARY
By JOHN F. GOSSART JR.
FOR THE BALTIMORE SUN |
FEB 05, 2021 AT 5:31 AM
“May God forgive you, because I cannot.”
These words were written to me in a letter while I was a United States immigration judge at the Baltimore Immigration Court, where I presided for 31 years. The letter was written by the wife of a man I had ordered deported. In so doing, I had permanently separated a father and husband from his wife and children. These words will stay with me for the rest of my life.
Michelle Jones’ husband, Daryl, was charged with a minor offense in Maryland. Like many first-time offenders and individuals charged with minor violations, he was given probation before judgment (PBJ). This meant that Daryl, a lawful permanent resident of the United States was not convicted under Maryland state law. For United States citizens, a Maryland PBJ poses no further consequences unless they violate the terms of their probation. But for non-citizens like Daryl, the legal consequences can be far more dire.
Although a PBJ is not considered a conviction under state law, it is considered a conviction under federal law and therefore triggers immigration consequences, such as detention and deportation. I have witnessed countless non-citizens be ordered deported as a result of a PBJ and the devastation to their families that follows. I myself have ordered the deportation of hundreds of Maryland residents like Daryl because of a PBJ. It didn’t matter that these individuals had been deemed worthy of a second chance and not convicted under Maryland law. Their PBJs condemned them to the gravest punishment — deportation under federal immigration law — leaving me with no judicial discretion. My hands were tied by the law.
The Maryland General Assembly has the opportunity, and the responsibility, to correct this unjust system by amending the PBJ statute. That is why I am asking the Maryland General Assembly to pass legislation (House Bill 354/Senate Bill 527) that would make probation before judgment accessible to all Maryland residents, regardless of citizenship status. The amendment would merely change the process by which a PBJ is entered; the impact of a PBJ would remain unchanged.
This bill ensures that the consequences of PBJs are the same for citizens and non-citizens alike, narrowing the disparities in our criminal justice and immigration systems, which disproportionately affect people of color. And for someone like Daryl, it would have been the difference between deportation and staying in the country to be with his family and watch his kids grow up.
. . . .
******************
Read the full op-ed at the link.
All of us who have served on the immigration bench have had cases like Daryl’s where the result is unjust and there is no sensible explanation for what we were forced to do.
The time for rationalizing and humanizing our immigration laws is here. As my long-time friend and colleague (we were “present at the beginning” of EOIR) John says, we must seize and act on every opportunity to make due process and equal justice under law a reality for all persons in America!
Thanks, my friend and colleague!
Historical trivia: I made one of my rare Immigration Court appearances before Judge Gossart in a pro bono case when I was at Frogomen DC. It was an asylum case, and we won at the preheating conference! I do remember that Judge Gossart was pretty peeved at me because I refused to concede removability, asserting my client’s right to be in and remain in the U.S. as a refugee/asylee. He “ripped me” on that issue, but we won on everything else. The INS Attorney didn’t contest it, as I remember.
One of my other pro bono appearances was before my friend and Round Table colleague Judge Joan Churchill in Arlington. Won that one too — recollect it was a withholding of removal case, also resolved through pretrial agreement with the INS Attorney at the suggestion of Judge Churchill.
Didn’t get to show off my “litigation skills” in either case. Probably just as well. A “W” is a “W,” and a life saved is a life saved!
Vanita Gupta Nominee for Associate AG Photo: Brookings Institution, Paul Morigi, Creative Commons LicenseKristin Clarke Nominee for Assistant AG, Civil Rights Photo: NAACP, Creative Commons License
Meet the courageous, dynamic , outspoken, new human-rights-oriented leaders looking to fulfill the Constitution and make “equal justice for all” a reality @ the DOJ and for America.Sam Levine reports for The Guardian.
On her last day at the justice department in 2017, Vanita Gupta considered taking a picture as she left the agency’s headquarters on Pennsylvania Avenue. But she decided against it. Gupta, the outgoing head of the department’s civil rights division, once described as the “crown jewel” of the agency, didn’t really want to remember the moment, she told a reporter who was shadowing her for the day.
Jeff Sessions, then the incoming attorney general, was poised to unwind much of the painstaking progress Gupta, 46, and her colleagues had spent the last four years building. It was no secret that Sessions opposed the kind of court agreements the justice department used to fix unconstitutional policing policies across the country (“dangerous” and an “exercise of raw power” in Sessions’ eyes). Nor were there any illusions that Sessions would try very hard to enforce the Voting Rights Act, already on its last legs after the supreme court gutted a key provision in 2013 (Sessions described the landmark civil rights law as “intrusive”).
Many of those concerns came to pass. Trump’s justice department not only did little to enforce some of the country’s most powerful civil rights protections for minority groups, but in several cases it opposed them. It filed almost no voting rights cases and defended restrictive voting laws, tried to undermine the census, challenged affirmative action policies, sought to roll back protections for LGBTQ+ Americans, and limited the use of consent decrees to curb illegal policing practices. Gupta took a job as the head of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition of civil rights groups across the country, where she became one of the leading figures pushing back on the Trump administration.
Joining Gupta in that effort was Kristen Clarke, a 47-year-old former justice department lawyer who leads the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, founded in 1963 to help attorneys in private practice enforce civil rights. As her group filed voting rights and anti-discrimination lawsuits across the country over the last few years, Clarke spent hours nearly every election day briefing journalists on reports of incoming voting problems. Reports of long lines, voting machine malfunctions, translator issues – no problem was too small. The monitoring sent a message that civil rights groups would move swiftly against any whiff of voter suppression.
Now, after years of leading the fight for civil rights from outside the justice department, both women are poised to return to its top levels, where they can deploy the unmatchable resources of the federal government. Last month, Joe Biden tapped Gupta to serve as his associate attorney general, the No 3 official at the department, and Clarke to lead the civil rights division. If confirmed by the Senate, Gupta would be the first woman of color to be the associate attorney general; Clarke would be the first Black woman in her role.
“They are both independently legit civil rights champions with a long deep history,” said Justin Levitt, who worked with Gupta at the justice department and knows both women well. “They’re going to make a really spectacular, really powerful team.”
Picking two career civil rights lawyers for two of the top positions at the justice department sends an unmistakable signal that civil rights enforcement will be a top priority for the agency over the next four years. Civil rights leaders said they could not remember a prior administration in which two of the department’s highest positions were filled by civil rights attorneys, especially two such as Clarke and Gupta.
“It’s going to be really important and energizing and exciting to be able to be in conversation and discussion with people who understand the department’s role in civil rights enforcement,” said Sherrilyn Ifill, president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF), who has worked closely with both women. “But it’s also going to be exciting, and as a matter of resources, to have the department actually do civil rights enforcement.”
. . . .
********************
Read the rest of these inspiring American profiles 🇺🇸🌟at the link. Don’t you think we need the “Vanita & Kristen” of immigration and human rights to lead the restoration effort at EOIR and the BIA?
Here are the “keys to success:”
Immigrants’ rights are human rights;
Human rights are civil rights;
There can be neither racial justice nor equal justice in America until migrants are not only fully recognized as “persons” under our Constitution, but actually treated as such (as opposed to the active “dehumanization” and “Dred Scottification” of migrants and persons of color by the Trump regime and the GOP majority on the Roberts’ Court);
You can’t possibly “win the game” with the same players who “batted for the White Nationalists” over the past four years.
And, speaking of “Jewel in the Crown.”👑 That’s exactly how many of us in the “Round Table of Former Immigration Judges” 🛡⚔️ once viewed EOIR. The “EOIR Vision” was: “Through teamwork and innovation be the worlds’s best tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.”
So, Vanita, and I hope Kristen also, can imagine the anger and determination to fight with which our Round Table viewed the dismemberment of due process and weaponization of the Immigration Courts under Sessions, Whitaker, and Barr. From aspiring to be the “world’s best tribunals” to “Star Chambers” and a grotesque, dysfunctional national disgrace!
On the plus side: Both Gupta and Clarke are the daughters of immigrants. Both have written and advocated for immigrants’ rights as part of their civil rights leadership.
Caution. Obama Attorneys General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch were “facially aggressive” on protecting voting rights and police reforms. Yet, at the same time they: helped DHS set deportation records; allowed EOIR to spiral toward dysfunction (to a large extent through failure to procure and properly manage resources and an indolent judicial hiring program that was both “closed and non-diverse in nature” and glacial in operation (2 years to fill an average judicial vacancy!)); supported “baby jails,” the “family gulag,” and toddlers representing themselves on asylum cases in Immigration Court; looked the other way as private prisons treated asylum seekers and migrants worse than convicted criminals; and “went along to get along” with the Administration’s misuse of the Immigration Courts as (a highly ineffective) deterrent to applications for asylum.
Sessions, Whitaker, and Barr might have been the “Kings of Aimless Docket Reshuffling” at EOIR that helped produce an astounding 1.3 million case plus “backlog.” But, it started in earnest under the Obama Administration.
That’s what I mean by the “two headed policy:” arguing for voting rights for minorities in one courtroom while simultaneously ignoring the human and civil rights of migrants in the next courtroom. Arguing for the right to vote in one case, while arguing (apparently with a straight face) that toddlers who can’t speak English have no right to legal representation in the next case.
Not only that, but with the Biden Administration apparently looking to rapidly fill upcoming Article III vacancies, the Obama DOJ’s mishandling of the Immigration Courts has deprived President Biden of the chance to draw from a diverse group of younger, progressive Immigration Judges whose practical scholarship, commitment to human rights and due process, courage, and proven ability to function in a “high stress” judicial setting would make them strong candidates for the now-reeling Article III Judiciary.
That’s certainly not to say that there aren’t some potential progressive candidates for the Article III Judiciary among today’s present, and particularly recently “retired,” (some essentially “forced out” at relatively young ages as a “matter of conscience”) Immigration Judges. There are! But, only a fraction of the number there would have been if the Obama Administration had taken the Immigration Courts with proper seriousness.
And, that’s leaving aside the lives that could have been saved and better jurisprudence that could have been “institutionalized” with better, merit-based, judicial selections at EOIR during the Obama Administration!
I sincerely hope that Vanita Gupta and Kristen Clarke can help Judge Garland get the job done at Justice. The “human rights/immigration world” will be cheering for you. Getting some of the folks from the New Due Process Army(“NDPA”) into key positions at EOIR and the rest of the DOJ will be an “early signal” of whether or not “Team Garland gets it.”
Removing McHenry at EOIR was a good start! But, it’s only a small step in what has to be done to make racial justice and immigrant justice a reality at the DOJ. The “brooms and plungers” 🧹🚽 need to come out, and the sweeping and plunging has to be quick and widespread.
On the other hand, there is “no patience for another Obama Administration” out here in the real world. Every day, EOIR and DOJ are killing folks, ruining lives, and abusing the brave and dedicated attorneys of the NDPA! If the rhetoric doesn’t produce short term results and drastic improvements, you can expect the same type of aggressive litigation from the NDPA that stopped the defeated regime from completely destroying the U.S. justice system.
