"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.
“In sum, the BIA erred in finding that Chicas-Machado was not a refugee under the INA due to a lack of nexus to a protected ground, religion. Chicas-Machado demonstrated past persecution on account of religion, and is therefore entitled to the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Qiao Hua Li, 405 F.3d at 176-77. Recognizing the BIA’s error, we grant the petition for review and remand the case for further proceedings. Upon remand, the BIA must determine whether the Government can rebut the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. 8 If the BIA concludes that Chicas-Machado is eligible for asylum on remand, it should reconsider her withholding of removal claim. See Sorto-Guzman, 42 F.4th at 450. We decline to reach all other issues raised on appeal as to her asylum and withholding of removal claims, and direct the BIA to reevaluate those claims following its reconsideration of Chicas-Machado’s asylum application. See Arita-Deras v. Wilkinson, 990 F.3d 350, 361 n.10 (4th Cir. 2021) (declining to reach the merits of withholding of removal appeal after finding error in the BIA’s asylum analysis).”
“This petition raises important questions about proper notice in removal proceedings. Federal immigration law mandates that the government provide a noncitizen with a written notice to appear that contains certain critical details about her removal hearing, including the “time and place” of the proceedings. In a pair of recent decisions, the Supreme Court has clarified that the notice to appear must be a single document containing all statutorily required information. See Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021); Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). Petitioners Azucena Aracely Lazo-Gavidia and her minor son were ordered removed in absentia. The immigration judge denied their motion to reopen the removal proceedings and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed their appeal. Because Lazo-Gavidia and her son received defective notices to appear, we grant their petition, vacate the Board’s order dismissing their appeal, and remand for further proceedings.”
[Hats off to Glenn Fogle! Listen to the oral argument here.]
“Because an offender can be convicted under Nebraska’s shoplifting statute when he acts with an intent not encompassed by a generic theft offense, we hold that the statute sweeps more broadly than the generic federal offense. Accordingly, the BIA erred in finding that Thok was removable for having committed a theft offense—and, thus, an aggravated felony—based upon his Nebraska shoplifting convictions. … For the foregoing reasons, we grant the petition for review, vacate the BIA’s order, and remand the matter to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this decision.”
“Mercy Naah, a native of Cameroon, was charged as removable from the United States. She applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Naah demonstrated that she is unable or unwilling to return to Cameroon because of past persecution on account of her political opinion. Accordingly, we grant her petition for review as to her asylum and withholding of removal claims and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports for the Round Table 🛡️⚔️:
5. Experts
Unpublished 1st Cir. Victory [Experts]
[T]o keep it brief, we were on the winning side in an unpublished 1st Cir. decision issued today in which the IJ and BIA wrongly gave little weight to an country expert’s opinion on the risk petitioner faced in a CAT case. Decision attached. The Round Table filed an amicus brief in this one. Another great win for SangYeob Kim, Gilles Bissonnette and the ACLU of New Hampshire!
More to follow. We continue to make a difference!
Best, Jeff
I have just learned that counsel is filing a motion to publish. There is good language regarding the evidentiary weight of one qualified as an expert who testifies credibly. The decision points out that an expert need not have personal knowledge of the facts underlying their opinion, as long as such opinion is based on sufficient facts or data;” that “An expert cannot be “undermined by his reliance on facts . . . that have not been disputed;” and that where an IJ makes factual findings not consistent with the expert’s opinion, it is important for the IJ to explain the reasons behind those findings.
Why do Dems routinely shoot themselves in the foot on immigration while driving a wedge between Dems in power and the immigration/social justice advocates who helped them get there?
In each of the 4th Circuit cases here, our Dem AG aligned himself with restrictionist positions advocated by dissenting Bush II and Trump appointees, while eschewing the far better-reasoned, more practical approaches advocated by expert advocates and adopted by the jurists in the majority who are committed to due process.
As the 4th Circuit majority in Chicas-Machado cogently points out, the BIA’s “excessively narrow reading” of nexus conflicts with both the statutory language and practical considerations regarding the motivation of persecutors (not to mention riding roughshod over existing, binding Circuit precedent). The BIA has a long and troubling history of ignoring “mixed motive” to deny asylum.
Yet, instead of improving under Dems, the BIA’s abuse of nexus to wrongfully disqualify qualified refugees from protection has continued to metastasize under Garland! It’s all part of the anti-immigrant, “any reason to deny” culture at EOIR, promoted by Sessions and Barr and not effectively addressed by Garland.
Happy to see another Round Table victory on use of experts. But, the 1st Circuit should have published this instructive decision. Hopefully, they now will!
As we know, the BIA’s systemic mishandling of experts is a chronic problem, particularly as the BIA intentionally overcomplicates the law, as a “deterrent,” so experts are almost a requirement for success. (Even though it is well-known that many asylum applicants have difficulty just getting competent pro bono lawyers to represent them, let alone the services of “pro bono experts.”). Every example helps expose the BIA’s professional misconduct, for which Garland and his DOJ leadership have shown an unusual and disturbing tolerance.
If you don’t bring an expert, they deny for failure to sustain your B/P! If you do bring an expert, they minimize, misconstrue, or ignore their testimony!
“Catch 22” — the applicant loses either way!
Experts are also important because it’s an area where the Article IIIs’ experience with experts in civil litigation far exceeds the BIA’s. Therefore, they are apt to recognize the BIA’s sharp divergence from the weight and respect ordinarily given to experts in civil litigation. Hence, we have had substantial success with the Circuits in challenging the BIA’s continuing, inappropriately dismissive, treatment of experts.
The BIA routinely uses sloppy, often internally inconsistent, “boilerplate” in their decisions. Yet, they somehow find time to “nitpick” expert testimony looking for every minor or insignificant “omission” or “discrepancy” to discredit the expert! What a disgrace!
Finally, on Naah v. Garland, a special “shout out” to long-time NDPA stalwart and role model Danielle Beach-Oswald on her victory in a Cameroonian political persecution case in the 5th Circuit. As the decision reflects, asylum victories on non-procedural issues are hard to come by in the 5th. Danielle was a “Legacy Arlington Immigration Court regular” during my time on the bench. This just further cements her status as “one of the best in the business!”
Congrats, Danielle, and thanks for all you do!
Think how much better this system would function with a BIA of real subject-matter experts focused on due process and fundamental fairness — rather than helping out their “partners” at DHS enforcement and protecting their careers in the process! And, what if we also had a Dem AG focused on due process for immigrants in “his” courts, rather than being asleep at the switch and complicit in some of the worst, anti immigrant, biased, backlog building “jurisprudence” rolled out by the Federal “justice” system!
What if once in office, Dems actually courageously stood up for the immigrants, advocates, and values they claim to represent during elections?
On Saturday, Roger Gregory concluded his tenure as chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. Judge Gregory has ensured the court expeditiously, inexpensively and fairly decided several thousand appeals annually.
President Bill Clinton nominated Judge Gregory in June 2000, but GOP senators ignored the nomination, so Clinton granted him a recess appointment that December. President George W. Bush nominated Judge Gregory in May 2001, and he won confirmation. Judge Gregory was the court’s initial Black jurist, becoming its first Black chief judge in July 2016.
Gregory ensured efficacious implementation of administrative tasks, notably investitures for new active, and retirements for senior, jurists on the 15-member appeals court, plus the nine districts’ many trial court, magistrate and bankruptcy judges. He facilitated professional development of 150 judges and 1,600 court staff.
Judge Gregory also discharged complex, delicate responsibilities, namely investigating and resolving ethics complaints and claims of discrimination, which involved jurists and court personnel. Other complicated, sensitive duties were maintaining the court’s effective disposition of substantial appeals and collegiality as it transitioned from the most conservative to a more progressive appellate court. A crisis arising in Judge Gregory’s tenure was the coronavirus pandemic. He expeditiously organized the 4th Circuit response, skillfully navigating public health dangers and politicization of remedies for those risks.
Judge Gregory exhibited diligence, wisdom and appreciation, showing respect for history, customs and norms, as well as the 1,750 dedicated public servants who assiduously help the court efficaciously resolve large cases. Individuals across the 4th Circuit are indebted to Judge Gregory for his exceptional administration.
Carl Tobias, Richmond
The writer is the Williams chair in law at the University of Richmond School of Law.
************************
Very well-deserved tribute! Thanks for writing it!
The totally dysfunctional U.S. Immigration Courts need leadership like that provided by Judge Gregory. Perhaps, Judge Garland could call Judge Gregory and get him to take over and straighten out EOIR, America’s worst important “court” system. Sadly, to date, Garland has shown little interest in making good on the constitutional guarantee of due process for all persons in the U.S., including immigrants!
Judge Gregory, the first African-American judge on the Circuit, is succeeded by Chief Judge Albert Diaz a 2010 Obama appointee. Judge Diaz becomes the first Hispanic to serve as the Circuit’s Chief Judge!
“The United States’ war in Afghanistan required regional allies willing to aid the effort. One such ally was Shaker Ullah, a Pakistani businessman who sold supplies to coalition forces. This invoked the wrath of the Pakistani Taliban, which demanded exorbitant payments from Ullah under threat of death. Ullah repeatedly refused, and the Taliban attempted to carry out its threat, promising to hunt him until it succeeded. After losing his business, home, and nearly his life, Ullah fled to the United States seeking asylum. The Immigration Judge and Board of Immigration Appeals both recognized that Ullah suffered past persecution entitling him to a presumption that the Taliban would continue to target him if he returned to Pakistan. But they agreed with the government that because Ullah lived in Islamabad (the capital of Pakistan) for a few weeks without the Taliban finding him, he could live in a new area of the country without fear of reprisal. We disagree. Ullah’s brief sojourn to Islamabad—where he never left the house— doesn’t rebut the presumption that a notorious terrorist organization continues to imperil his life. Since the record would compel any reasonable adjudicator to conclude Ullah faces a well-founded threat of future persecution, we grant Ullah’s petition for review, reverse the Board’s denial of Ullah’s preserved claims, and remand with instructions that the agency grant relief.”
[Hats way off to superlitigator Ben Winograd! Listen to the oral argument here.]
“Petitioner Zuowei Chen is a native of China admitted to the United States on a student visa in 2009. Chen now seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. If removed to China, Chen fears, he will be persecuted and tortured by Chinese authorities, who in 2008 allegedly imprisoned and violently beat him because of his Christian beliefs and practices. We find there are aspects of the agency’s decision that require clarification before we can meaningfully review Chen’s claims. Accordingly, we vacate the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals and remand for further explanation, consistent with this opinion.”
Notably, and refreshingly, in Ullah, the 4th Circuit took the unusual step of directing the BIA to grant asylum, rather than just remanding for the BIA to screw it up again! In Chen, Trump appointee Circuit Judge Marvin Quattlebaum was part of the unanimous panel! Condemnation of EOIR’s deficient performance is uniting Article III jurists across ideological lines!
The GOP is “out for Garland’s scalp” for all the WRONG reasons! It’s actually Dems who should be demanding an accounting for his inexcusable, miserable, democracy-eroding (non)performance at EOIR!
Garland’s mess at EOIR isn’t “theoretical,” “academic,” or “speculative!” It’s ACTUALLY endangering lives, eroding democracy, and creating unnecessary chaos on a daily basis! His intransigence is also diverting HUGE amounts of resources that could be used to DEFEND American democracy, rather than seeking to hold a tone-deaf Dem Administration accountable!
In the meantime, Dems are fecklessly moaning and groaning about a lawless and ethics-free Supremes. Yet, a Dem Administration is operating a huge, nationwide “court” system presenting these same problems, in spades!♠️
And, the victims of EOIR’s substandard judging are overwhelmingly people of color, literally fighting for their lives in a dysfunctional system that the Biden Administration is unwilling and/or unable to fix. In these cases, the victims were fortunate enough to be represented by two of the “best in the business,” Ben Winograd and Tamara Jezic. But, too many others face this biased and unfair system unrepresented, a situation that Garland not only has failed to remedy, but has made worse in some ways.What “message, does this send, particularly to the younger cohort of “social justice” voters whom the Dems are counting on for the future?
Following the 2020 election, human rights advocates and experts expected and deserved dramatic, long overdue progressive improvements in justice at EOIR. Instead, Garland inexplicably has retained many of the most regressive features of injustice at EOIR, developed and reinforced during the Trump years. Frustration abounds, while justice for the most vulnerable among us suffers under a Dem Administration! 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
How bad is EOIR under Garland? One informed observer put it this way:
BIA staff attorneys are rewarded for the number of signed decisions per month. With the present make-up of the Board, their only incentive is to crank out denials.
Dems love to talk about “change!” The GOP actually achieves it, even though the results are overwhelmingly negative, regressive, and existentially damaging to democracy! Something’s got to give here!
BIA Asylum Panel In Action — Garland, a former Article III Appeals Judge, employs appellate judges who routinely misconstrue asylum law to wrongfully deny legal protection, thus artificially suppressing what should be much higher success rates for asylum seekers in a functional legal system properly applying asylum law! The law and precedents establishing a properly generous application of the well-founded fear standard for asylum are routinely ignored or disingenuously avoided by Garland’s biased anti-asylum “courts!” BIA panels routinely butcher “mixed motive” cases to deny asylum to deserving refugees! Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:
“Upon our review, we conclude that the Board abused its discretion by applying an incorrect legal standard in its nexus analysis for the petitioner’s asylum and withholding of removal claims. We also hold with regard to these two claims that the Board abused its discretion by arbitrarily disregarding the petitioner’s testimony about the threat of future persecution. However, we reject the petitioner’s argument that the Board abused its discretion with regard to his CAT claim. The Board provided specific reasons for finding the petitioner’s testimony insufficient to meet his burden of proof, and appropriately evaluated the evidence under the futility exception. We thus grant in part and deny in part the petition for review, vacate in part the Board’s order denying reconsideration, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. … We thus conclude that the IJ erred by applying an incorrect standard in the nexus analysis, and that the Board abused its discretion because it “compounded the [IJ’s] error by failing to recognize it.” Perez Vasquez, 4 F.4th at 223. In addition, both the IJ and the Board failed to address substantively the petitioner’s testimony about the threat of future persecution. … The Board thus applied the incorrect legal standard for the nexus analysis and arbitrarily disregarded relevant evidence. Accordingly, we hold that the Board abused its discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion to reconsider his asylum and withholding of removal claims, and we remand for the agency to “meaningfully consider [the petitioner’s] evidence” under the correct legal standard.”
Eric Suarez ESQUIRE Partner Sanabria & Associates PHOTO: Firm website
***************************
EOIR judges and the BIA routinely butcher “mixed motive” cases like this one! This endemic problem at EOIR badly distorts asylum adjudication nationwide, produces false statistics suppressing the significant number of wrongful asylum denials (particularly targeting asylum applicants of color for unfair, unjust adjudications), and refutes the Article III’s disingenuous treatment of the BIA as an “expert tribunal” entitled to Chevron deference. In that way, it seriously undermines the integrity of our entire judicial system!
In this case, counsel specifically pointed our the BIA’s errors in a timely motion to reconsider, only to have it “blown off” with basically fabricated boilerplate BS!
The petitioner appealed the IJ’s decision to the Board. After the Board affirmed the IJ’s conclusions and dismissed the appeal, the petitioner filed a motion to reconsider. The Board denied the motion, concluding that the IJ did not clearly err in its nexus determination, and reiterating the IJ’s conclusion that family membership was “incidental or subordinate” to the other reasons the gang targeted the petitioner, namely, for monetary gain and gang recruitment.
Another of my favorite parts of this decision addresses the BIA’s pronounced tendency to invent specious “non-protected” reasons for the persecution and then dishonestly characterize that at the sole or primary motivations.
The Board’s cursory conclusion that the gang had targeted the petitioner for “monetary gain and gang recruitment” does not remedy the Board’s error. Indeed, we fail to see how family membership necessarily was subordinate to these other motivations when the sole basis the petitioner presented for his fear of future persecution was that the gang would target him due to his relationships with his siblings.
Friends, this is NOT the competent, impartial, professional, expert adjudication that due process and fundamental fairness requires! Nor is it the improvement from Trump’s institutionalized White Nationalist approach to asylum and immigration promised by Biden and Harris during their 2020 campaign! It’s basically a “bait and switch” by Dems! Additionally, it sets a horrible example for Immigration Judges (many of whom lack relevant expertise in asylum law) and Asylum Officers nationwide.
Garland’s has refused to “clean house” and employ solely competent, unbiased, impartial asylum experts as BIA Appellate Immigration Judges, selected on a merit basis from among those possessing the requisite practical asylum expertise, temperament, andwidely-acknowledged qualifications for these critically important judgeships.
Garland’s failure to perform his job, in turn, is having a deleterious effect on every aspect of our asylum, protection, and immigration systems and is undermining the entire rule of law. It also promotes false narratives about asylum seekers and inhibits effective representation of this vulnerable and deserving group. It’s wrong; it’s inexcusable, and it’s a “big deal!’
I leave you with this thought from an expert who actually practices before EOIR and understands what competent asylum adjudication should be:
We really do need better judges at the BIA. [Hope that this] decision that will make a dent in their current dysfunction.
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges — Maybe HE should be in charge of selecting and training BIA Appellate Immigration Judges!
Or as my Round Table colleague Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase suggests:
Maybe the Board should read my article on the proper test for nexus:
Bonifacio Fernandez Sanchez, a Mexican citizen who migrated to the United States
illegally as a minor in 2006, was deported in 2011 following a four-minute removal hearing. During that hearing, the immigration judge neglected to advise Fernandez Sanchez about his eligibility for voluntary departure or inform him of his right to appeal. Then, in his written summary order, the immigration judge indicated that Fernandez Sanchez had waived his right to appeal—even though this was never discussed during the hearing.
In the years since, Fernandez Sanchez has returned to the United States and been deported multiple times. Upon discovering him in the country once again in 2018, the Government opted to arrest and charge him with illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Fernandez Sanchez moved to dismiss his indictment, arguing that the 2011 deportation order underlying his § 1326 charge was invalid.
The district court agreed, finding that the immigration judge’s failure to advise Fernandez Sanchez regarding his eligibility for voluntary departure rendered his 2011 removal fundamentally unfair. However, while this appeal was pending, we effectively rejected the district court’s reasoning in United States v. Herrera-Pagoada, 14 F.4th 311 (4th Cir. 2021). Fernandez Sanchez nevertheless maintains that the district court’s decision must be affirmed on an alternative basis: that the immigration judge’s denial of his right to appeal also prejudiced him. We agree, and therefore affirm the dismissal of Fernandez Sanchez’s indictment.
. . . .
************************
To me, it sounds like the 4th Circuit having “buyer’s remorse” about their questionable decision in United States v. Herrera-Pagoada, There, the court found that an IJ’s erroneous failure to advise a respondent of the availability of pre-hearing voluntary departure (“VD”)was not a constitutional violation because there was no constitutional right to be advised of potential relief from deportation, even though a DOJ regulation required it! Huh?
But, here the court finds that the IJ’s improper failure to advise of the availability of prehearing VD combined with his failure to advise of appeal rights WAS a due process violation. Why? Because, if properly advised, the individual probably would have appealed, been successful, received a remand from the BIA, and then received VD from the IJ, thus avoiding deportation. Huh?
The problem here is that as currently staffed and operated by the Executive, EOIR is one “walking, talking violation of due process.” If Congress won’t solve the problem by enacting a long overdue Article I Immigration Court, then the Article IIIs need to “take the bull by the horns!”
They should place this entire, festering conflict of interest, and hotbed of substandard quasi-judicial performance OUT of the control of the nation’s Chief Prosecutor, the AG. Until Congress acts to establish a constitutionally compliant system, EOIR should be placed under the supervision of an independent, expert “Special Master” qualified to fairly administer one of the nation’s most important, yet totally dysfunctional and highly unfair, court systems!
Interestingly, much of the court’s reasoning is based on the premise that on appeal the BIA would have corrected the IJ’s clear errors. But, as those who follow Federal immigration litigation are aware, the BIA’s “assembly line” appellate review, sensitivity to due process, and willingness to apply precedent favoring the respondent are often as slipshod and driven by undue haste as this 4-minute IJ hearing.
Ironically, the IJ who mishandled this case is generally regarded as one of the “best in the business” — experienced, knowledgeable, fair, and sensitive to the rights of individuals coming before him. So, while this screw-up might be an aberration for this particular IJ, it’s clearly not a systemic rarity.
In the haste makes waste, hopelessly backlogged, “anything goes” “world of EOIR” goofs like this are likely happening every hour of every day that the Immigration Courts are in session. But, since many folks are unrepresented or underrepresented, some mistakes are simply buried or deported.
Indeed, I had my share of 4-minute (or less) “hearings” during 13 years on the bench. Inevitably, I made some mistakes — some were caught, some inevitably weren’t. Hopefully, I learned from the ones brought to my attention. With “Master Calendars” often consisting of upwards of 50 cases in a 3-hour “slot” in a courtroom overflowing with humanity — and the need to provide stressed out interpreters court clerks, counsel, and me with suitable “breaks” — you can do the math!
Once I did a 100 case Televideo Master in Ohio where 1) I had no files; 2) the ICE ACC who had been detailed to the hearing location had no files; and 3) the interpreter spoke a language other than the one of the majority of the respondents on the calendar. Afterwards, I told the then Chief IJ that I had spent the day in “Clown Court!’” 🤡 He was not amused.
To quote my friend and former colleague retired Judge Wayne Iskra: “This system is broken!”“Numbers,” “final orders,” “expediency,” and “productivity” to satisfy bureaucratic enforcement goals or to support Government myths about immigrants drive the EOIR system. Due process, fundamental fairness, compliance with the statute and regulations, and meaningful analysis are not this dysfunctional system’s focus. But, they must be!
Clearly, “dedicated dockets,” regulatory time frames, form orders, remote “Adjudication Centers,” and other “designed to fail” gimmicks tried under Garland are NOT going to solve the chronic quality-control and due process problems plaguing EOIR!
In other words, EOIR as currently constituted and “operated” is a “due process sham!” The 4th Circuit and other Article IIIs need to “dig deeper” into the glaring constitutional and professional quality problems plaguing Garland’s broken Immigration Courts! If neither he nor Congress will solve the problems, somebody must!
“Petitioner Rodolfo Josue Tinoco Acevedo appeals an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial of his application for cancellation of removal. Because the BIA failed to address whether Tinoco Acevedo’s case should be remanded to a new immigration judge (“IJ”) under Matter of Y-S-L-C-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 688 (BIA 2015), we grant Tinoco Acevedo’s petition for review, vacate the order of removal, and remand to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. … Rather than opine as to the exact grounds on which the BIA decided that the applicant was entitled to a new hearing before a new IJ in Matter of Y-S-L-C-, we remand for the BIA to interpret its precedent and address Tinoco Acevedo’s argument in the first instance. … we grant Tinoco Acevedo’s petition for review, vacate the order of removal, and remand for the BIA to consider whether Tinoco Acevedo is entitled to a new hearing before a different IJ because the initial IJ’s conduct—both during and following the hearing—failed to satisfy the high standard expected of IJs under Matter of Y-S-L-C-. PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; VACATED AND REMANDED.” [Note: The IJ was Roxanne C. Hladylowycz.]
[Hats off once again to IRAC superlitigator Ben Winograd!]
Yet another example of the BIA not being familiar with and applying their own precedents where they could be favorable to the respondent. Any old boilerplate BS will do as long is the result is “dismiss and remove.”
It’s one thing for the BIA to articulate “high standards” for IJ conduct in Matter of Y-S-L-C-. It’s quite another to consistently enforce them where the lives of migrants are at stake!
It was a particularly bad idea for the BIA to spring this haphazard “good enough for government work” approach when Ben Winograd is appellate counsel. Winograd knows the BIA and 4th Circuit precedents better than most BIA judges. And, unlike the latter, he’s willing to stand up for immigrants’ legal rights!
It would be better for Garland and American justice — not to mention those seeking justice in Immigration Court, too often in vain — if brilliant, due-process-oriented “practical scholars” like Ben Winograd replaced the “holdover BIA judges” who aren’t up to the job of “guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” Remarkably, there was a time in the past when that long disregarded judicial essential was the “vision” of EOIR.
Ironically, the Article III Judges of this 4th Circuit panel (Chief Judge Gregory, Circuit Judges Motz and Wynn) understand the critical requirements for EOIR judging better than AG Garland! That’s a problem (although, concededly, outside the “World of EOIR” Garland has had his best week as AG)!
This opinion was written by Chief Judge Roger Gregory. He continues to be a leader among Article III Judges who take due process and immigrants’ rights seriously! He’s also someone who “gets” the clear connection between immigrant justice (or, in too many cases lack thereof) and racial justice.
With the Chief Immigration Judge position now vacant, Judge Garland has a golden opportunity to appoint a “Judge Gregory clone” to that critical position. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=30193&action=edit. That would also be a wise course for Garland to take to replace the current glaringly inadequate leadership at his failing BIA! How about Chief Appellate Immigration Judge/Chairman Ben Winograd?
Would you want this guy as your Immigration Judge or BIA “panel?” If not, tell Garland to “pull the plug” on his deadly and incompetent BIA! Public Domain
Sorto-Guzmán v. Garland, 4th Cir., 08-93-22, published
PANEL:KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
OPINION: Judge FLOYD
KEY QUOTE:
In sum, we hold that the IJ’s decision, which the BIA adopted, blatantly ignored our long line of cases establishing that the threat of death alone establishes past persecution. This was legal error, and therefore, an abuse of discretion. See Cordova v. Holder, 759 F.3d 332, 337 (4th Cir. 2014). We hold that Sorto-Guzman has established she was subjected to past persecution in El Salvador.2 She is thereby entitled to the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. Li, 405 F.3d at 176; 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1). The IJ and the BIA erred in not affording Sorto-Guzman this presumption, which would
2 Sorto-Guzman argues, in the alternative, that the IJ and the BIA erred in finding that she failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. We will not answer that question today. Because we hold that she properly established past persecution, the proper remedy is to remand the case to the BIA to consider the question of whether DHS can rebut the presumption that Sorto-Guzman has a well-founded fear of future persecution.
11
have then shifted the burden to DHS to rebut the presumption. Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 187 (4th Cir. 2004); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i).
*************
Sorto-Guzman is a life-long Catholic who regularly attended Catholic services in El Salvador. In December 2015, about five members of the Mara 18 gang accosted Sorto- Guzman in the street as she was leaving church. At the time, she was wearing a crucifix medallion around her neck. The gang members tore the chain from her neck, hit and kicked her, and threatened to kill her if she ever wore it or attended church again. Sorto-Guzman stopped attending church after the attack, fearing the gang and their threats.
A few weeks later in January 2016, a group of Mara 18 gang members—including some of the gang members from the December 2015 assault—stopped Sorto-Guzman, along with her sister and Rivas-Sorto, as she was coming home from a shopping trip. One of the men attempted to sexually assault Sorto-Guzman and had started to forcefully kiss her. He only stopped when her screams caught the attention of a neighbor. The gang members threatened to kill Sorto-Guzman and Rivas-Sorto if Sorto-Guzman did not join the gang and start living with them.
3
On February 13, 2016, some of the gang members from the prior incidents tracked where Sorto-Guzman lived and broke into her house carrying guns. The gang members viciously beat Sorto-Guzman, threatened her life, and robbed her. Sorto-Guzman’s neighbors called the police, but they did not come until several hours after the assault. Sorto-Guzman reported the assault and robbery to the officers who arrived at the scene. She also went to the local police station the next day to report the attack. The police made one attempt to investigate, but Petitioners were not home when the police arrived, and the officers never followed up. The day after, a gang member called Sorto-Guzman, warning her she would regret making the report to the police and that they would soon kill her, her son, and her sister.
Absurdly, an Immigration Judge found that this gross abuse and death threats by a gang with the ability and willingness to carry them out did not amount to “persecution.” Worse yet, on appeal, rather than reversing and directing the judge below to follow the law, the BIA agreed — invoking the outlandish “theory” that the death threats, on top of the savage beating, weren’t so bad because they had never come to “fruition.” In other words, the applicant hadn’t hung around to be killed. Then, to top it off, attorneys from the DOJ’s Office of Immigration Litigation (“OIL”) unethically defended this deadly nonsense before the Fourth Circuit! This is “justice” in Garland’s disgraceful, deadly, and dysfunctional “court” system!
Garland’s BIA Judges applying the “fruition” test. If she lives, it’s not persecution! Public Realm Source: Ancient Origins Website https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160
NOT, a “mere mistake.”
EOIR’s performance is this case, particularly the BIA’s absurdist conclusion that, essentially, death threats must result in death to constitute past persecution, is a contemptuous disregard for binding circuit precedent, a demonstration of gross anti-asylum bias, misogyny, and a clear example of judicial incompetence.
Would a heart transplant surgeon who “forgot” to install a new heart or neglected to sew up the patient’s chest be allowed to continue operating? Of course not! So, why is the BIA still allowed to botch life or death cases — the equivalent of open heart surgery?
If Garland allows his “delegees” to perform in this dangerous and unprofessional manner, in his name, what is he doing as Attorney General? This is a farce, not a “court system?” Those responsible need to be held accountable! And, OIL’s unethical defense of this deadly nonsense is indefensible!
“What are legal ethics? Not my friends or relatives whose lives as being destroyed by these ‘Kangaroo Courts.’ Just ‘the others’ and their dirty immigration lawyers! So, who cares? Why worry about professionalism, ethics, and due process in Immigration Court?” PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
We’ve heard lots lately from Garland about “accountability.” Why doesn’t it apply to his own, wholly owned, totally dysfunctional, legally deficient, contemptuous, unprofessional “court system” that builds astounding, self-created backlogs while causing pain, suffering, and sometimes sending innocents to death?☠️
“EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept
Additionally, in Kansas this week, women have shown the power of their just demand to be treated as humans, with rights, rather than dehumanized pawns just there to re-populate the world for the men in charge. So, why not unleash the same passion and rightful fury on Garland and his ongoing, illegal, misogynistic treatment of women (primarily women of color) at EOIR!
“She struggled madly in the torturing Ray” — AG Garland has failed miserably to engage with the plight of women, mostly those of color, being denied fundamental rights and abused daily by his lawless, anti-immigrant, anti-asylum, misogynistic “holdover” EOIR! Why are women putting up with his bad attitude and dilatory approach to justice? What happened to Lisa Monaco, Vanita Gupta, and Kristen Clarke? Are they “locked in a dark closet” somewhere in Garland’s DOJ? Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Ben Winograd, Esquire Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center Falls Church, VA
Ben Winograd reports:
The Fourth Circuit issued a decision earlier today — Herrera-Alcala v. Garland — in which it adopted a novel argument regarding the proper venue for a petition for review. As a result of the decision, a petition for review can be filed in the Fourth Circuit in any case that was decided by an immigration judge sitting at an immigration adjudication center in Richmond or Falls Church. That is not to say that the petition for review *must* be filed in the Fourth Circuit in such cases, only that it *may* be filed in the Fourth Circuit. Given that Fourth Circuit law is relatively friendly (especially in asylum cases), it is an option that you may wish to consider.
The facts of the case were very unusual. The petitioner was detained at a correctional facility in Louisiana; the NTA was filed with the immigration court in Fort Snelling, Minnesota; and the case was heard by televideo by an IJ at the Falls Church immigration adjudication center. The noncitizen filed the petition for review with the Fourth Circuit under the theory that the IJ “completed” the proceedings in Virginia for purposes of INA 242(b)(2), 8 USC 1252(b)(2). OIL moved to transfer the petition to the Fifth Circuit, arguing (ridiculously) that the IJ completed the proceedings at the correctional facility in Louisiana. I filed an amicus brief on behalf of a local immigrants’ rights organization arguing that the PFR should have been filed in the Eighth Circuit because venue lay with the immigration court in Fort Snelling. The Fourth Circuit adopted the petitioner’s argument, agreeing that the IJ completed the proceedings at the Falls Church immigration adjudication center.
As I stated above, today’s decision means that the Fourth Circuit can consider any petition for review if the underlying decision was issued by an IJ sitting at an immigration adjudication center in Richmond or Falls Church, Virginia. That being said, the Fourth Circuit’s decision does not necessarily mean that other circuits would take a contrary view or that a PFR in such a case could not be filed in another circuit. For example, if the petitioner had filed the PFR in the Fifth Circuit, the Fifth Circuit may well have agreed that it was the proper venue for the PFR. Likewise for the Eighth Circuit.
The upshot, again, is that in cases that were decided by an IJ sitting at an immigration adjudication center in Virginia, practitioners may now be able to choose from multiple circuits when filing a PFR, with the Fourth Circuit always being a safe option.
Best,
Ben
____________
My question: “So, what Circuit law applies? If review could be in either of two Circuits, how can the IJ know which applies at the time of the hearing?”
Ben’s answer: “That’s the $64,000 (or is it $1 million?) dollar question, and I don’t think there’s a good answer.
Under current BIA precedent, IJs are supposed to apply the law of the “docketed hearing location.” Matter of R-C-R-, 28 I&N Dec. 74, n.1 (BIA 2020). The “docketed hearing location” usually is the immigration court where the IJ is sitting, but sometimes EOIR regards it as the correctional facility where the respondent is detained (as happened in Matter of R-C-R- itself). In Herrera-Alcala, OIL argued that venue was proper in the Fifth Circuit because the “docketed hearing location” was in the Fifth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit (correctly) rejected that argument, but it apparently did not realize that it’s decision would allow noncitizens to forum shop and didn’t grapple at all with what circuit law should apply.
The need for parties and IJs to know what circuit law will apply was the primary issue we raised in our amicus brief (which is attached if you’re curious), but the Court ignored our concern.”
My solution: “Two obvious solutions:
1) Limit ‘Adjudication Centers’ to hearing cases within their Circuit; or
2) Apply the Circuit law most favorable to the respondent (DHS can’t seek Circuit review).”
“Elvis Njenula Yahm, a citizen of Cameroon facing removal, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) based on his pro-Anglophone political opinion. An immigration judge denied all three avenues for relief, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Yahm’s appeal. … A recent decision supports Yahm’s view that an adverse credibility finding does not relieve the agency of its obligation to also consider documentary support for a CAT claim. See Arulnanthy v. Garland, 17 F.4th 586 (5th Cir. 2021). … Because Yahm offered nontestimonial evidence of country conditions in Cameroon, the BIA erred by not considering it in the context of his CAT claim and instead treating Yahm’s lack of credibility as dispositive. See Arulnanthy, 17 F.4th at 598. Yahm’s petition for review is GRANTED and these proceedings are REMANDED for the BIA to address the CAT claim consistent with Arulnanthy.”
Way to go, Keith! Congrats! Winning justice for asylum seekers in the 5th Circuit is no mean feat!
The 5th Circuit decision in Arulnanthy sounds very much like the 4th Circuit’s decision in Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F. 3d 361 (4th Cir. 2004). Camara actually changed for the better the preparation, presentation, and most of all results in asylum cases in the 4th Circuit.
I consider it the “precursor” to the REAL ID provision now incorporated in the INA requiring IJ’s and the BIA to consider the “the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors,” in making credibility determinations. If that is actually done, which it isn’t in far too many cases in today’s broken Immigration Courts, the results are likely to be far more positive for asylum seekers and other respondents seeking relief in Immigration Court.
The “Camara effect” was real. For example, in 2004, on the “eve of Camara,” the asylum denial rate at the Arlington Immigration Court, where I sat, in the 4th Circuit, was in excess of 70%. By the time I retired in 2016, it was the polar opposite. The asylum grant rate exceeded 70%! SOURCE: TRAC Immigration.
Of course, no one factor is responsible for that positive change. And, I acknowledge that in the Charlotte Immigration Court, also in the 4th Circuit, where several judges were reknowned for their hard-core anti-asylum attitudes, the denial rates remained disturbingly above the national average. And, of course, the “institutionalized anti-asylum bias” ushered in and promoted at EOIR by the Trump regime resulted in another dramatic, totally unjustified, downturn in asylum grants by EOIR across America after 2016.
Nevertheless, positive appellate guidance on asylum is a major factor in establishing and maintaining due process in the Immigration Courts. Unfortunately, almost none of that expert positive guidance on asylum and other forms of relief comes from Garland’s BIA precedents. Additionally, although some of his appointments have been welcome, overall, Garland has done a very poor job of bringing in dynamic progressive expert leaders and judges to reverse the anti-asylum, anti-due-process, anti-immigrant “culture” that continues to haunt EOIR at all levels.
The “results” of his dysfunctional courts speak for themselves. Backlogs build, Circuit Courts struggle with EOIR’s poor “haste makes waste” work product, and decisional consistency on asylum is shockingly, “tragicomically” lacking!
In almost all ways, this system has seriously regressed in the past decade, even while eating up more resources! That’s about as much of an “engineered lose-lose” as one can imagine! Yet, Biden, Harris, and Garland appear impervious to this glaring, “fixable” problem that threatens our entire justice system!
Shouldn’t racial justice advocates be all over Garland, Monaco, Gupta, and Clarke for the EOIR’s disgraceful performance on asylum claims involving Cameroonians and other applicants of color! If not, why not? The entire “progressive social justice community” should be expressing “collective outrage” to the Biden Administration about the Garland DOJ’s disgraceful performance at EOIR and on other human rights issues involving race and immigration.
It’s also worthy noting, as my Round Table colleague retired Judge Jeffrey Chase has pointed out before, that the Biden Administration has granted TPS to Cameroonians in the U.S.So, there is really no issue about the truly miserable human rights conditions there. That is, apparently, except in Garland’s Immigration Courts where the “programmed to deny” and “good enough for government work” mentalities continue to prevail — even where the stakes are life or death!
Additionally, the regulations implementing the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) at EOIR initially became effective on Mar. 22, 1999 — over two decades ago. I remember that at one of the next Immigration Judge Conferences, probably in 1999 or 2000, the training specifically instructed that because of the country-conditions related nature of CAT, adverse credibility rulings against a respondent were not determinative of CAT claims.
Yet, more than two decades later, Immigration Judges and, worse yet, the BIA are still making that same fundamental error! How does this make the idea that EOIR is an “expert court” or that “constitutional due process is being protected at EOIR” anything other than a “sick joke.” Yet, the mockery of justice continues and nobody at Justice, from the top down, is being held accountable for stomping on life-determining legal and Constitutional rights! Why?
Inside the Gulag In the fine tradition of Josef Stalin, like US Presidents before him, President Biden finds it useful to have a “due process free zone” to stash people of color.
The case is Miranda v. Garland, and it’s published:
Quote from Judge Marvin Quattlebaum’s wrong-headed decision, joined by fellow Trump appointee Judge Julius Richardson:
QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judge:
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) permits the Attorney General to detain aliens1 pending their
removal hearings. And the Attorney General has adopted procedures for making that discretionary decision. Under those procedures, an alien is given notice and three opportunities to seek release by showing they are neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community.
A district court determined that a class of aliens had a likelihood of establishing that those procedures violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. That court then issued a preliminary injunction ordering, on a class- wide basis, that to continue detaining an alien under § 1226(a), the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that an alien is either a flight risk or a danger to the community. The district court also required immigration judges, again on a class-wide basis, to consider an alien’s ability to pay any bond imposed and consider alternatives to detention.
However, under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1), the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue class-wide injunctive relief that enjoined or restrained the process used to conduct § 1226(a) bond hearings. As for the individual relief issued by the district court, the detention procedures adopted for § 1226(a) bond hearings provide sufficient process to
1 We realize that the use of the term “alien” has been the subject of some debate. See e.g., Martinez Rivera v. U.S. Att’y Gen., No. 20-13201, 2021 WL 2836460, at *7 (11th Cir. July 8, 2021). We use the term because Congress used it in the text of the applicable statutes, and the same term is used in the applicable regulations. Our use of the term “alien” is not intended to express any opinion, pejorative or otherwise, about the plaintiffs in this action or others challenging their detention under our immigration laws.
3
satisfy constitutional requirements. For that reason, the aliens are unable to establish a likelihood of success on their due process claims. Nor have they shown that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in their favor or that an injunction is in the public interest. Therefore, we vacate the district court’s preliminary injunction order.
Abetter quote from the only Panel Judge to get it right, Chief Judge Michael Urbanski of the WDVA, (an Obama appointee) sitting by designation:
While I am mindful of the executive’s vast authority over immigration, it must still
comport with constitutional safeguards. With this balancing in mind, requiring a detained noncitizen to prove he is not a danger to the community or risk of flight is unconstitutionally onerous on an already vulnerable group of defendants and violates due process. In sum, I respectfully dissent and would affirm the district court’s conclusion that the Due Process Clause requires the government to bear the burden of proof at § 1226(a) detention hearings and remand the case to the district court for consideration of § 1252(f)(1) and the availability of class-wide declaratory relief.
********************************
Well, at least one judge got it right!
The Round Table ⚔️🛡 filed an amicus brief in support of the respondents in this case. Additionally, Round Table Member Judge Denise Slavin filed an affidavit (cited by the USDJ) before the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. There, Hon.Catherine C. Blake, Senior District Judge, correctly ruled for the respondents. The Trump DOJ appealed, and Garland decided to continue to advance the prior Administration’s anti-due-process position before the Fourth Circuit.
Gosh, and Dem politicos wonder why it’s hard for them to gin up enthusiasm for the midterms!
“This case arises out of an in absentia order against two Petitioners who allege to have arrived one hour and five minutes late to their individual hearing scheduled for several hours. Neither the immigration judge (“IJ”) nor the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) addressed this argument. For the reasons that follow, we find that the BIA abused its discretion when it made no mention of the alleged late arrival in its decision to dismiss the motion to reopen proceedings on appeal. Thus, we reverse and vacate the BIA’s order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. … We vacate and remand with instructions to the BIA to consider Petitioners’ motion to reopen. In doing so, the BIA should determine whether Petitioners arrived late, and if so, whether the surrounding circumstances show that this late arrival constitutes a failure to appear for the purposes of the statute’s preclusive effect.”
Clear, concise, helpful, and correct. This is the type of guidance that should be in BIA precedents! It has the potential to “move” large number as of cases through Garland’s backlogged system.
It would also deter ill-advised “bogus oppositions” to meritorious motions such as the one woodenly advanced by DHS in this case. They do it because sometimes they are rewarded by lousy EOIR judging. At worst, it’s a crap shoot as EOIR currently functions (or, in too many cases, malfunctions).
Start consistently granting meritorious motions like this and the dilatory tactics from DHS will stop! In any system, particularly one as backlogged as this one, getting the Government to stop wasting judicial time and promoting bad results in a big step forward!
The prior Administration made an all-out effort to institutionalize bias and bad judgment. Garland has been far, far too slow in exposing and rooting out this bad behavior!
Just look around for some helpful, positive “precedential” guidance from the BIA on equitable tolling in the Fourth Circuit. Let me know if you find any!
So what aren’t cases like this precedents? Why doesGarland’s BIA instead keep publishing a steady stream of obtuse, poorly reasoned, anti-immigrant precedents written by Trump holdovers. These push IJs in the wrong direction, lead to prolonged wasteful litigation, reinforce the toxic “culture of denial,” create a “false narrative” that denies the merits of many respondents’ claims, and, worst of all, abrogate the BIA’s duty to insure fundamental fairness and due process for all!
Where’s the positive guidance on how to grant gender-based and family-based asylum cases, building on the restoration of A-R-C-G- to clear out meritorious old cases?
Where’s the positive guidance on how to “leverage” PD and administrative closing to reduce backlogs?
Where’s the positive precedent on expeditiously granting reopening in the many non-LPR cancellation cases mishandled by EOIR in light of Pereira and Niz-Chavez?
Where’s the common sense workable rule on nexus that reflects “mixed motive” and incorporates ordinary concepts of causation whilejettisoning the prior Administration’s bogus “look for any motivation that doesn’t qualify, no matter how attenuated or contrived” approach?
Where’s the reasonable bond guidance that would promote consistency and end the routine practice of setting absurdly high bonds in some Immigration Courts?
With the available talent to reshape the BIA into a body that would actually fulfill the vision of “through teamwork and innovation be the world’s best tribunal guaranteeing fairness and due process for all” why does Garland continue to screw immigrants and build more backlog by treating “Miller Lite Holdovers” as if they were life-tenured judges? They aren’t!
Although Garland appears to be in denial, “immigration judging” is some of the most consequential and important decision-making in the entire Federal Judicial System! Many, probably the majority, of those languishing in Garland’s out of control, largely self-created 1.6 million case EOIR backlog have strong claims to remain in a fair and efficient system. Yet, you would never know it by the indolent way Garland has handled the BIA mess (82,000 pending appeals) and his failure to speak out and lead by example on due process, fundamental fairness, racial justice, and human rights.
A new, functioning, expert, star-studded BIA, dedicated to due process, fundamental fairness, equal justice, human rights, and best practices, would be a great starting place! A year into an Administration that should know better, it’s long, long overdue!
Meanwhile, Elsy and other talented, motivated, committed members of the NDPA will continue to pound and expose Garland’s dysfunctional “courts” at all levels of the judicial system until we get the change that we need and that was (falsely) promised!
“Every day is ‘Kangaroo Field Day’ @ Garland’s DOJ!” When it comes to immigrant justice, “good enough for government work” is the mantra! https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
“The BIA “affirm[ed] the Immigration Judge’s decision to deny reopening because the respondent has not sufficiently demonstrated that his brother’s murder represents a material change in country conditions that would affect his eligibility for asylum.” A.R. 4. As we noted above, while (b)(4) requires “changed country conditions,” (b)(3)does not. Thus, the BIA’s reference to a “material change in country conditions” and the analysis that followed shows that the BIA applied § 1003.23(b)(4). See A.R. 4. In applying the standard of § 1003.23(b)(4) to a timely filed motion, the BIA acted contrary to law. … The question for the BIA to consider in evaluating Garcia Hernandez’s motion to reopen was whether Garcia Hernandez offered, in the proper from and with the appropriate contents, evidence that was material and not previously available at the initial hearing. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(3). Because the BIA did not analyze that question, and instead evaluated the issue under § 1003.23(b)(4), the BIA abused its discretion. … The BIA held that Zambrano did not apply because the changed circumstances there took place before the petitioner filed a time-barred petition even though here, the purported changed circumstances took place after the time-barred petition was filed and adjudicated. But nothing in Zambrano suggests its holding or reasoning was limited in the way the BIA suggests. Thus, Zambrano’s framework in examining changed circumstances should have been applied to Garcia Hernandez’s asylum application. … [W]e grant Garcia Hernandez’s petition for review. We vacate and remand with instructions to the BIA to consider Garcia Hernandez’s motion to reopen under the appropriate standard. The BIA should also address Garcia Hernandez’s asylum application under the framework of Zambrano and conduct any further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Many congrats to Ben and Alex, who were both “regulars” at the Arlington Immigration Court! Alex is also a former Arlington Intern and a “charter member” of the NDPA!😎
The 4th Circuit decision was written by Judge Marvin Quattlebaum, a Trump appointee, for a unanimous panel thatincluded Judge Motz and Judge Thacker. While Judge Q doesn’t always “get it right,” his cogent analysis of the BIA’s lawless behavior in this case is “spot on.”
How does a supposedly “expert” tribunal like the BIA blow the “easy stuff” — like following their own regulations? Clearly it has something to do with an unduly permissive “haste makes waste/rush to deny” anti-immigrant culture at EOIR that Garland has not effectively addressed!
Another obvious problem: Why were Garland’s lawyers at OIL defending this obviously wrong decision?You don’t have to be an “immigration guru” to read the regulations!
Sadly, it’s not the first time under Garland that OIL has chosen to waste judicial resources and undermine our justice system by “defending the indefensible.” It’s what happens when leaders promote an “anything goes/no accountability/good enough for government work” atmosphere!
There are deep substantive, structural, personnel, attitude, and “cultural” problems at EOIR and DOJ. That, over his first year in office, Garland has chosen to ignore these glaring malfunctions of justice @ Justice is an ongoing national disgrace!🤮
It doesn’t have to be this way! But, unfortunately, it is! And, even more disturbingly, no meaningful improvements appear to be on the horizon! That’s a deadly ☠️⚰️ outlook for American justice and for those poor souls caught up in Garland’s unfair, broken, dysfunctional “court” system that bears little resemblance to any commonly understood notion of what a fair, impartial, subject matter expert court should be in America!🤯
One Year In: The Biden Administration and Asylum Policy
Developments in Fourth Circuit Case Law
Increasing Access to Pro Bono Counsel in Underserved Areas: Virginia as a Case Study
Working Across Disciplines: Best Practices for Attorneys and Mental Health Professionals in Asylum Seeker Evaluations
Country Conditions: From Page to Practice
CLE Credit and DOJ Accredited Representative Certifications
This event has been approved for 6.5 credit hours of CLE credit from Virginia and North Carolina. Attorneys seeking CLE credit must purchase tickets indicating that CLE credit is provided (indicated by “CLE” listed by the ticket type).
Attorneys from other jurisdictions who are not seeking CLE credit from Virginia or North Carolina are welcome to attend.
DOJ Accredited Representative certifications will be provided to those who register as DOJ Accredited Representatives seeking certification.
Zoom Webinar Information
Zoom information for the event will be sent to the email address used to register. For security reasons, we do not post the Zoom link information. All Zoom registration information will be provided in a separate email closer to the date of the event.
