"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
“After Adan de Jesus Tomas-Ramos, a citizen and native of Guatemala, reentered the United States illegally in 2018, a removal order previously entered against him was reinstated. But because Tomas-Ramos expressed a fear of returning to Guatemala, an asylum officer conducted a screening interview to determine whether he reasonably feared persecution or torture in his home country. The asylum officer determined that Tomas-Ramos failed to establish a reasonable fear of such harm, and so was not entitled to relief from his reinstated removal order. An Immigration Judge (“IJ”) concurred with that determination. Tomas-Ramos now petitions for review of the IJ’s order on two grounds. He first contends that the IJ’s finding that he lacked a reasonable fear of persecution or torture was erroneous. We agree. The primary ground for the IJ’s decision was that there was no “nexus” between the harm Tomas-Ramos faced and a protected ground. But the agency incorrectly applied the statutory nexus requirement. Instead, the record compels the conclusion that Tomas-Ramos was persecuted on account of a protected ground, in the form of his family ties. And in light of that error, we cannot determine that the other reason given by the IJ for her decision – that Tomas-Ramos could avoid harm by relocating – was supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we grant the petition for review, vacate the agency’s decision, and remand for further proceedings.”
[Hats off to Michael D. Lieberman, Simon Y. Sandoval-Moshenberg, Stacy M. Kim, Paul F. Brinkman, and Michael A. Francus!]
—
Daniel M. Kowalski
Editor-in-Chief
Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)
**********************
DOJ’s error-studded performance (or lack thereof) in this case is disgraceful!
I guarantee that there are plenty of other unjust, legally defectivereasonable fear and credible fear decisions where these came from. Just most folks never get any meaningful judicial review.
Both the IJ and the AO got the basics of nexus and the applicable 4th Circuit case law totally wrong here. How are is this acceptable performance from what are supposed to be “expert” courts? Why hasn’t Garland brought in real experts, committed to due process and best practices, to take charge and straighten out this mess?
Disturbingly, the Biden Administration wants to turn this type of clearly inadequate procedure with poorly trained officers and judges and incorrect applications of the law loose on the merits determinations for all asylum seekers at the border!
Rather than being a check on bad judges, Garland’s OIL continues to “defend the indefensible” with arguments that don’t meet “the straight-face test.” Aren’t ethical codes equally applicable to Government lawyers?
Worse yet, Garland continues to unethically defend the scofflaw behavior of the Biden Administration by using a Stephen Miller era “COVID pretext” to deny most asylum seekers at the Southern Border any process, even the pathetic one used here!
The “wheels have come off” @ Garland’s DOJ and he’s driving on the axel hubs! When is someone going to pull him over and make him fix it?
Believe it or not, these are life or death cases! ☠️ Why is Garland allowed to treat the lives and rights of migrants and those associated with them so frivolously?
The IJ’s attempt to bar the R’s attorney from participating in the “credible fear” review is ridiculous! It shows the deep problems in Garland’s broken system which too often is deaf to due process, hostile to attorneys, and immune from common sense and best practices! Why would the “default” for regulatory silence be “no participation” rather than a “strong presumption that attorneys can fully participate?” What kind of “court” bars attorneys from speaking for their clients? Why would any judge not want to listen to attorneys, who are there to help them make correct decisions? The IJ’s conduct here was particularly egregious given that she had already made a clearly wrong decision before cutting off the attorney’s attempt to point out her errors! What a complete farce that Garland has failed to address!
This is another case where Circuit Judge Allison Jones Rushing, a Trump appointee with solid conservative credentials, once thought to be a possible contender for the “ACB seat,” joined her colleagues (Judge Harris and Chief Judge Gregory) to overturn a wrong, anti-immigrant decision by EOIR. Her approach in this and another recent case shows more sensitivity to due process, scholarship, and the rights of individual immigrants than many decisions emanating from Biden’s Immigration Courts under Garland.
I’m not suggesting that Judge R is necessarily going to become a leading defender of due process for immigrants. But, based on these somewhat random “snippets,” she seems more “reachable” and open to sound arguments on the issues than some other Trump appointees, points worth keeping in mind for NDPA advocates!
She’s also young. So, she will be reviewing immigration cases and making law for decades to come.
“Ana Mercedes Zometa-Orellana, a native and citizen of El Salvador, suffered regular beatings and rape by her domestic partner. She sought asylum and withholding of removal based both on political opinion and membership in a particular social group. An immigration judge (IJ) denied asylum and withholding of removal, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed that ruling. Since then, however, a crucial case on which both the BIA and the IJ relied to assess Zometa-Orellana’s particular social group was vacated by the Attorney General. And the IJ and BIA failed to consider the entire record in determining the El Salvadorian Government’s willingness to respond and Zometa-Orellana’s ability to relocate in El Salvador. For these reasons, we GRANT the petition, VACATE the BIA’s decision, and REMAND for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.”
“Aleman-Medrano’s central argument on appeal is that the agency [EOIR: the IJ and the BIA] erred at the second step of the analysis, improperly rejecting his claim that he was targeted by gang members “on account of” his family ties to his daughter. We agree and, finding no independent basis on which to affirm the agency’s denial of relief, remand for further proceedings. … [W]e are compelled to conclude that Aleman-Medrano’s relationship with his daughter was at least one central reason why he, and not someone else, was threatened by MS-13. … MS-13’s threats to Aleman-Medrano arose “on account of” his family ties and that he thus has met the nexus requirement for both asylum and withholding of removal.”
“This is not a case of a petitioner abusing the system or requesting serial delays of his merits hearing—Usubakunov had found an attorney willing to take his case. Although it may be tempting to look for a bright-line rule, we hew to our precedent that the “inquiry is fact-specific and thus varies from case to case.” Biwot, 403 F.3d at 1099. In doing so, we do not suggest that there is “no limit,” Dissent at 19, to the permissible delay for obtaining a lawyer. Our factspecific inquiry here leads us to conclude that the IJ’s refusal to grant a continuance violated Usubakunov’s right to counsel. … This case illustrates diligence, not bad faith, coupled with very difficult barriers faced by a detained applicant who does not speak English. Usubakunov sought and identified counsel within the period the IJ originally thought reasonable, but he was stymied by counsel’s scheduling conflict. He had identified by name and organization the lawyer who would ultimately represent him, and Usubakunov thus sought his first continuance of the merits hearing. We conclude that “[u]nder these circumstances, denial of a continuance was an abuse of discretion because it was tantamount to denial of counsel.” Biwot, 403 F.3d at 1100. Given these unique circumstances, our grant of the petition will not open the floodgates of continuances, as we apply the same fact-based inquiry we have done for years. That concludes our inquiry, as a petitioner who is wrongly denied assistance of counsel at his merits hearing need not show prejudice. See Gomez-Velazco, 879 F.3d at 993 (citing Montes-Lopez v. Holder, 694 F.3d 1085, 1090 (9th Cir. 2012)). In light of the need to remand for a new hearing, we do not address Usubakunov’s other challenges. We grant Usubakunov’s petition for review and remand for further proceedings. PETITION GRANTED and REMANDED.”
[Hats off to Bardis Vakili (argued), ACLU Foundation of San Diego and Imperial Counties, San Diego, Kristin MacLeod-Ball, American Immigration Council, Brookline, Massachusetts; Mary Kenney, American Immigration Council, Washington, D.C.; for Amicus Curiae American Immigration Council; and Laura J. Edelstein, Jenner & Block LLP, San Francisco, California, for Amicus Curiae Women’s Refugee Commission!]
“Matter of Zhang, 27 I&N Dec. 569 (BIA 2019) is not entitled to deference by this Court because it is a dramatic break with past agency interpretation, is in conflict with the Department of State’s current interpretation of the false claim to citizenship ground of inadmissibility, and is a break from Congress’s clearly expressed intent. An agency’s interpretation of an unambiguous statute receives no deference if the interpretation is not in line with Congress’s clearly expressed intent. See, e.g., Valenzuela Gallardo v. Lynch, 818 F.3d 808, 815 (9th Cir. 2016). Matter of Zhang takes a dramatic and unique approach to the knowledge element out of the term “false claim to U.S. citizenship.” See, e.g., Richmond v. Holder, 714 F.3d 725, 729 (2d Cir. 2013) (assuming without deciding that false claim inadmissibility provision has knowledge element); Muratoski v. Holder, 622 F.3d 824, 828 (7th Cir. 2010) (agency determined that applicant lacked good moral character because he “knew or should have known” that he was not a United States citizen at the time he made that claim); Valdez-Munoz v. Holder, 623 F.3d 1304, 1308 (9th Cir. 2010) (reasonable factfinder would not be compelled to disagree with agency’s determination that applicant was inadmissible because he “intended to and did make a false claim of United States citizenship”). … The Court finds that Petitioner Antonio Fernando Melara has met his burden of proving each element of naturalization by preponderance of the evidence. Judgment is GRANTED for Petitioner.”
Individuals are being mistreated! Attorneys are frustrated! Due Process is mocked! Garland is disinterested in fixing the huge structural, personnel, and quality control problems at BIA/EOIR!
Here’s my favorite quote from Judge Thacker’s opinion, highlighting Garland’s out of control DOJ immigration bureaucracy!
This case was argued on September 21, 2021, more than two months after Matter of Cruz-Valdez, 28 I&N Dec. 326 (AG 2021), where AG Garland had refuted Sessions’s legal reasoning! Moreover, the 4th Circuit itself had pointed out the legal flaws in overruling Session’s abominable Castro-Tum, his abuse of AG authority that began this whole sorry episode in American jurisprudence. Yet, OIL argued this case as if nothing had happened and “Gonzo” Sessions were still in charge!
Looking to the character and context of the Government’s litigating position — in stark contrast to its recent regulatory position explained below — we are quite frankly puzzled that the Government currently stands in support of Attorney General Sessions’s decision in Matter of S-O-G-, particularly in light of the fact that Matter of S-O-G- relies heavily on Castro-Tum, which is no longer good law.
To begin with, this court has overruled Castro-Tum in Romero, in which we relied on the broad language of 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.10(b) and 1003.1(d)(1)(ii) to hold that the immigration courts possess the authority to administratively close cases. Indeed, the fact that Castro-Tum has been overruled should not only begin the analysis here, but it should definitively end it.
But, beyond the fact that Castro-Tum is now defunct, Attorney General Garland no longer takes the position set forth in Castro-Tum and has since disavowed the idea that the IJs and BIA cannot administratively close proceedings. In Matter of Cruz-Valdez, Attorney General Garland decided, “Because Castro-Tum departed from long-standing practice, it is appropriate to overrule that opinion in its entirety and restore administrative closure” authority to the agency. Matter of Cruz-Valdez, 28 I. & N. Dec. 326, 329 (A.G. 2021). In doing so, Attorney General Garland noted “three courts of appeals have rejected Castro- Tum” and held that administrative closure is “‘plainly within an [IJ]’s authority’ under Department of Justice regulations.” Id. at 328 (citing Arcos Sanchez v. Att’y Gen. U.S. of
Am., 997 F.3d 113, 121–22 (3d Cir. 2021); Meza Morales v. Barr, 973 F.3d 656, 667 (7th 18
Cir. 2020) (Barrett, J.); Romero, 937 F.3d at 292). Indeed, “[o]nly one court of appeals has upheld Castro-Tum.” Id. (citing Hernandez-Serrano v. Barr, 981 F.3d 459, 464 (6th Cir. 2020). “[B]ut even that court subsequently ruled that [IJs] and the [BIA] do have authority to grant administrative closure in order to permit a noncitizen to apply for a provisional unlawful presence waiver.” Id. (citing Garcia-DeLeon v. Garland, 999 F.3d 986, 991–93 (6th Cir. 2021)). Attorney General Garland’s position on administrative closure in Matter of Cruz-Valdez (and the reasoning behind it) calls into question the Government’s position in this matter and Matter of S-O-G- that IJs and the BIA do not have the inherent authority to terminate proceedings.3
The obvious answer here is that Garland has failed to take the necessary steps to replace the BIA and bring new leadership to OIL.
This should have been “Week One Stuff” after Garland assumed office! Instead, the EOIR system continues to careen out of control, clog the Article III judiciary with semi-frivolous litigation, and destroy human lives!
How many wrongly-treated respondents are fortunate enough to have Ben Winograd take up their cause, or indeed to have any legal assistance at all? How many can even get to the Court of Appeals to correct Garland’s errors?
The continued dysfunction at EOIR & DOJ is a humanitarian crisis and a threat to our legal system and American democracy! It’s high time for Judge Garland to wake up and treat this mess like the existential crisis it is!
Congrats again to Ben Winograd! Obviously, Garland should have recruited real immigration experts like Ben to be on the BIA or supervise OIL to get this system back on track. Why hasn’t he?
This WashPost headline and Post Supreme Court reporter Robert Barnes’s summary say it all!
Supreme Court rules against immigrants claiming safety fears after deportation and for pipeline builders
By Robert Barnes
June 29 at 5:22 PM ET
. . . .
In the immigration case, the court was considering the rights of a relatively small subset of immigrants: those who were deported once before but reentered the United States illegally because they say they faced threats at home.
At issue was a complex federal law that authorizes the government to detain immigrants and which section of it applies to these types of cases.
One piece of the law says, “the alien may receive a bond hearing before an immigration judge” and thus the chance to be free while proceedings continue, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the majority. In the other, the immigrant is considered “removed,” and indefinite detention is warranted.
Alito and his fellow conservative justices said it was the second that applied, and the detainees do not get a bond hearing. The court’s three liberals objected.
The case involved people who an immigration officer found had credible fears of danger or persecution in their home countries. For instance, Rodriguez Zometa said he was threatened with death by the 18th Street Gang when he was removed to his home country of El Salvador.
The question of whether the government could hold the immigrants without a hearing before an immigration judge had divided courts around the country. The case was argued before President Biden took office, and lawyers for the Trump administration told the court immigrants were not entitled to a hearing.
Alito said Congress had good reason to be more restrictive with those who came back into the country after being deported. “Aliens who reentered the country illegally after removal have demonstrated a willingness to violate the terms of a removal order, and they therefore may be less likely to comply with the reinstated order” that they leave, he said.
He was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.
The court’s liberals, Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, saw it differently and would have affirmed the victory the plaintiffs won at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond.
“Why would Congress want to deny a bond hearing to individuals who reasonably fear persecution or torture, and who, as a result, face proceedings that may last for many months or years?” Breyer wrote. “I can find no satisfactory answer to this question.”
Nice summary, Robert! You can read the rest of Barnes’s report at the link. Indeed, Justice Breyer’s cogent question quoted in the articleremains unanswered by the wooden legal gobbledygook in the majority decision, devoid of much understanding of how the dysfunctional Immigration Courts and the DHS “New American Gulag” actually operate and dismissive of what it actually means to be a refugee seeking to exercise legal rights in today’s world.
At issue: The right of non-criminal foreign nationals who have established a “reasonable fear” of persecution or torture if deported to apply for bond pending Immigration Court hearings on the merits of their cases. Getting a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge does not in any way guarantee release; just that the decision to detain or release on bond will be based on the individual facts and circumstances. Individuals released from detention have a much better chance of obtaining counsel and gathering the documentation necessary to win their cases. They are also much less likely to be “coerced” by DHS detention into surrendering viable claims and appeal rights.
Majority’s response: These “aliens” have neither rights nor humanity that any life-tenured GOP-appointed judge is bound to respect.
Alternative: There is a readily available alternative statutory interpretation, adopted by the 4th Circuit and the dissent, that would recognize the human and legal rights of vulnerable refugees seeking legal protection and give them hearings on continuing custody in substandard conditions (in some instances, conditions in the “DHS New American Gulag” fall well below those that would be imposed on convicted felons).
You can’t win ‘em all: The Round Table was one of many organizations filing an amicus brief on behalf of the refugees and in support of the position adopted by the 4th Circuit and the dissent. While we were unsuccessful on this one, at least we are on the “right side of history.”
Creative suggestion: Detainees should incorporate, perhaps as a pipeline company, or better yet a gun rights’ group, so that they would have legal rights and be treated as “persons” (e.g., “humans”) by the Supremes’ GOP majority.
Next steps:
Advocates should prevail on the Biden Administration to change the regulations to give this limited subclass of applicants for protection a chance to seek bond before an Immigration Judge;
Advocates should keep up the pressure on the Biden Administration and Garland to appoint better judges at EOIR: progressive practical experts, who know how to grant legal protection efficiently and fairly and who will establish appropriate legal precedents to help these cases move through the EOIR system on the merits in a timely and fundamentally fair manner consistent with due process. The length of time it takes “Withholding Only” cases to move through the Immigration Courts has lots to do with: unfair, coercive detention practices by DHS; poor judging and bad precedents at EOIR; incompetent “judicial administration” and politicized “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” @ EOIR by DOJ politicos and their EOIR “retainers.”
Long term solution:
Support and vote for progressive legislators who will revise the immigration laws to do away with the unnecessary and wasteful“New American Gulag;”
Vote progressive candidates for President and the Senate: political officials committed to putting better Federal Judges on the bench at all levels — “practical scholars” with real experience representing the most vulnerable in society and who will tirelessly enforce due process, equal protection, human rights, and fundamental fairness for all persons regardless of race, religion, or status; judges who understand and will seriously reflect on the “real life” human consequences of their decisions. Better judges for a better America!
Generally, when the Board of Immigration Appeals errs, “the proper course . . . is
to remand to the agency for additional investigation or explanation.” Alvarez Lagos v. Barr, 927 F.3d 236, 249 (4th Cir. 2019) (quoting INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16 (2002) (per curiam)). “But that is not an invariable rule.” Id. If the record evidence, considered as a whole, “would compel ‘any reasonable adjudicator’ to reach the opposite conclusion, then a remand is unnecessary, and [this Court] will reverse the Board’s finding.” Id. (quoting Cruz v. Sessions, 853 F.3d 122, 130 (4th Cir. 2017)).
II.
Here, as the majority opinion holds, the immigration judge and the Board of
Immigration Appeals erred by applying the wrong legal standards, arbitrarily disregarding relevant evidence, and failing to explain their decisions adequately. See Maj. Op. at 3, 12– 13, 16–18, 20–21, 25–26, 27–33. And based on such errors, the majority vacates the agency’s determination as to each prong of the asylum analysis—persecution, nexus to a protected ground, and government control—and remands for reconsideration. See id. at 3, 18, 21, 27–33. But when all relevant evidence in the record is properly considered under
the correct legal standards, any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude 35
that Petitioner suffered past persecution as a child and that his membership in his nuclear family was at least one central reason for that persecution.
. . . .
I conclude by adding that Petitioner has been seeking protection in the United States for more than five years. We should not prolong his quest any more than necessary.
***************************
Hats off to everyone involved in this!
Knightess of the Round Table
Particular kudos to Judge Stephanie Thacker who wrote the majority and whose vigorous dissent from the wrong-headed panel decision undoubtedly helped secure en banc review. She stuck to her guns!
Honorable Stephanie D. Thacker U.S. Circuit Judge Fourth Circuit Photo From Ballotpedia
Also, much appreciation to Judge James Wynn for his separate opinion 1) calling out the” poppycock” in the dissent; and 2) drawing attention to the highly improper and recurring problem with EOIR keeping deserving asylum seekers dangling for many years while they think of bogus reasons to deny asylum to please their “enforcement masters” at DOJ and DHS. This is neither due process nor justice! No wonder the backlogs are sky high!
Hon. James Wynn U.S. Circuit Judge Fourth Circuit PHOTO: Wikipedia
As my esteemed Round Table colleague Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase said:
“It’s remarkable how much good law is packed into this one decision.”
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
The corollary to that is: “It’s remarkable how much bad law and poor judicial performance is packed into EOIR’s bungling of these life or death cases which deserve and require both expert judges and fair, timely adjudication in accordance with asylum law and due process.”
When are Garland, Monaco, Gupta, and Clarke finally going to pull the plug on “Club Denial” at the BIA and bring in some real judges who will respect individuals’ civil, constitutional, and human rights, and start setting forth much better precedents that incorporate the wise teachings of folks such as Judge Thacker and Judge Wynn? The latter two jurists certainly appear to understand the Immigration Court system and its many (potentially fixable, but not the way Garland is going about it) flaws and shortcomings much better than anyone in EOIR HQ or on Garland’s staff.
The ongoing travesty of justice @ EOIR and the lives threatened thereby continue to be a national disgrace on Garland’s watch!
“Miller Lite” – Garland’s Vision of “Justice @ Justice” for Communities of Color
Here’s yet another“big middle finger” 🖕 to progressives and experts from Garland and Mayorkas:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Office of Public Affairs
DHS and DOJ Announce Dedicated Docket Process for More Efficient Immigration Hearings
WASHINGTON – Today, Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro N. Mayorkas and Attorney General Merrick B. Garland announced a new Dedicated Docket process to more expeditiously and fairly make decisions in immigration cases of families who arrive between ports of entry at the Southwest Border. This new process should significantly decrease the amount of time it takes for migrants to have their cases adjudicated while still providing fair hearings for families seeking asylum at the border.
“Families arriving at the border who are placed in immigration proceedings should have their cases decided in an orderly, efficient, and fair manner,” said Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro N. Mayorkas. “Families who have recently arrived should not languish in a multi-year backlog; today’s announcement is an important step for both justice and border security.”
“The mission of the Department of Justice’s immigration courts is to decide the cases that come before them promptly and fairly,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. “This new program for certain newly arriving families will help achieve that critically important goal.”
Under this new process, certain recently arrived families may be placed on the Dedicated Docket. Families may qualify if they are apprehended between ports of entry on or after Friday, May 28, 2021, placed in removal proceedings, and enrolled in Alternatives to Detention (ATD). DHS, in partnership with the Department of Justice (DOJ) Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), will make available information services to help families understand the immigration system and refer families to pro bono legal service providers for possible representation.
EOIR has identified immigration courts in 10 cities with established communities of legal services providers and available judges to handle the cases. The designated cities are Denver, Detroit, El Paso, Los Angeles, Miami, Newark, New York City, San Diego, San Francisco, and Seattle.
Under the Dedicated Docket, EOIR’s immigration judges will work generally to issue a decision within 300 days of the initial master calendar hearing, subject to the unique circumstances of each case including allowing time for families to seek representation where needed. While the goal of this process is to decide cases expeditiously, fairness will not be compromised.
CGRS Concerned Biden Policies Will Undermine Fairness, Endanger Refugee Families
San Francisco, CA (May 28, 2021) – The Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS) is deeply concerned by today’s announcement that the Biden administration will begin fast-tracking asylum cases for certain families seeking refuge. By establishing a “dedicated docket” for asylum-seeking families, the administration will sacrifice fairness in the name of speed, adopting a misguided approach that under both the Obama and Trumpadministrations contributed to record backlogs in the immigration system, eroded due process, and endangered lives. Instead of reviving the failed policies of past administrations, the Biden administration should swiftly end cruel and illegal Trump-era policies and fully restore safe asylum processing at the southern border.
Today’s announcement arrives at a time when families seeking asylum face enormous roadblocks to safety and justice. Over four months into its first term, the Biden administration has failed to end myriad Trump-era policies that continue to place refugees at risk of grave violence, and even death. It is shameful that the administration is prioritizing fast-tracked adjudications while continuing to illegally expel asylum seekers to danger under the widelydebunked pretext of the pandemic. So long as the Title 42 policy remains in place, there can be no safe or fair process for asylum seekers.
The Biden administration also has yet to address Trump policies that have gutted protections for people escaping domestic violence and gang brutality, including many of the families impacted by this new policy. Until Attorney General Garlandtakes action to reverse these policies, the asylum system will remain rigged against families fleeing violence in their homes and communities, who will be wrongly denied protection and ordered deported to the very dangers they’ve fled. Rushing adjudications will make it even more difficult for these families to find safety, further undermining any semblance of fairness in the asylum process.
“CGRS and our partners have set forth a clearroadmap for the Biden administration to adjudicate asylum cases in a timely manner and mitigate backlogs, all while improving fairness and protecting due process,” CGRS Legal Director Blaine Bookey said today. “As advocates, we’ve been down this road before. We know policies that rush asylum adjudications fail to keep families and children safe. We implore the administration not to make the mistake of putting speed above justice.”’
Advocates, asylum seekers, and communities are coming together to demand an asylum system that provides every person a safe and fair opportunity to seek protection, with full access to legal representation and community-based support. The Biden administration should put humanity first, reject the cruel policies of the past, and welcome people seeking asylum with dignity.
Brianna Krong | Communications and Advocacy Coordinator
“She struggled madly in the torturing Ray” — At DOJ, Garland, Lisa Monaco, Vanita Gupta, and Kristen Clarke appear to regard refugee women applying for asylum at the Southern Border as “less than human.” Human dignity is a bad joke in Garland’s “Star Chambers.” Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Here are other initial comments from asylum experts:
I don’t think there was any consultation w/ private bar. NGOs are very upset. Biden administration just held a q and a about two hours ago to answer NGO questions but there’s a lot of unknowns remaining.
Lots of NGOs are off today because of the long weekend but many are working to respond to this and the President’s budget.
See NGO press release in response to President’s budget:
We Are Home Campaign Deeply Disappointed by Biden’s DHS Budget Request
Calls on Congress to Do Better
Washington, DC —President Biden’s FY 2022 budget, released today, requests $2.7 billion from Congress for ICE detention – almost the same amount enacted by Congress last year under the Trump Administration. It includes funds for 2,500 family detention beds. Alongside recent increases in the number of people jailed by ICE, this budget request is an alarming signal that DHS and the President are not heeding the call of the immigrant justice movement to reduce and ultimately end the federal government’s harmful and unnecessary reliance on incarceration for immigration processing.
In response to the news, Bridgette Gomez, Director of the We Are Home campaign, said:
“We are deeply disappointed to see that DHS plans to continue Trump-era levels of ICE detention. Candidate Biden promised an immigration policy that reflects our highest values as a nation. As president, Biden has repeatedly emphasized his commitment to racial equity. Any plan that doesn’t dramatically shrink ICE’s incarceration system – which mostly jails Black and Brown people – betrays those commitments. We’ll be looking to Congress to do better and cut ICE’s budget significantly.”
In March, We Are Home joined the Defund Hate coalition in calling on Congress to cut funding for ICE and CBP by at least 50 percent.
In February, the campaign sent comprehensive recommendations to DHS to overhaul enforcement and begin to dismantle the detention and deportation machinery that has devastated millions of families, mostly Black and Brown, and squandered billions of taxpayer dollars. These recommendations included policies to cut detention, including 1) a comprehensive file review of all people in ICE custody, with a presumption of release, and 2) an end to the use of private prisons and state and local jails for ICE detention. The urgency to reduce the detained population is even greater during the pandemic, since people in jails and prisons face particular risk of contracting COVID. ICE has no centralized plan to provide vaccines for people in its custody.”
We Are Home is a nationwide campaign to fight for immigrant communities on three fronts: prioritizing and demanding a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants in America; a moratorium and overhaul of interior enforcement; and broad affirmative relief from deportation. We Are Home is co-chaired by Community Change/Community Change Action; National Domestic Workers Alliance (NDWA)/Care in Action; Service Employees International Union (SEIU); United Farm Workers/UFW Foundation; and United We Dream.
###
******************
The NGOs are quite upset.Note that this comes days after the Fourth Circuit enforced an IJ’s duty to fully develop the record even in represented cases.And yet here is the administration speeding up the assembly line.
In my view, this will lead to more pro se I-589s being filed.And as Sessions vacated Matter of E-F-H-L-, there is now no safeguard in either case law or regs preventing IJs from summarily denying those I-589s for e.g. failing to correctly delineate a PSG.
I can’t for the life of me understand this administration’s determination topreserveTrump’s policies.
*******************
Quick takes:
Because the system would depend almost entirely on NGOs and pro bono groups to provide counsel, developing policies without consulting those groups or providing grants to increase representation is totally inappropriate, not to mention stupid and insulting;
Special expedited asylum dockets have failed in the last two Administrations, so why try a “proven failure” once again?
Assigning certain Immigration Judges to these “priority dockets” –without first removing non-priority cases from the docket, will result in more “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and increased backlogs;
Professor Karen Musalo Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Hastings LawProfessor Stephen H. Legomsky Emeritus Professor of Law. & Former USG Senior Executive Washington U. Law PHOTO: Washington U. Law website
The 10 Immigration Courts selected for this project have widely varying asylum denial rates. For example, for the period 2015-20, according to TRAC, El Paso (an “Asylum Free Zone”) had a denial rate of 90% and New York a denial rate of 32%. How can a system including such extremes be “fair?”
In just a short time, Garland’s outrageous mishandling of the Immigration Courts, and his disdain for expert progressive advice and appointments, shows exactly why Congress must remove these “courts” from the incompetent and biased administration of the DOJ and create an independent U.S. Immigration Court;
Until that happens, progressives and advocates will have to deal with Garland’s “in your face arrogance and ignorance” the same way they dealt with Sessions and Barr — with massive resistance and unending litigation until Garland’s corrupt, incompetent, biased system grinds to a halt.
Turning potential powerful and helpful friends into motivated and committed enemies! Seems pretty stupid to me.
Stephen Miller rightfully made lots of enemies with his racist, neo-Nazi shenanigans. But, he did please and energize his nativist, White Nationalist supporters!
By contrast, Garland has rapidly turned progressive supporters into enemies. But, he won’t get one iota of appreciation or support from Miller and his White Nationalist nativist supporters in the GOP.
Creating policies that are universally opposed or panned. That takes some impressive negative leadership and political idiocy!
BIA Asylum Panel In Action — What are Garland, Monaco, and Gujpta doing to end these atrocities!? So far, nothing! Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Arevalo Quintero v. Garland, 4th Cir., 05-26-21, published
PANEL:MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
OPINION BY: Judge Wynn
CONCURRING OPINION: Judge Motz
KEY QUOTE:
In our country, few populations are as vulnerable as noncitizens facing removal
proceedings who are unable to secure the assistance of adequate counsel. Yet the consequences they may face are severe: family separation, prolonged detention, and deportation to a country where persecution or even death awaits.
We are acutely conscious of the harsh realities of our immigration system faced by thousands of noncitizens each day. These individuals come to our shores in search of sanctuary and a better life. Many are poor, young, uneducated, or (like Petitioner) all three. Of course, we recognize that immigration policies are primarily a concern for the elected branches. But it is our role, and our highest duty, to ensure that those policies are applied fairly and with full regard to our laws and our Constitution.
With these grave concerns in mind, we hold today that under the Immigration and Nationality Act and, where relevant, the United States’ obligations under the Refugee Convention, immigration judges have a legal duty to fully develop the record, which becomes particularly important in pro se cases. We believe this procedural protection is essential for ensuring fundamental fairness and reasoned decision making in removal proceedings.
Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the immigration judge below failed to fulfill her duty to fully develop the record, thereby depriving Petitioner of a vital statutory protection and a full and fair hearing. In light of this and other errors made by the immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals, we grant the petition, vacate Petitioner’s final order of removal, and remand to the Board of Immigration Appeals with instructions to remand the case to the immigration judge for further fact-finding and reconsideration of Petitioner’s application for withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture relief.
*****************************
“Miller Lite” – Garland’s Vision of “Justice @ Justice” for Communities of Color
How many more of these disasters will it take for Garland to oust the deadwood and the “denial club” from the Immigration Judiciary, make the urgently needed, long overdue progressive reforms, and bring in progressive leaders and judges to restore due process at the totally and disgracefully dysfunctional EOIR? How many more lives will be needlessly be lost or squandered by the unconstitutional parody of a “court” system that Garland is running @ EOIR?What will the cost of his “case of the slows” be to Garland’s reputation and to the Biden Administration? Why is the “EOIR Clown Show”🤡⚰️still engaging in its daily deadly performances more than four months into the Biden Administration?
Also, every additional embarrassing, unprofessional performance like this by EOIR makes Garland’s horrible decision to hire 17 more “less than the best,” non-expert Immigration Judges, who haven’t represented individuals in Immigration Court, look worse and worse! There are lots of experts out there in the NDPA who know asylum law, know how to develop a record fully, and are highly sensitive to the due process needs of asylum seekers and other migrants. The continuation of ignorant, haste make waste, “any reason to get to no” decision making at EOIR, that specifically was encouraged by Sessions and Barr, is totally unnecessary ands highly inappropriate!
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
Here’s more from Round Table leader Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase:
Friends, this is a really great win.In a 62-page published decision, a panel of the Fourth Circuit referenced our amicus brief, adopted many of our arguments, and agreed that an IJ has a duty to develop the record in a pro se withholding/CAT claim.
The court actually granted the withholding of removal claim (see pp. 53-54).It also found that the BIA incorrectly applied Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B- to a pro se applicant.
While our brief is mentioned in the body of the decision, if you look at footnote 24, the court especially liked the analogy from our brief (the work of our drafter, Steve Schulman of Akin Gump) comparinga pro se applicant’s attempts to formulate a particular social group to a game of Scrabble in which one of the players “does not speak English and cannot spell;” adding that “without help, the respondent could never win, and can’t even meaningfully participate.”
There are also references to Matter of S-M-J- and the UNHCR Handbook.
I think we can be very proud of this one.
Thanks again to Steve Schulman, who has done such an outstanding job in drafting quite a few of our briefs.
Best, Jeff
Just think of what could be accomplished and the resources that would be conserved if the progressive due process experts were on the INSIDE at EOIR rather than perpetually STUCK ON THE OUTSIDE litigating, writing, lobbying, complaining to get Garland to simply do his job! Not rocket science. But, apparently below Garland’s view and beyond his engagement level from the “ivory tower.”
“Reading the broad language of §§ 1003.10(b) and 1240.1(a)(1)(iv), we conclude that these regulations give the IJ the Attorney General’s discretionary authority to grant a § 1182(d)(3)(A)(ii) waiver. … [W]e grant the petition, vacate the BIA’s final removal order, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Seldom has a supposed quasi-judicial tribunal worked as hard as the current BIA to find limits on its ability to solve legal and humanitarian problems. That leaves the work to the Circuits, as in this case.
So, why have EOIR at all? The system clearly is unconstitutional because it lacks fair and impartial adjudicators and even minimally competent administration of due process. If Garland, Monaco, and Gupta have no interest in fixing these glaring problems, then why not just transfer EOIR’s functions to the U.S. District Courts and U.S. Magistrate Judges under the supervision of the Courts of Appeals?
Dems talk big about the need for a more progressive Federal Judiciary to achieve racial justice. But, given the chance actually to create one, they sit on their hands!
Not so the GOP! Restrictionists, nativists, reactionaries and White Nationalists recognize the repressive power of a captive and co-opted Immigration Judiciary and act accordingly. “Act” — that’s the operative word that doesn’t appear to be in the Dem’s vocabulary when it comes to building a better Federal Judiciary for a better America.
Progressives might initially have cheered the appointment of these three to top leadership posts @ the DOJ. But, to date, they have shown no interest in rescinding Stephen Miller’s White Nationalist immigration policies or replacing Miller’s nativist judges with progressive expert judges @ EOIR.
Judge Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney General Official White House Photo Public RealmLisa Monaco Deputy AG Official USG Photo, Public RealmVanita Gupta Associate Attorney General Photo: Brookings Institution, Paul Morigi, Creative Commons License.
BIA Asylum Panel In Action Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons“Oh Boy! Three material mistakes in one asylum case! Do you think our superiors in the enforcement bureaucracy will give us extra credit on our ‘move ‘em out without due process quotas?’ Being a Deportation Judge sure is fun!” https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
Arita-Deras v. Wilkinson, 4th Cir., 03-05-21, Published
PANEL:GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges
OPINION BY: Judge Barbara Milano Keenan
KEY QUOTE:
Maria Del Refugio Arita-Deras, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of a final order of removal entered by the Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board).1 The Board affirmed an immigration judge’s (IJ) conclusion that Arita-Deras was not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Board: (1) agreed with the IJ that Arita-Deras failed to support her claims with sufficient corroborating evidence; (2) found that Arita-Deras failed to prove that she suffered from past persecution because she had not been harmed physically; and (3) concluded that Arita-Deras failed to establish a nexus between the alleged persecution and a protected ground.
Upon our review, we conclude that the Board improperly discounted Arita-Deras’ corroborating evidence, applied an incorrect legal standard for determining past persecution, and erred in its nexus determination. Accordingly, we grant Arita-Deras’ petition and remand her case to the Board for further proceedings.
***************************
After eight years of bouncing around the system at various levels THIS “NotQuite Good Enough For Government Work” error-fest is what we get from EOIR! As I keep saying, no wonder they are running a 1.3 million case backlog, clogging the Circuit Courts with incredibly shoddy work, and in many cases sending vulnerable refugees back to death or torture under incorrect fact findings and blatantly wrong legal interpretations!
Again, nothing profound about this claim; just basic legal and analytical errors that often flow from the “think of any reason to deny” culture. EOIR just keeps repeating the same basic mistakes again and again even after being “outed” by the Circuits!
This case illustrates why the unrealistically high asylum denial numbers generated by the biased EOIR system and parroted by DHS should never be trusted. This respondent, appearing initially without a lawyer, was actually coerced by an Immigration Judge into accepting a “final order” of removal with a totally incorrect, inane, mis-statement of the law. “Haste makes waste,” shoddy, corner cutting procedures, judges deficient in asylum legal knowledge, and a stunning lack of commitment to due process and fundamental fairness are a burden to our justice system in addition to being a threat to the lives of individual asylum seekers.
Only when she got a lawyer prior to removal was this respondent able to get her case reopened for a full asylum hearing. Even then, the IJ and the BIA both totally screwed up the analysis and entered incorrect orders. Only because this respondent was fortunate enough to be assisted by one of the premier pro bono groups in America, the CAIR Coalition, was she able to get some semblance of justice on appeal to the Circuit Court!
I’m very proud to say that a member of the “CAIR Team,” Adina Appelbaum, program Director, Immigration Impact Lab, is my former Georgetown ILP student, former Arlington Intern, and a “charter member” of the NDPA! If my memory serves me correctly, she is also a star alum of the CALS Asylum Clinic @ Georgetown Law. No wonder Adina made the Forbes “30 Under 30” list of young Americans leaders! She and others like her in the NDPA are ready to go in and start cleaning up and improving EOIR right now! Judge Garland take note!
Adina Appelbaum Director, Immigration Impact Lab CAIR Coalition PHOTO: “30 Under 30” from Forbes
Despite CAIR’s outstanding efforts, Ms. Arita-Deras still is nowhere near getting the relief to which she should be entitled under a proper application of the law by expert judges committed to due process. Instead, after eight years, she plunges back into EOIR’s 1.3 million case “never never land” where she might once again end up with Immigration Judges at both the trial and appellate level who are not qualified to be hearing asylum cases because they don’t know the law and they are “programmed to deny” to meet their “deportation quotas” in support of ICE Enforcement.
Focus on it folks! This is America; yet individuals on trial for their lives face a prosecutor and a “judge” who are on the same side! And, they are often forced to do it without a lawyer and without even understanding the complex proceedings going on around them! How is this justice? It isn’t! So why is it allowed to continue?
Also, let’s not forget that under the recently departed regime, EOIR falsely claimed that having an attorney didn’t make a difference in success rates for respondents. That’s poppycock! Actually, as the Vera Institute recently documented the success rate for represented respondents is an astounding 10X that of unrepresented individuals. In any functional system, that differential would be more than sufficient to establish a “prima facie” denial of due process any time an asylum seeker (particularly one in detention) is forced to proceed without representation.
Yet, this miscarriage of justice occurs every day in Immigration Courts throughout America! Worse yet, EOIR and DHS have purposely “rigged” the system in various ways to impede and discourage effective representation.
To date, while flagging EOIR for numerous life-threatening errors, the Article IIIs have failed to come to grips with the obvious: The current EOIR system provides neither due process nor fundamental fairness to the individuals coming before these “courts” (that aren’t “courts” at all)!
Acting AG Wilkinson has piled up an impressive string of legal defeats in immigration matters in just a short time on the job. It’s going to be up to Judge Garland to finally make it right. It’s urgent for both our nation and the individuals whose rights are being stomped upon by a broken system on a daily basis!
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up“She struggled madly in the torturing Ray” Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia CommonsDan Kowalski Online Editor of the LexisNexis Immigration Law Community (ILC)
Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:
“Diaz de Gomez claims that she received repeated death threats from a gang in Guatemala after she and her family witnessed a mass killing by gang members and refused to acquiesce to the gang’s extortion and other demands. … [W]e reject the Board’s “excessively narrow” view of the nexus requirement, and conclude that Diaz de Gomez established that her familial ties were one central reason for her persecution. … We also hold that the record conclusively establishes that the Guatemalan government was unable or unwilling to control Diaz de Gomez’s persecutors. We therefore grant the petition for review and remand for the Board to reconsider Diaz de Gomez’s claims in light of our holdings.”
So, let’s compare the 4th Circuit’s view with the most recent abomination and intentional misconstruction of the “unable or unwilling to control” doctrine by totally unqualified political hack Jeffrey Rosen, then impersonating the “Acting Attorney General” and issuing clearly unconstitutional “precedents” to implement the defeated regime’s racially biased, misogynistic, anti-asylum agenda.
Talk about “crimes against humanity!” ☠️🏴☠️ Certainly, every current civil servant who supported and advanced this bogus designation should be held accountable.
Kakistocracy Kills: Obviously, with better qualified judges, competent representation, and a fair system operated in accordance with due process and a proper interpretation of asylum laws, many of those now being arbitrarily, capriciously, and unlawfully turned back at our borders would be entitled to our legal protection. This is life or death, not a problem that can “wait till tomorrow” to be addressed! Every day that the patently inadequate “judges” currently on the BIA remain in their positions means more injustice, trauma, and even death for legitimate asylum seekers!
Three resettlement agencies responsible for sponsoring refugees challenged the new policy. The agencies work with the State Department to welcome adults and children who have fled war and persecution in other countries. They connect refugees to housing, jobs and English classes needed to start their new lives in the United States.
Melanie Nezer, a senior vice president of the Silver Spring, Md.-based HIAS, one of the agencies behind the lawsuit, applauded the court’s decision.
“Especially right now, at this moment in history, it is really affirming and validating to see the court affirm the importance of the program,” Nezer said Friday.
“It will take a lot of work to rebuild a system that the Trump administration has broken down over the last four years,” she said.
[Maryland governor issues written consent for refugee admissions in response to Trump order]
Trump issued the order after he set the annual national refugee cap for fiscal 2020 at a historic low of 18,000, down from 110,000 in 2016.
Texas was the first state to publicly refuse to resettle new refugees, with Gov. Greg Abbott (R) saying the state has “carried more than its share.” The vast majority of other governors, however, signed letters saying they would accept refugees.
Nezer said the incoming Biden administration has committed to admitting refugees at levels more in line with historical figures.
A spokesman for the Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
[Federal judge temporarily halts Trump administration policy allowing local governments to block refugees]
The appeals court upheld a nationwide injunction issued last year by U.S. District Judge Peter J. Messitte, who concluded that the requirement gave state and local governments veto power that he said is “arbitrary and capricious as well as inherently susceptible to hidden bias.”
The 4th Circuit agreed. The policy, the court said, would also impose an “extreme burden” on the nonprofit agencies required to obtain consent from local officials. The court warned that the policy would erode community relationships and was likely to result in the closure of some offices.
“The record is clear that the resettlement agencies were not designed for this role and have been forced to divert enormous resources from their core social service missions to their new lobbying responsibilities,” according to the 4th Circuit.
Ann Marimow covers legal affairs for The Washington Post. She joined The Post in 2005 and has covered state government and politics in California, New Hampshire and Maryland.
******************
Read the rest of Ann’s article at the link.
The 4th Circuit comes through for America! The court pointed out the malicious stupidity of the regime’s policy that dismantled and wasted the resources of the NGOs who conduct refugee resettlement, one of the most effective and beneficial programs in America. White Nationalism is a vile, anti-American perversion that “deconstructs” success and leaves chaos, suffering, and squandered resources in its wake.
To state the obvious, under sane, humane, effective government, the resources wasted in opposing, “defending,” and litigating this atrocious and unnecessary nonsense could better have been devoted to resettling more refugees! I’m confident that the Biden Administration will reinstitute a robust refugee program.
Additionally, I have proposed that the type of cooperation, expertise, and organization that has succeeded in refugee resettlement could be applied creatively to screening, obtaining representation, adjudicating, and resettling asylum seekers and those granted asylum. The Biden Administration should build on and expand things that work, particularly public private partnerships and grants to NGOs and state and local governments.
They must stop squandering money and resources on racist, “built to fail” enforcement gimmicks and unconstitutional, unnecessary, inhumane, expensive, and immoral detention! “Repurpose” the funds wasted on the “stunt wall” and devote them to getting asylum seekers processed in a fair, humane, and timely manner that complies with due process and our statutory and international obligations.
Greg Abbott is another sleazy White Nationalist who should be removed from office for lies, false narratives, religious bias, and overt racism.
Manning argues immigration judges must ask questions to develop the record for pro se applicants like Arevalo-Quintero about their PSG affiliations. She isn’t alone in her push for a different standard for pro se immigrants applying for asylum.
In an amicus brief, a group of retired immigration judges and former members of the Board of Immigration Appeals point to a Fifth Circuit opinion that says immigration judges have a duty to “seek clarification” and “ensure that the [PSG] being analyzed is included in his or her decision.”
Immigration judges “must remain neutral, but that does not mean that they are passive bystanders during immigration court hearings,” the brief states. “The regulations require IJs, for example, to explain the factual allegations and charges in ‘non-technical’ language.”
. . . .
*******************
Read Brad’s full article at the link.
Many thanks to my“eagle eyed” friend Deb Sanders for sending this my way.
The Round Table 🛡⚔️ continues to play a positive role. Compare that with the unfailingly negative role of the current “EOIR Clown Show.”🤡🤮
In what hopefully will be a much better world after January 20, 2021, the Round Table could work with a “new EOIR,” led and staffed by real judges from the NDPA, on the practical legal and administrative reforms necessary for EOIR to become a “model court,” usingteamwork and best practices to guarantee fairness and due process for all. That’s actually what the “EOIR vision” was prior to the advent of the Bush II Administration in 2001.
That noble vision could still become a reality, but only if the Biden-Harris Administration evicts the “EOIR Clown Show” 🤡and replaces it with competent experts from the NDPA committed to due process for all. ⚖️🧑🏽⚖️🇺🇸🗽
Hon. “Sir” Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration JudgesKnightess of the Round Table
Hi all: A few outcomes right before the holiday (two good, one bad):
(1) The Fourth Circuit just granted the motion for rehearing en banc in Portillo-Flores v. Barr, in which the Round Table filed an amicus brief. This was a decision with a very problematic unwilling/unable determination by two judges (the petitioner, who was 14 when the events occurred, stated on the third time he was asked that it was possible the police might have taken some action), and a very strongly worded dissent.
(2) In a bond case in the Second Circuit in which we also filed an amicus brief in a case represented by Legal Aid., Arana v. Barr, the petitioner was released from custody today after having two prior requests denied. Legal Aid believes our brief was helpful in achieving that result. Counsel is expecting a stipulation for dismissal without prejudice.
(3) The bad news: in a petition to the 4th Circuit in support of CAIR Coalition involving Matter of A-B- issues, the 4th Cir. denied the petition for review, but did so in an unpublished decision.
Wishing everyone a very safe and happy Thanksgiving!
All my best, Jeff
**************************
Thanks, Sir Jeffrey!
I’m so thankful for all of the fantastic work that you and our other knightesses and knights of the Round Table do to keep due process and best practices on the forefront and spread truth in the face of tyranny, lies, and false narratives. While we often focus on the weekly amicus briefs we file with tribunals across the nation, the work also goes on in analysis, public speaking, media interviews, teaching, political involvement, video appearances, and grass roots pro bono and community work.
For example, our amazing colleague Judge Charlie Pazar of Tennessee just reported that he was featured on a CLE panel entirely devoted to the work and impact of our Round Table! Way to go Charlie! You are one of those who tirelessly works to improve American justice on all levels and you are certainly “super generous” in sharing your time, knowledge, expertise, and perspective!
Just recently, Sir Jeffrey, along with Round Table knightesses Judge Denise Slavin and Judge Sue Roy, in addition to yours truly and our friend NAIJ President Judge Ashley Tabaddor, were quoted by Suzanne Monyak in a Law360 article about the future of the NAIJ and the Immigration Court in a Biden Administration. Sadly, the article is “hidden behind the pay wall,” but those with access can read it in its entirety.
Compare these unselfish, teamwork-oriented, effective, expert professional activities aimed at improving the justice system and access to it for everyone with the disgraceful, ignorant, divisive, counterproductive, and often downright racist and illegal actions of the current regime’s immigration kakistocracy, starting, but by no means ending, with the deadly ☠️⚰️🏴☠️ “EOIR Clown Show” 🤡!
Think what a “Better EOIR” and a “better bureaucracy,” led by members of the NDPA could do to solve problems, promote the rule of law and best practices, and make “equal justice for all” a reality rather than a false promise that is intentionally never fulfilled! It isn’t rocket science. But, it does take replacing the kakistocracy, on all levels, throughout Government with experts from the NDPA committed to achieving “good government in the public interest.”
J Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration JudgesKnightess of the Round Table
Asher Stockler reports for Law360:
. . . .
But the government said that, even if these withholding claims succeed, it still retains the right to deport the group of immigrants to other countries that will accept them. Because deportation is still on the table regardless of the status of those claims, the administration argued, the group of immigrants should be treated identically to those who are about to be deported.
The ACLU rebutted that argument, saying that such third-country deportations are exceedingly rare. Because of this, the ACLU said the availability of a third-country option should not mean the
11/12/2020 Justices Told Of Due Process Issues Without Bond Hearings – Law360
deportation-ready provision of the law kicks in. According to the American Immigration Council, fewer than 2% of immigrants who received persecution-based relief in fiscal year 2017 were ultimately deported to a third country.
The Justice Department also raised the possibility that having to scrutinize the practical odds of removal from immigrant to immigrant would be “patently unworkable.”
“A case-by-case approach … would needlessly add to the burdens that are already ‘overwhelming our immigration system,'” the department said, quoting a prior case.
But a coalition of former immigration trial and appeals judges pushed back on that idea with their own amicus brief Thursday.
“Bond hearings in withholding of removal proceedings are no different than bond hearings in other contexts,” the group, representing 34 judges who have cumulatively overseen thousands of cases, wrote. “Contrary to [the administration’s] assertion, bond hearings in withholding of removal proceedings neither lead to a slowdown of cases that ‘thwart Congress’ objectives’ in enacting the immigration laws, nor impose an administrative burden on immigration courts.” The American Civil Liberties Union is represented by its own Michael Tan, Omar Jadwat, Judy Rabinovitz, Cecillia Wang and David D. Cole.
The coalition of former judges is represented by David Keyko, Robert Sills, Matthew Putorti, Daryl Kleiman, Patricia Rothenberg and Roland Reimers of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP.
The plaintiffs are represented by Paul Hughes, Michael Kimberly and Andrew Lyons-Berg of McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg and Rachel McFarland of the Legal Aid Justice Center, Mark Stevens of Murray Osorio PLLC, and Eugene Fidell of Yale Law School’s Supreme Court Clinic.
The Trump administration is represented by Noel Francisco, Jeffrey Wall, Edwin Kneedler and Vivek Suri of the U.S. Solicitor General’s Office and Lauren Fascett, Brian Ward and Joseph Hunt of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Division.
The case is Tony H. Pham et al. v. Maria Angelica Guzman Chavez et al., case number 19-897, at the U.S. Supreme Court.
–Editing by Michael Watanabe.
**********************************************
Read the complete article over on Law360. The case comes from the Fourth Circuit. Hopefully, the Biden-Harris Administration will withdraw the SG’s disingenuous petition (if not already denied by the Supremes) and implement the Fourth Circuit’s correct decision nationwide.
That’s the way to promote due process and judicial efficiency instead of constantly promoting inhumanity, abuse of due process, judicial inefficiency (fair adjudication is hindered by unnecessary detention in the Gulag), and chaos!
Many, many, many thanks to our all-star pro bono team:
David Keyko, Robert Sills, Matthew Putorti, Daryl Kleiman, Patricia Rothenberg and Roland Reimers of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP.
Couldn’t have done it without you guys! You constantly “Make us look smart!”
I also note with great pride the following “charter members” of the “New Due Process Army” who were on the plaintiffs’ legal team:
Rachel McFarland, my former Georgetown Law student;
Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, who appeared before me at the Arlington Immigration Court, and is an occasional contributor to “Courtside;
Mark Stevens, who appeared before me at the Arlington Immigration Court.
Well done, fearless fighters for due process!
Rachel McFarland Legal Aid Justice Center Charter Member, New Due Process Army
This disgraceful performance by the Solicitor General’s Office (once revered, now reviled) has become “the norm” under Trump. Francisco’s arguments are those of an attorney who didn’t do “due diligence,” but doesn’t expect the Court to know or care what really happens in Immigration Court. And, unfortunately, with the exception of Justice Sotomayor and perhaps Justice Kagan, that may well be a correct assumption. But that doesn’t make it any less of a powerful and disturbing indictment of our entire U.S. Justice system in the age of Trump.
Reality check: I routinely did 10-15, sometimes more, bond hearings at a Detained Master Calendar in less than one hour. I treated everyone fairly, applied the correct legal criteria, and set reasonable bonds (usually around $5,000) for everyone legally eligible. Almost all represented asylum seekers and withholding seekers eligible for bond who had filed complete and well-documented asylum or withholding applications were released on bond. About 99% showed up for their merits hearings.
I encouraged attorneys on both sides to file documents in advance, discuss the case with each other, and present a proposed agreed bond amount or a range of amounts to me whenever possible. Bond hearings were really important (freedom from unnecessary restraint is one of our most fundamental rights), but they weren’t “rocket science.” Bond hearings actually ran like clockwork.
Indeed, if the attorneys were “really on the ball,” and ICE managed to find and present all the detainees timely, I could probably do 10-15 bond cases in 30 minutes, and get them all right. My courtroom and my approach weren’t any different from that of my other then-colleagues at Arlington. In thirteen years on the bench, I set thousands of bonds and probably had no more than six appeals to the BIA from my bond decisions. I also reviewed many bond appeals at the BIA. (Although, most bond appeals to the BIA were “mooted” by the issuance of a final order in the detained case before the bond appeal was adjudicated.) Most took fewer than 15 minutes.
Indeed, my past experience suggests that a system led (not necessarily “run”) by competent judicial professionals and staffed with real judges with expertise in immigration, asylum, and human rights and unswervingly committed to due process and fundamental fairness could establish “best practices” that would drastically increase efficiency, cut (rather than mindlessly and exponentially expand) backlogs, without cutting out anyone’s rights. In other words, EOIR potentially could be a “model American judiciary,” as it actually was once envisioned, rather than the slimy mass of disastrous incompetence and the national embarrassment that it is today!
The idea that doing something as straightforward as a bond hearing would tie the system in knots is pure poppycock and a stunning insult to all Immigration Judges delivered by a Solicitor General who has never done a bond case in his life!
Yes the system is overwhelmingly backlogged and dysfunctional! But that has nothing to do with giving respondents due process bond hearings.
It has everything to do with unconstitutional and just plain stupid “politicization” and “weaponization” of the courts under gross incompetence and mismanagement by political hacks at the DOJ who have installed their equally unqualified toadies at EOIR. It also has to do with a disingenuous Solicitor General who advances a White Nationalist political agenda, rather than constitutional rights, fundamental fairness, rationality, and best practices. It has to do with a Supreme Court majority unwilling to take a stand for the legal rights and human dignity of the most vulnerable, and often most deserving, among us in the face of bullying and abuse by a corrupt, would-be authoritarian, fundamentally anti-American and anti-democracy regime.
It has to do with allowing a corrupt, nativist, invidiously-motivated regime to manipulate and intentionally misapply asylum and protection laws at the co-opted and captive DHS Asylum Office; thousands of “grantable” asylum cases are wrongfully and unnecessarily shuffled off to the Immigration Courts, thus artificially inflating backlogs and leading to more pressure to cut corners and dispense with due process.
It also paints an intentionally false and misleading picture that the problem is asylum applicants rather than the maliciously incompetent White Nationalists who have seized control of our system and acted to destroy years of structural development and accumulated institutional expertise.
Good Government matters! Maliciously incompetent Government threatens to destroy our nation! (Doubt that, just look at the totally inappropriate, entirely dishonest, response of the Trump kakistocracy to their overwhelming election defeat by Biden-Harris and the unwillingness of both the GOP and supporters to comply with democratic norms and operate in the real world of facts, rather than false narratives.)
Due process, fundamental fairness, equal justice, simple human decency, and Good Government won’t happen until we get the White Nationalist hacks out of the DOJ and replace the “clown show” at EOIR with qualified members of the New Due Process Army. Problem solvers, rather than problem creators; over-achievers, rather than screw-ups!
The incoming Biden-Harris Administration is left with a stark, yet simple, choice: oust the malicious incompetents and bring in the “competents” from the NDPA to fix the system; or become part of the problem and have the resulting mess forever sully your Administration.
The Obama Administration (sadly) chose the latter. President Elect Biden appears bold, confident, self-aware, and flexible enough to recognize past mistakes. But, recognition without reconstruction (action) is useless! Don’t ruminate — govern! Like your life depends on it!
And, by no means is EOIR the only part of DOJ the needs “big time” reform and a thorough shake up. We must have a Solicitor General committed to following the rules of legal ethics and common human decency and who will insist on her or his staff doing likewise.
The next Solicitor General must also have demonstrated expertise in asylum, immigration, civil rights, and human rights laws and be committed to expanding due process, equal justice, racial justice, and fundamental fairness throughout the Government bureaucracy and “pushing” the Supremes to adopt and endorse best, rather than worst, practices in these areas.
American Justice and our court systems are in “free fall.” This is no time for more “amateur night at the Bijou.”
And here are some thoughts for the future if we really want to achieve “Good Government” and equal justice for all:
Every future Supreme Court Justice must have served a minimum of two years as a U.S. Immigration Judge with an “asylum grant rate” that is at or exceeds the national average for the U.S. Immigration Courts;
Every future Solicitor General must have done a minimum of ten pro bono asylum cases in U.S. Immigration Court.
Due Process Forever! Clown Show (With Lives & Humanity On The Line) Never!
HERNANDEZ-CARTAGENA v. BARR, 4th Cir., 10-15-20, published
PANEL: THACKER, RICHARDSON, and QUATTLEBUAM, Circuit Judges
OPINION BY: JUDGE STEPHANIE THACKER
KEY QUOTE:
Contrary to the BIA’s conclusion in this case, the record does not support the conclusion that Petitioner’s own conflict with the gang precipitated any of the events in question. Indeed, substantial evidence in the record compels the conclusion that at least one central reason Petitioner was targeted was her membership in the Hernandez-Cartagena family. The unrebutted evidence in the record demonstrates that the threats and violence against Petitioner, her child, and her siblings were designed to get her parents to pay up. Pursuant to Hernandez-Avalos, it is therefore unreasonable to conclude that the fact that Petitioner is her parents’ child — a member of their family, concern for whom might motivate additional payments to the gang — is not at least one central reason for her persecution.
11
IV.
For the reasons set forth herein, the petition for review is granted, the decision of
the BIA is reversed, and we remand to the BIA for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
********************
Why this is important: It delivers a totally deserved “double whammy” to two of the worst and most biased precedents issued during the Trump White Nationalist “kangaroo court era” at the BIA.
First, in Matter of L-E-A, 27 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2017), (“L-E-A- 1”) the BIA recognized the “nuclear family” as a “particular social group.” Yet, to produce the necessary asylum denial sought by their “Trump handlers” at DOJ, the BIA erroneously found that the threatened harm had no “nexus” to the PSG.
To reach this improper and illogical result, the BIA disingenuously trashed the “normal” rules of causation. Those say that nexus is established if the harm would not have occurred “but for” membership in the protected group. Of course, there could be multiple “but fors” in a particular case, recognizing the “at least one central reason” statutory language for nexus.
That respondent was targeted for harm by gangs because his family owned a drug store that the gangs wanted to access to distribute illegal drugs. Had the respondent not been a member of his particular family, there is no reason to believe he would have have been targeted for any harm, or indeed have been of any interest to the gangs at all.
In other words, “but for” his membership in that particular family PSG, the threats would not have occurred. Essentially, a “no brainer” asylum grant that could have been quickly granted by a competent adjudicator. Any DHS appeal should have been a strong candidate for summary dismissal.
Instead of doing the obvious, the BIA invented new rules of causation. Contrary to the record, they found that family membership was essentially irrelevant to the threatened persecution. No, according to the BIA, the threats against the respondent were motivated solely the gang’s desire to sell illegal drugs through the family store, not a protected ground.
By searching for “any other motivation” and then basically substituting it to the exclusion of the clear family PSG motivation, the BIA bizarrely and erroneously concluded that the PSG was not “one central reason” for the persecution. This allowed the BIA to deny asylum to a respondent who fit squarely within the “refugee” definition.
Although the decision might have been cloaked in garbled legalese and irrational, result-oriented analysis, the overall message to Immigration Judges and BIA Appellate Judges was clear: faced with facts that demanded an asylum grant to a Central American refugee, the adjudicator should manufacture “any reason other than a protected ground” to deny protection. The BIA will have your back.
Let’s play out the BIA’s intentionally perverted analysis on a larger scale. The leaders of the Nazi movement stood to profit mightily from the eradication of the German Jewish community. Stolen artwork, confiscated wealth and property, and even the proceeds of the gold and silver obtained from collecting and melting down the dental fillings of gassed Jews found their way into Nazi bank accounts, many abroad. Thus, the BIA could view the Holocaust not as religious, nationality, or racial persecution, but rather part of an overall criminal scheme to enrich Nazi leaders by stealing from prosperous or vulnerable individuals. No persecution there!
Happily, in Hernandez-Cartagena, Judge Thacker and her colleagues blew through the type of bogus analysis set forth in L-E-A- 1. Although not specifically citing the BIA’s defective precedent, the court applied “normal rules of causation” rather than the BIA’s “any reason to deny” approach.
The petitioner was a “conduit” In the gang’s scheme to extort money from her parents. The court recognized that “it is therefore unreasonable to conclude that the fact that Petitioner is her parents’ child — a member of their family, concern for whom might motivate additional payments to the gang — is not at least one central reason for her persecution.”
Good bye and good riddance L-E-A- 1. Hello, rational analysis and well-merited protection, although sadly only within Fourth Circuit, for now.
But, that’s not the end of the tale of woe from America’s most blatantly biased, unprofessional, deadly, and totally unconstitutional “21st Century Star Chambers.” Not satisfied with the BIA’s illegal denial of protection in L-E-A- 1, two years later, Attorney General “Billy the Bigot” Barr “certified” that case to himself. That became Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 581 (A.G. 2019) (“L-E-A- 2”).
“Justice” Star Chamber Style
His purpose? To reverse the only correct part of L-E-A- 1: the BIA’s recognition of the “nuclear family” as a “PSG.” As we all know, the nuclear family is one of the oldest, most well-established, well-defined, and universally recognized social units in human history. Not surprisingly, then, it has been recognized as a “PSG” under the Refugee Act of 1980 in numerous judicial and BIA decisions as well as by a myriad of human rights and international law scholars.
Bill Barr Consigliere Artist: Pat Bagley Salt Lake Tribune Reproduced under license
No matter to Billy! In an exercise in disingenuous legal gobbledygook and counter-rationality, he tried to explain why it was wrong to recognize the obvious: that the nuclear family” is a “cognizable PSG” for asylum adjudication purposes.
Instead, Billy substituted what I call the “Kardashian rule.” Only those families who have some sort of widespread recognition in society as a whole should be considered to possess the “social distinction” (the characteristic formerly known as “social visibility”) to qualify as a “cognizable PSG.”
Billy Barr’s Vision Of A “Cognizable Particular Social Group” By hotrock pictures – Vimeo: Kardashian Kollection at Sears (view archived source), CC BY 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=82871460 Creative Commons License
Again, without specifically citing L-E-A- 2, (perhaps the OIL was too embarrassed to argue it) Judge Thacker and her colleagues “blew away” its bigoted and irrational nonsense:
We have repeatedly held “a nuclear family provides a prototypical example of a particular social group” cognizable in our asylum framework. Cedillos-Cedillos v. Barr, 962 F.3d 817, 824 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Indeed, the Fourth Circuit has been a leader in recognizing the nuclear family as a PSG, going all the way back to a case where they reinstated some of my rulings as an Immigration Judge that had been wrongfully reversed by the BIA: Crespin-Valadares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117, 128 (4th Cir. 2011). But, hey, who remembers stuff like that from nearly a decade ago where I was once again proved right and the BIA was wrong?
Yeah, I’ll have to admit that after eight years of regularly getting “stuffed” by my BIA colleagues at en banc, there were few things in my professional life more satisfying than having a Court of Appeals “stuff” the BIA on a case where I had dissented as a BIA Judge or been reversed as an Immigration Judge!
So Billy the Bigot’s attempt to impose the absurdist “Kardashian rule” (sorry Kim, Kourtney, and Khloe) in L-E-A- 2 bites the dust, at least in the Fourth Circuit. I hope it will serve as a “blueprint” to eradicate the “twin travesties” of L-E-A- 1 & 2across the nation!
Exhilarating as this case is, it’s just one step in the right direction. The unconstitutional White Nativist bias and abuse being heaped upon refugees and other migrants by a “Star Chamber” beholden to the likes of “Billy the Bigot” Barr and his predecessor Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions won’t end until EOIR is abolished and replaced with a real court system that complies with 5th Amendment Due Process. If the Article III Courts don’t have the guts to get the job done, then its up to future better Congress to make it happen!
🌟First and foremost, Aaron Caruso, Esquire, of Abod & Caruso, Wheaton, MD. He appeared before me in Arlington. He’s the “total pro,” a “judge’s lawyer:” scholarly, unfailingly courteous, prompt, well-prepared, practical, wrote outstanding “to the issue” briefs that didn’t waste my time, took tough cases, and never gave up on his clients. In a “better world,” he’s definitely someone I could see on the Federal Bench at some level. A member of the NDPA, for sure!
Honorable Stephanie D. Thacker U.S. Circuit Judge Fourth Circuit Photo From Ballotpedia
🌟Judge Stephanie Thacker of the Fourth Circuit. I haven’t studied all of her judicial opinions. But, based on this opinion and her outstanding and totally correct dissent in Portillo-Flores v. Barr where she cogently castigated her fellow panel members for “going along to get along” with the BIA’s “at worst nonsensical and cursory at best” asylum denial, she appears one of a painfully small number of Article III Judges who both understand the mockery of justice going on in our Immigration “Courts” and have the guts to take a strong stand against it. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/09/04/%E2%80%8D%EF%B8%8F%EF%B8%8F%EF%B8%8Finjustice-watch-4th-cir-judge-stephanie-thacker-cogently-castigates-colleagues-for-misapplying/
Interestingly, this is the same panelas in Portillo-Flores. And, the BIA’s sloppy and incompetent analysis, including ignoring the evidence of record, presents largely the same issues. Only, this time Judge Thacker’s colleagues paid attention to what she was saying!
That says something about both her persuasiveness and her colleagues’ willingness to listen and take a better approach to judicial review. That’s also what’s known in the business as “making progress every day, one case, one life at a time.”
Unfortunately, Trump and the GOP right wing pols have turned Federal judicial selection into a race to control justice until at least 2060. That has forced the Dems to finally wake up and do likewise the next time they get the chance. The upshot: At 55, although still in the “prime years” of her career from a professional standpoint, Judge Thacker has probably “aged out” of the sweepstakes to be the “heart and soul” of the Supremes for the next four decades.
The good news: She should be around to continue saving lives, speaking truth to power, and serving as a great role model for younger, aspiring jurists and public officials of all races and genders for many years to come.
Compare Judge Thacker’s clear, concise, cogent analysis in this case with the wandering legal gobbledygook and pure nonsense put forth by the BIA and Barr in L-E-A- 1 & 2.
🌟Judge Julius N. Richardson and Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum, Jr., of the Fourth Circuit also deserve stars. I really lambasted these two Trump appointees for their tone-deaf performance in Portillo-Flores. But, here they surprised me by joining fully in Judge Thacker’s analysis. Shows a capacity for teamwork, listening, adjusting views, and taking judicial review seriously, all really good things!
Additionally, it’s really important and significant when Trump appointees “do the right thing” and uphold due process, fundamental fairness, and recognize asylum seekers as “persons” entitled to equal justice under our Constitution.Given the large number of fairly young Trump appointees on the Federal Bench, it’s critical that as many of them as possible join their colleagues in resisting the White Nationalist assault on the rights and human dignity of people of color, particularly migrants and asylum seekers, being orchestrated by Trump, Miller, Barr, Wolf, and the rest of the regime’s gang of bigots.
Don’t know if this will be repeated in the future, but the votes of Judge Richardson and Judge Quattlebaum in this case are an encouraging sign for the American justice system. Will it be a trend or an aberration? Can’t tell, but stay tuned.
🌟Finally, and perhaps most importantly, hats off for Sandra Marleny Hernandez-Cartagena. In the face of a bogus “court” system controlled and operated by White Nationalist racist bigots for the purpose of wiping out asylum laws, demoralizing applicants through dishonest procedures and rules meant to discourage them from seeking protection, and to “send a message” that they aren’t wanted in our country, she persisted for herself, her family, and others similarly situated. Her victory in this case is a victory for American justice and for every one of us who believe in due process, fundamental fairness, and equal justice for all.
Thanks, Sandra, for inspiring us with your courage and unrelenting persistence in the face of evil and institutionalized, illegal, bias!
*******************************
