"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.
The panel granted a petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the denial of a motion to reopen filed by Patricia Marisol Hernandez- Galand and her minor child, and remanded, holding that exceptional circumstances warranted reopening of petitioners’ in absentia removal orders.
Petitioners, natives and citizens of El Salvador, appeared pro se at their initial hearing. An Immigration Judge (“IJ”) orally informed Ms. Hernandez that her next hearing date was July 12, 2016, and gave her a written notice with a hearing date of “07/12/2016.” Due to chronic memory problems from a childhood head injury, Ms. Hernandez did not remember the date the IJ had told her, and because she cannot read, she asked family members to read the notice. The family interpreted the date as December 7, 2016, based on how numerical dates are typically written in Latin America, with the day appearing before the month.
When Ms. Hernandez did not appear at the July 12, 2016, hearing, the IJ ordered petitioners removed in absentia. Petitioners timely filed a motion to reopen under 8 U.S.C. §1229a(b)(5)(C)(i), contending that that exceptional circumstances warranted reopening. The IJ denied the motion, and the BIA affirmed.
** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
HERNANDEZ-GALAND V. GARLAND 3
First, the panel considered the circumstances that caused Ms. Hernandez’s failure to appear. The panel explained that Ms. Hernandez non-conclusory and unrefuted testimony in her sworn declaration about her memory problems was not inherently unbelievable, and there was no evidence in the record to contradict it. Thus, the panel concluded that the BIA erred to the extent it disregarded this aspect of Ms. Hernandez’s declaration simply because it lacked corroboration, and the panel credited Ms. Hernandez’s statements regarding her memory problems. The panel further concluded that the facts regarding Ms. Hernandez’s inability to read and her family’s misinterpretation of the hearing date were not disputed by the government or inherently unbelievable, and thus must be credited. The panel therefore concluded that Ms. Hernandez’s failure to appear was due not to her choices or a lack of diligence, but to circumstances beyond her control.
The panel further explained that the BIA abused its discretion by concluding that Ms. Hernandez should have confirmed her hearing date through the immigration court’s automated system, noting that the only evidence suggesting that she was advised of the system were the written instructions she could not read, and explaining that she and her family had no reason to suspect that the hearing was not on December 7, 2016.
Next, the panel concluded that the BIA erred in not addressing whether Ms. Hernandez had any motive for failing to appear, and whether petitioners’ in absentia removal orders would cause unconscionable results. Since the BIA made no findings as to either, there were no findings entitled to substantial evidence review, and the panel concluded that both factors weighed in favor of reopening. First, the panel concluded that there was no basis to infer that
4 HERNANDEZ-GALAND V. GARLAND
Ms. Hernandez was attempting to evade or delay her proceedings.
Second, the panel concluded that imposing the removal orders here would present an unconscionable result, explaining that the court has held that such results occur where a petitioner who demonstrated a strong likelihood of relief is removed in absentia. The panel recognized that Ms. Hernandez had not yet established a likelihood of success similar to that made in the relevant precedent, but concluded that her claims to asylum and related relief were not baseless. The panel observed that a likelihood of prevailing is not a sine qua non of exceptional circumstances; the court has made such a finding without a showing of the strength of the petitioner’s case on the merits, and the probability of relief is but one factor in the totality of circumstances to be considered. The panel concluded that Ms. Hernandez had made a compelling showing on the other factors.
Lastly, the panel explained that the IJ also entered an in absentia order against Ms. Hernandez’s minor child (“M.E.”), who was four years old at the time, and whose presence had been waived for the hearing at which he was ordered removed. Noting that an asylum officer had previously determined that M.E. had a credible fear of persecution on account of his family social group, the panel concluded that Ms. Hernandez’s failure to appear also prejudiced M.E.’s opportunity for relief from removal.
****************************
Cheneau v. Garland — Derivative Citizenship — En Banc
Remanding to the three-judge panel that previously denied Monssef Cheneau’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the en banc court held that the second clause of the derivative citizenship statute set out at former 8 U.S.C. § 1432(a)(5) does not require that the child have been granted lawful permanent residency prior to the age of eighteen in order to derive citizenship from a parent who naturalized, but the child must have demonstrated an objective official manifestation of permanent residence.
Former 8 U.S.C. § 1432(a)(5) (1994) (repealed 2000) provides two different pathways to child of a naturalized parent to derive U.S. citizenship: 1) a child “residing in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence at the time of the naturalization of the parent” is eligible; and 2) a child is eligible who “thereafter begins to reside permanently in the United States while under the age of eighteen years.”
Cheneau entered the United states lawfully at age thirteen under a non-immigrant student visa. His mother naturalized in 1999, he applied for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident at age fifteen in 2000, and was granted adjustment of status in 2003, after he turned eighteen. After theft convictions, removal proceedings were initiated, and Cheneau moved to terminate, asserting a claim of derivative
** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
CHENEAU V. GARLAND 3
citizenship. The three-judge panel in this case held that it was required to hold that Cheneau was not a derivative citizen under either pathway because this court, in Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2008), had held that both pathways required the child to have lawful permanent resident status.
Reconsidering Romero-Ruiz in the present context, the en banc court concluded that Congress did not intend to require lawful permanent residency for the second pathway. First, the en banc court observed that Congress chose to use two different terms in the statute, creating a presumption that the terms have different meanings. Second, the en banc court explained that the two terms have different meanings in the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). Third, the en banc court concluded that construing the second pathway to derivative citizenship as not requiring lawful permanent residence does not render either provision superfluous, as the court suggested in Romero-Ruiz. Rather, each pathway applies distinct requirements to distinct categories of children with distinct timing, and does so with logical reason. Finally, the en banc court explained that Congress’s decision to eliminate the “reside permanently” pathway and narrow the availability of derivative citizenship in 2000 indicates that the previous version of the statute was broader.
The en banc court also explained that the history of the INA (which was enacted in 1952 and established lawful permanent residency as a term of art) and earlier naturalization statutes further buttressed its conclusion that Congress intended “reside permanently” and “lawful admission for permanent residence” to have different meanings. Further, the en banc court concluded that the tenet of statutory construction that repetition of the same language
4 CHENEAU V. GARLAND
in a new statute generally indicates the intent to incorporate its administrative and judicial interpretations as well did not apply, because none of the administrative or judicial interpretations preceding the INA had “settled” whether “reside permanently” could mean lawfully residing on a temporary visa with the intent to remain permanently.
Finally, the en banc court agreed with the Second Circuit that, to satisfy the “reside permanently” requirement in the second pathway, an individual must demonstrate “some objective official manifestation of the child’s permanent residence.” Here, the en banc court explained, Cheneau filed an application for adjustment of status after his mother naturalized, expressing such intent to reside permanently.
Dissenting, Judge Bress, joined by Judges Hunsaker, Bumatay, and VanDyke, wrote that the en banc court’s decision adopted the very “unreasonable” reading of the statute that Romero-Ruiz had rejected. Judge Bress concluded that the new interpretation: 1) is an untenable construction of the statutory text; 2) fails to account for decades of statutory history in which derivative citizenship necessarily required lawful permission to reside permanently in the United States—the legal backdrop against which the statutory language “reside permanently” has long existed in our immigration law: and 3) produces significant problems of practical administration, creating confusion as to who qualifies for derivative citizenship while extending derivative citizenship without authorization to a potentially wide range of additional people—including people like the petitioner in this case, who committed crimes in this country and who might otherwise be removable.
*******************
Congrats to my friend and NDPA superstar Kari Hong, then Director of the Immigration Clinic at BC Law, who was lead counsel in Cheneau.
Professor Kari Hong Educator, Litigator, NDPA Superstar Photo: BC Law Website
Also, it’s worthy of emphasis that in Hernández-Galand, among other legal errors, the BIA tried to “in absentia” an unrepresented 4-year-old whose mother had been found to have a “credible fear” of persecution! Nice touch!
Is this nonsense from Trump holdover BIA “judges” what we elected President Biden to continue to inflict on asylum seekers and other migrants? I doubt it! So, why is AG Garland continuing to inflict this non-expert, un-progressive BIA on us? And, why is he continuing to appoint “Miller-Lite” leftovers from the Trump regime to precious, life or death Immigration Judge positions?
The NDPA needs to take the fight for due process and the human and legal rights of your clients to the Biden Administration! Let your outrage at the lousy performance of Garland and his team in restoring due process, humanity, expertise, and professionalism @ EOIR be known in word and deed!
The panel held that substantial evidence did not support the immigration judge’s determination that Alvarado- Herrera failed to establish a reasonable fear of torture with the consent or acquiescence of a public official, given Alvarado-Herrera’s specific assertions of police complicity in the 18th Street gang’s violent acts. Noting that the asylum officer refused to credit Alvarado-Herrera’s assertions, which were based in part on media reports and common knowledge among Hondurans that it is well known that the police work for the gangs, that the police are allied with the 18th Street gang in particular, and that the police not only allow gang members to harm others but also provide information to gang members to help them find and kill people, the panel wrote that it was unclear what additional evidence the asylum officer expected Alvarado-Herrera to produce at that stage of the proceedings. The panel observed that non-citizens in reinstatement proceedings who express a fear of returning to their home country typically appear for a reasonable fear interview within a short time of their
ALVARADO-HERRERA V. GARLAND 5
apprehension by immigration authorities, and that many, like Alvarado-Herrera, are being held in detention facilities and do not have legal representation. The panel wrote that, as a result, they cannot realistically be expected to produce for the asylum officer’s review the kind of detailed country conditions evidence that would be introduced during a merits hearing before an immigration judge. The panel wrote that such a demand would be inconsistent with the purpose of a reasonable fear interview, which is simply to screen out frivolous claims for relief in as expeditious a manner as possible, and if a non-citizen provides an otherwise credible account concerning his fear of torture, his own statements can supply adequate support for claims about country conditions, at least for purposes of satisfying the ten percent threshold necessary to pass a reasonable fear screening interview. The panel remanded with instructions for the agency to provide Alvarado-Herrera a hearing before an immigration judge only as to the merits of his claim for protection under CAT.
2) 10th Cir. Says IJ Muffed Analysis Of Mexican CAT Claim!
“Maria Torres de Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, appeals the denial of her application for deferral of removal under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings. … [W]e are compelled to conclude it is more likely than not that El Tigre [of the Sinaloa Cartel] would be aware if Torres de Lopez is removed to Mexico, and that El Tigre and his direct associates would have both sufficient motivation and ability to locate Torres de Lopez anywhere in Mexico. But the evidence does not compel the conclusion that the Juárez or Sinaloa cartels have a sufficient institutional motivation to locate Torres de Lopez anywhere in Mexico. And the questions that remain are ones the IJ did not reach—if El Tigre or his direct associates found Torres de Lopez in Mexico, would they inflict any harm on her, would that harm be severe enough to constitute torture for CAT purposes, and would Mexican public officials instigate, consent to, or acquiesce in such harm? We may not answer those questions in the first instance and remand them to the IJ for initial consideration. … All this brings us to the fourth and fifth steps in the IJ’s framework—if El Tigre or his direct associates find Torres de Lopez, will they harm her and, if so, will the harm amount to torture? … [W]e must remand to the agency to conduct the inquiry into the fourth and fifth steps in the first instance. … We grant the petition for review and remand to the agency for further proceedings consistent with our decision.”
[Hats off to Stephen W. Spurgin!]
**********************
Sadly, “reasonable adjudicator” wouldn’t encompass many of those currently serving in Garland’s holdover corps of Immigration Judges and his “Millerized & Trumpitized”BIA. In particular, the horrible job done by, and the bias against due process for those seeking CAT protection shown by, Attorneys General and the BIA over the past three Administrations is absolutely disgraceful.
Yet, it continues, unabated, today under Judge Garland! It’s basically “Jim Crow Justice” dressed up in a Sunday suit. One could almost imagine a picture of Chief Justice Roger Taney hanging in the BIA’s conference room.
Roger Taney PHOTO: Matthew Brady Public Realm Discredited CJ remains a hero to many Miller/Hamilton/Sessions holdovers at Garland’s DOJ because of his aggressive “Dred Scottification” of the other! One of Stephen Miller’s soul mates, this dude’s life was defined by his unyielding belief that all men aren’t created equal and that only powerful White Guys have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness! And, that women don’t even exist before the law!
The obvious lack of competence in a “judiciary” regularly attempting to send individuals back to possible torture in violation of due process and the statute should prompt decisive corrective action from those in charge of this dysfunctional system. But, to date, it hasn’t!
Instead, what have Biden, Garland, & Mayorkas done? Continued the illegal practice of returning asylum seekers and others to possible death or torture without any process at all. Then, they have the gall to send their “flackies” out to claim that the “victims” are the “problem” for exercising their legal rights to seek protection, at a time that apparently is “politically inconvenient” for the Biden politicos to offer a system that provides that legally-required protection.
Looks pretty “Stephen Millerish” to me, not to mention “Catch 22!” How dare you cross our border seeking due process and turn yourself in to the Border Patrol when can go to a legal port of entry, present yourself, and be immediately sent back to death with no process at all! Don’t you understand how American “justice” works? Go back to your own countries from where you were forced to flee where, if you live long enough, you can’t apply under our non-existent overseas refugee system. Is that perfectly clear?
The Presidential election was over on Saturday, Nov. 7, 2020! Biden and Harris campaigned on a platform of immigration and human rights reforms that included ending the many illegal, inhumane, and counterproductive policies of Trump/Miller, restoring the rule of law, and re-establishing honesty and human dignity in immigration, asylum, and refugee processing.
Yet, in the 10 weeks between the conclusion of the election and the inauguration, “Team Biden” and those who were under serious consideration for leadership positions in the thoroughly broken and dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy came up with no viable plans to “hit the ground running” with the necessary dramatic, yet achievable, changes. That’s something that I submit hundreds of “practical experts” — all of them in the Democratic camp — could have achieved had they been tapped.
It certainly was no mystery that the border and the mess at DHS, EOIR, OIL, and the SG’s Office would have to be addressed immediately — “day one or day two stuff!” Nor, would it take any deep thinking to recognize that immigration would be the overarching issue connecting social justice, racial justice, economic recovery, court reform, foreign affairs, the environment, and public health.
Nor would it have taken much awareness to recognize that the GOP, who didn’t even bother advancing a platform or constructive ideas during the campaign, would make and “rev up” appeals to hate, fear, racism, White Nationalism, myths, fabrications, distortions, and outright lies about “security threats” (actually threats to “white culture and power”) posed by desperate individuals, many of color, merely seeking legal refuge and fair consideration under our legal system. So, getting the legal asylum and refugee systems functioning again should have been a top priority — simultaneous with COVID relief!
Additionally, there were dozens of smart journalists out there who were “on top” of the Miller/Trump White Nationalist nonsense, and had figured out how to cut through the BS and obfuscation to explain what the law and common sense requires, in understandable terms. Thus, the Biden team even had a “golden opportunity” to put together a group of “immigration/human rights/rule of law flackies” who could both educate insiders and in public run circles around the likes of Fox News, right wing radio, and magamoron White Nationalist nativists like Cruz, Cotton, Hawley, and McCarthy. All it would have taken is competence and courage — two qualities often in short supply in Dem Administrations when immigration, human rights, and due process are at stake.
Yet, nearly three months into the Administration, and a full five months after the election was decided, the Administration’s approach to this key issue can best, and most charitably, be described as “Amateur Night at the Bijou.”
During five months since the election, the Biden Administration has quickly moved to set up a chain of nationwide “recruiting centers” for the their Immigration Courts, immigration bureaucracy, refugee administration, human rights PR groups, and liaison with Hill Dems. Results have been astounding! PHOTO: Thomas Hawk Creative Commons
Most seriously, the Immigration Court and the rule of law remain in shambles — with Judge Garland failing to take the necessary elementary steps to reverse the Trump/Miller DOJ’s misogynist, racially driven assault on the rule of law for asylum seekers of color. This sends an ugly shockwave of failure throughout the Biden-Harris agenda and continues to de-stabilize an already shaky American justice system.
It also “pisses off” the Administration’s would-be friends and supporters while energizing its most vociferous enemies! Additionally, it demoralizes and disrespects those remaining at EOIR, many who have struggled though the last four years trying to hold some portions of the fort while waiting for salvation, potential allies — already on the in side — who will be necessary for the “reclamation project.”
Some have even taken the desperate step of anonymously reaching out to Courtside for help in raising consciousness about the astounding level of injustice, incompetence, and anti-immigration culture that Judge Garland is countenancing at EOIR. They just can’t wrap their heads around it!
As they have pointed out, Sessions, who once (in the distant past, before overt racism came part of the GOP platform) was deemed unfit by his own party for a Federal Judgeship because of his racist record, and his hench-people “hit the ground running” with their White Nationalist misogynistic agenda at EOIR. This was an agenda basically drafted by nativist groups. They moved rapidly and with purpose to remove, force out, disempower, isolate, and/or marginalize anyone at EOIR thought to harbor the heretical belief that asylum seekers, migrants, women of color, and their lawyers were humans or possessed any rights whatsoever. They obliterated any “best practices” — they few things that actually were working at EOIR. They also filled every vacant position with nativist toadies and hacks, packed the Immigration Courts and BIA with more “judges,” even as they were more than doubling the already huge backlog with their “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and endless due-process- killing, yet fundamentally ineffective, enforcement nobly gimmicks.
Sessions even proudly announced his war on refugee women of color and their lawyers at am “EOIR training session” for “his judges,” drawing stunned silence from many, but also cheers from some “magamoron judges” in the audience. Somehow, over the years, indolent Article III Judges overlooked the obvious lack of ethics in Sessions’s performance as well as the crystal clear lack of Matthews v. Eldridgefundamental due process in a farcical “court” system. A “court parody” where the racist head prosecutor, who also asserted himself as the de facto head of DHS enforcement, urged “his judges” on to inflict ever more rapid and unlawful acts of desecration, dehumanization, and capricious treatment upon those they were supposed to be judging fairly and humanely.
Some of the “survivors” within EOIR expected Judge Garland, once a highly respected Court of Appeals Judge, former Supreme Court nominee, veteran of the DOJ in better times, and relatively recent descendent of immigrants, to put a quick end to the unconstitutional nonsense at EOIR, cast out the “Miller/Hamilton perps,” their many EOIR toadies, and the “go along to get alongs” who had created this disgraceful and dysfunctional mess at what was once supposed to be a “bastion of due process.” They expected Garland to bring in a team of respected “immigration/human rights/due process pros” and to elevate those in the system who had stood tall against the abuses of due process and humanity over the past four years.
Alas, those survivors quickly discovered that Garland is largely oblivious to the ongoing clown show at EOIR, the continuing human carnage it causes on a daily basis, the squandered potential to boost due process and racial justice in America, and the rapid erosion of his support and his image among those who courageously and often successfully fought the “Miller neo-Nazi plan” to dismantle the American justice system.
Vainly, they wait for Garland’s recognition of the heroic role of the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”) in maintaining some vestiges of justice and professional training at EOIR and, most important, in publicly exposing, including to Congress, the ongoing fraud, waste and abuse of public trust carried out by the Trump/Miller kakistocracy at EOIR. They are distraught by Garland’s inexplicable failure to condemn “Billy the Bigot’s” totally outrageous actions in frivolously moving to “decertify” the NAIJ as punishment for their exposing his many illegal activities and abuses of honest government at EOIR.
They are absolutely incredulous that a “100 page study,” conducted by those having no real expertise in the Immigraton Court, would be viewed as a substitute for the immediate removal and replacement of dysfunctional personnel and a strong public commentment to root out injustice, racism, and misogyny, reject and repudiate bogus precedents, institute aggressive due process reforms, and promote true quasi-judicial independence at EOIR.
They are particularly puzzled by Garland’s permitting the conducting of idiotic clown shows — misnamed “Town Halls” — throughout the country further insulting and inflaming the long-suffering stakeholders and advertising EOIR’s continuing failure to run like a court and respect the input, expertise, and legitimate needs of those same “stakeholders.” They are baffled when there are so many great “due process role models” out there who could and should be sending the exact opposite message — that “the clown show is over” and the pros are now in charge of restoring justice and sanity @ EOIR!
They can’t fathom how anyone, let alone a former Article III Judge, could believe that judicial dockets across America can be micromanaged by non-judicial bureaucrats in Falls Church and DC who have never successfully managed a docket in their lives, know little about the harsh realities of today’s dysfunctional Immigration “Courts,” and who operate in blissful studied ignorance of the many localized factors that go into successful docket management at all other functioning court systems in America.
And, although it might be below Judge Garland’s “radar screen,” human lives are actually being destroyed and human suffering multiplied while he and his “spear carriers” diddle over how to fix EOIR! To quote some of the Hill Dems yesterday, “This is stupid!”
(Duh, who outside the Biden camp would have failed to predict that yesterday’s idiotic “two-step” on the refugee cap would go over worse than a lead balloon? The Biden immigration “advisors” might think that refugee lives don’t matter, but many Dems living in the real world and on the Hill don’t see it that way!)
Garland has also failed to place competent judicial leadership in charge of EOIR and the BIA and to make it clear that institutional disdain for due process, best practices, and human dignity will no longer be the ”order of the day” in America’s largest, and perhaps most important, Federal Court System. A rather atrocious start for an Administration struggling to put the Trump-Miller scofflaw White Nationalist agenda behind them!
Just how does one “pull that off” with a bunch of Miller cronies, and Sessions/Barr nativist judges (many incompetent to fairly apply and interpret basic asylum, immigration, and due process laws) still dominating the scene in America’s most dysfunctional and dehumanizing “judiciary.” While Judge Garland might have forgotten this during his “above the fray” tenure in the “judicial ivory tower,” leadership, priorities, and symbolism are really important in government! Right now, they are all headed 100 mph in the wrong direction at the DOJ — for no obvious reason!
Garland, supposedly the “people’s” chief lawyer, has also failed to push Mayorkas and the White House for a restoration of the legal asylum system at the border! In 100 days, Mayorkas and Garland could have supplemented the Asylum Officer corps with retirees and private sector refugee/asylum experts and gotten them down to the border to do honest, efficient credible fear screening. Obviously, reopening timely legal screening at legal ports of entry would reduce the incentives for crossing the border elsewhere.
They also could have energized human rights and pro bono NGOs to represent those “screened in.” Garland could have gotten both sitting and retired Immigration Judges with strong records of granting asylum (check TRAC, it’s all set out in plain view) working on these cases, while clearing the dockets of hundreds of thousands of backlogged cases going nowhere in any event. See Greg Chen & Professor Peter Moskowitz.
Garland could have appointed competent Appellate (or even “Appellatte”) Immigration Judges at the BIA (acting, if necessary until final selections can be made) to issue positive precedents on asylum, CAT, withholding, cancellation of removal, adjustment of status, administrative closure, and docket management to stop the endless nonsense and idiotic, justice-killing, enforcement gimmicks and “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” imposed by the Trump/Miller crowd of malicious incompetents.
Secretary Mayorkas and Secretary Becerra could have invoked and energized the now largely dormant refugee resettlement apparatus in the private/NGO sectors to temporarily resettle arriving children and families in a humane, orderly and efficient manner.
Yesterday’s stunning“unforced error” on refugee processing is just the latest example that Biden’s advisors don’t “get” immigration and need to be replaced with experts; experts who understand the fundamentals, believe in the generous, humane, restore the rule of law platform he and Harris ran on, and can explain it in clear, compelling terms. The “right folks” are “out there” — that’s the problem, “out there” instead of inside solving problems and moving the train in the right direction.
It’s not rocket science:
Immigration is good. 98% of Americans are immigrants or descended from immigrants. That immigration has produced some scoundrels, insurrectionists, liars, and ingrates like the Trumps, Cruzes, Cottons, McCarthys, Taylor-Greenes, Millers, Kobachs, etc., of our world doesn’t change that overall equation;
Refugees and asylees (refugees granted status at our border or in the US when our legal system is functioning — it isn’t now) are essential components of legal immigration;
We need and must have significantly more legal immigration, particularly if we want to maintain a robust economy and a dynamic, innovative society, in light of population losses from the pandemic and low birth rates;
Applying the Refugee Act of 1980 in a fair, generous, humane manner that furthers due process of law isn’t “an option” for debate or a matter for more “studies” — there are more than enough of the latter our there anyway. The problem is that the folks who did them and can solve the problems remain on the outside rather than running EOIR! It’s a legal and moral imperative! Garland’s function isn’t coming up with more failed, illegal gimmicks to avoid granting asylum or aid misguided law enforcement, make a few cosmetic changes to appease advocates, or engage in more boneheaded “revolution by evolution” (see Obama Administration) approaches at EOIR! It’s getting our legal asylum system functioning again at EOIR and also at USCIS in a robust, competent manner with real, independent, expert judges and professional judicial administrations who can do the job;
That also means publicly and virtuously standing up for the legal and Constitutional rights of the most vulnerable among us — per MLK Jr. — and having the guts and presence to “take it to” magamorons like Miller, Cruz, Cotton, McCarthy, and other GOP White Nationalist hate mongers who are destroying our nation and poisoning the well of our democracy with their xenophobic myths and “solutions” that actally are “crimes against humanity!” When in power, those folks had no problem publicly advancing and even touting their racist lies and ethnic slurs, as they continue to do! Why is Garland “swallowing the whistle” on rooting out and condemning institutionalized racism, misogyny, dehumanization of the other, incompetence, and scofflaw behavior @ EOIR?
Obviously, those advisors who told Biden to release the “Miller-level” refugee cap yesterday believed in neither the Biden election platform nor the positives of robust legal immigration. They also lacked the knowledge and self-confidence to “sell” an honest, realistic, humane human rights and immigration agenda that is the key to our national future. They also were woefully ignorant about and totally “misplayed” the strong political and public support for refugees and the critical role that immigration and human rights advocates play within the Democratic Party.
Currently, the inability of the Biden Administration to bring competence, positivity, the rule of law, and creative thinking to their immigration/human rights program is weighing down and “sucking much of their air” from the many things they are getting right.
It’s past time to end “Amateur Night at the Bijou” and bring in the pros. Before it’s too late!
🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽⚖️Due Process Forever! Judge Garland, End the Disgraceful EOIR Clown Show, Now🤡🦹🏿♂️🏴☠️!
6) No, they can’t. Casey would be right home with the gang at EOIR HQ and also @ “Main ‘Justice.’”
If you got 100%, congratulations, you have won the “Amateur Night at the Bijou” competition. Although that makes you over-qualified to become an “Appellatte Immigration Judge” you will receive a free Starbucks coupon redeemable for a latte of your choice, to be issued only tomorrow!
