☹️HE BEAT THE GOVERNMENT TWICE IN COURT — But, After Three Years In Jail Without Being Charged With Any Crime, Omar Ameen Still Can’t Get A Bond From Garland’s Courts — How Can A System Where The Prosecutor Makes The Rules & Picks The Judges, Mostly From The Ranks Of Former Prosecutors, Provide The “Fair & Impartial Judging” Required By Due Process?

Hon. Ilyce Shugall
U.S. Immigraton Judge (Retired)
Immigrant Legal Defense Program, Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Assn. of San Francisco.

IMMIGRANT LEGAL DEFENSE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE January 10, 2022

Contacts:

Immigrant Legal Defense

Ilyce Shugall, ilyce@ild.org, (415) 758-3765

Siobhan Waldron, siobhan@ild.org, (510) 479-0972

Edwin F. Mandel Legal Aid Clinic, The University of Chicago Law School Nicole Hallett, nhallett@uchicago.edu, (203) 910-1980

Omar Ameen Files Federal Lawsuit Seeking His Release

After the U.S. Government Fails Once Again to Prove Any Connection to Terrorism

San Francisco, CA. Immigrant Legal Defense and the University of Chicago Immigrants’ Rights Clinic have filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Omar Ameen seeking his immediate release from immigration custody. Mr. Ameen has been held by the U.S. government for over three years based on false allegations that he was involved in terrorism in Iraq before he arrived in the United States as a refugee. Multiple courts have now rejected those allegations. The petition alleges that his continued detention in these circumstances violates the Due Process Clause and the Immigration and Nationality Act.

After an investigation initiated by the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Iraqi government issued a warrant for his arrest in connection with the 2014 murder of a police officer in Rawa, Iraq. Mr. Ameen was subsequently arrested by U.S. authorities in August 2018 and placed in extradition proceedings, with the government arguing that not only was Omar responsible for the 2014 murder, but that he also occupied a leadership position in ISIS. After two and a half years of fighting his extradition, the federal magistrate judge found that the warrant was not supported by probable cause because Mr. Ameen had been in Turkey, not Iraq, at the time of the murder. He further found that there was no evidence that Mr. Ameen was an ISIS leader and ordered his immediate release.

Instead of releasing him or charging him with a crime, DHS took Mr. Ameen into immigration custody, and placed him in removal proceedings before the Department of Justice (DOJ). DHS abandoned the murder claim, but otherwise made the same terrorism allegations against Mr. Ameen in immigration court that had been made – and rejected – in the extradition proceedings. After months of proceedings, the immigration judge found that the government had not proved that Mr. Ameen had any involvement with terrorism, yet still denied him bond while he seeks relief from deportation. Mr. Ameen continues to fight for his freedom, to remain in the United States, and to clear his name.

“It is a fundamental principle that the government cannot detain someone based on unsubstantiated rumors and unproven accusations,” said Ilyce Shugall, an attorney with Immigration Legal Defense (ILD) and a member of Mr. Ameen’s legal team. “The government keeps losing, yet continues to believe it can detain Omar indefinitely without cause. The Constitution does not allow such a cavalier denial of individual liberty.”

“Omar’s bond request was denied by the same agency – the Department of Justice – that has maliciously targeted for him years. Omar deserves a fair hearing in federal court,” said Siobhan Waldron, another ILD attorney on Mr. Ameen’s legal team.

“The government seems to think that it can do whatever it wants as long as it invokes the word ‘terrorism,’” said Nicole Hallett, director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School, “Rather than admit it was wrong about Omar, the government will go to extraordinary measures to keep him locked up. We are asking the federal court to put a stop to this abuse of power.”

###

Immigrant Legal Defense’s mission is to promote justice through the provision of legal representation to underserved immigrant communities.

The Immigrants’ Rights Clinic is a clinical program of the University of Chicago Law School and provides representation to immigrants in Chicago and throughout the country.

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

Unfortunately, “cavalier denial of individual liberty” largely describes the daily operations of Garland’s dysfunctional and hopelessly backlogged “wholly owned Immigration Courts” — where due process, scholarship, quality, and efficiency are afterthoughts, at best. “Malicious targeting” — that’s a Stephen Miller specialty shamelessly carried forth by Garland in too many instances! Miller must be gratified, and not a little amazed, to find that the guy Dem progressives and human rights advocates thought would be leading the charge to undo Miller’s White Nationalist, scofflaw attack on migrants and people of color would instead be proudly “carrying his water” for him.

To punctuate my point, today Garland’s Solicitor General will follow in the disgraceful footsteps of predecessors in both GOP and Dem Administrations. Essentially (that is, stripped of its disingenuous legal gobbledygook), the SG will argue that individuals, imprisoned without conviction, struggling to vindicate their rights before Garland’s broken, backlogged, and notoriously pro-Government, anti-immigrant Immigration Courts, renowned for their sloppiness and bad judging, are not really “persons” under the Constitution and therefore can be arbitrarily imprisoned indefinitely, in conditions that are often worse than those for convicted felons, without any individualized rationale and without recourse to “real” courts (e.g., Article III courts not directly controlled by the DOJ).

“The right-wing majority on the Supreme Court seems to be planning to eliminate the only way a lot of people in immigration detention can challenge their imprisonment,” appellate public defender Sam Feldman commented in a quote-tweet. “People would still be held illegally, but no court could do anything about it.”

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/jan-11-2022-sc-oral-arg-previews-detention-bond-jurisdiction

One might assume that our nation’s highest Court would unanimously make short-shrift of the SG’s scofflaw arguments and send her packing. After all, that’s what several lower courts have done! But, most experts predict the exactly opposite result from a Supremes’ majority firmly committed to “Dred Scottification” — that is de-humanization and de-personification” — of people of color and migrants under the Constitution.

It’s painfully obvious that Congress must create an independent Article I Immigration Court not beholden to the Executive Branch. But, don’t hold your breath, given the current political gridlock in Washington. It’s equally clear that the Article IIIs, from the Supremes down, have “swallowed the whistle” by not striking down this blatantly unconstitutional system, thereby forcing Congress to take corrective action to bring the system into line with our Constitution.

In the meantime, Garland could bring in better-qualified expert judges, reform procedures, and appoint competent professional administrators who would institutionalize fairness, efficiency, and independence that would help transition the Immigration Courts to a new structure outside the DOJ. He could stop echoing Stephen Miller in litigation.

He could have replaced the architects of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and exponentially growing back logs with practical scholars and progressive experts who could reduce backlogs and establish order without violating human or legal rights of individuals. He could have set a “new tone” by publicly insisting that all coming before his Immigration Courts be treated fairly, with respect, dignity, and professionalism.

But, instead, Garland has stubbornly eschewed the recommendations of immigration and human rights experts while allowing and even defending the trashing of the rule of law at the border and elsewhere where migrants are concerned. He’s also done it with many questionably qualified “holdover” judges and administrators appointed by Sessions and Barr because of their perceived willingness, or in some cases downright enthusiasm, to stomp on the legal and human rights of asylum seekers and other migrants.

It’s curious conduct from a guy who once was only “one Mitch McConnell away” from a seat on the Supremes! I guess the “due process” Garland got from McConnell and his GOP colleagues is all that he thinks migrants and other “non-persons” of color get in his wholly-owned “courts.”

Good luck to our Round Table colleague, Judge Ilyce Shugall, and her great team, on this litigation! Obviously, the wrong folks are on the Federal Bench — at all levels of our broken and floundering system.

Interestingly, Judge Shugall was once an Immigration Judge until forced to prematurely resign, as a matter of conscience, by the lawless anti-immigrant policies of the Trump Administration carried out through its DOJ. As in many cases, the Government’s loss is the Round Table’s gain!🛡⚔️

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-11-22

CODE RED! 🆘☠️⚰️IMMIGRATION COURTS FAIL AS GARLAND FLAILS — With Human Lives In The Balance & A Catastrophic Collapse Of System On The Horizon, Garland “Rearranges The Deck Chairs On The Titanic!” — “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” is a “Clown Court Strategy” 🤡 But, It’s No Laughing Mater For The Asylum Seekers & Their Lawyers Stuck In Garland’s Dysfunctional Mess!🤮

Deepa Fernandes reports for the SF Chron:

Waiting nine years for an asylum hearing in San Francisco https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/An-El-Salvadoran-attorney-has-waited-five-years-16739505.php

A Salvadoran attorney who fled death threats in her home country and built a new life in Oakland faces a nearly nine-year wait for her day in immigration court. She’s among hundreds of thousands stuck in the same bureaucratic limbo.

Ana and her son first arrived in Oakland in 2016 with a harrowing story and an urgent case for asylum. They had escaped the same gang that chased her niece out of El Salvador three years earlier. Ana said the gang’s leader had stalked and threatened her niece. When she intervened, Ana said, the gang retaliated with threats of sexual violence and death.

“They pressured me to agree to many things that could be in their favor, which I did not agree to,” Ana told The Chronicle in Spanish. The Chronicle is withholding Ana’s last name in accordance with its policy on anonymous sources because of the dangers she faces if sent back.

Ana and her son first arrived in Oakland in 2016 with a harrowing story and an urgent case for asylum. They had escaped the same gang that chased her niece out of El Salvador three years earlier. Ana said the gang’s leader had stalked and threatened her niece. When she intervened, Ana said, the gang retaliated with threats of sexual violence and death.

“They pressured me to agree to many things that could be in their favor, which I did not agree to,” Ana told The Chronicle in Spanish. The Chronicle is withholding Ana’s last name in accordance with its policy on anonymous sources because of the dangers she faces if sent back.

At her first appearance in San Francisco immigration court in 2017, Ana was told to return in 2019 to make her asylum case. That court date was postponed to this past November. Then Ana received notice that her hearing had been canceled again — and rescheduled to May 2025.

Ana represents just one of the 670,000 asylum requests in the U.S., a figure that continues to climb due to the complexity of the cases, Trump administration policies that delayed processing times and the federal government’s slow adaptation to the pandemic. According to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University, the average wait time for an asylum hearing is 1,621 days — or nearly four-and-a-half years.

In an attempt to put a dent in the growing backlog, the Biden administration announced a strategy over the summer that previous administrations have tried to expedite cases for certain groups. President Biden’s “dedicated docket” catapults 5,000 migrants who crossed the southwest border of the U.S. after May 28 to the front of the line.

But critics warn the initiative means these recent arrivals have limited time to prepare their immigration cases while migrants who have been waiting for years, like Ana, must wait even longer.

A growing backlog

Immigration Judge Dana Leigh Marks feels constant pressure to avoid getting sick. She is one of 28 judges in a San Francisco court that is fielding 78,992 immigration cases. That means if Marks needs to cancel court for any reason, the ramifications are years-long delays to “people whose lives hang on our decisions,” she said.

“That is the problem of being so overbooked,” added Marks, who spoke in her role as the president emeritus of the National Association of Immigration Judges. “The number of cases assigned to any judge have exponentially exploded in recent years.”

Like other federal immigration courts, San Francisco’s saw its asylum backlog start its sharp ascent in 2017, as the Trump administration began rolling out policy changes that tightened eligibility while increasing evidentiary thresholds, grinding processing to a halt. The court went from more than 25,000 asylum claims that year to nearly 56,000 this year, TRAC figures show.

The pandemic compounded delays by forcing courts to cancel or significantly scale back in-person hearings. Part of the problem is that the Department of Justice, which runs the nation’s immigration court system, was slow to implement video conferencing technology when judges began working from home in March 2020, Marks said.

“Other state and federal courts across the country pivoted much more quickly to the use of remote technology, which allowed them to keep their caseload moving,” Marks said.

This past summer, over a year into the pandemic, immigration hearings began taking place over Webex, a video conferencing platform. Still, only six of San Francisco’s 28 immigration judges have been set up with government-issued laptops and special audio recording capabilities to conduct the video hearings, Marks noted, and the current average wait between asylum hearings has ballooned to 1,715 days.

Ana was not given the option of a video hearing, said Julie Hiatt, Ana’s attorney from Centro Legal De La Raza. Armed with detailed legal briefs and hundreds of pages about conditions in El Salvador, Hiatt said she was ready to present her client’s gender-based persecution claim for asylum in November. But the judge couldn’t be in court that day and the hearing was pushed to the judge’s next available opening — more than three years away.

Despite believing her client has a strong asylum claim, Hiatt said the lengthy wait will make it harder to win Ana’s case, and not because the facts of the case have changed.

“I worry about memory fading, circumstances changing and everything that can happen that could impact on her ability to confidently tell her story when it comes time to do so,” Hiatt said.

Immigration advocates worry President Biden’s dedicated docket plan to cut down processing times could end up hurting asylum seekers, by rushing ill-prepared new arrivals through the process while supplanting immigrants whose cases have languished for years.

An analysis by the Migration Policy Institute shows that in 17,000 expedited docket cases under previous administrations, the majority of immigrants lacked legal representation and 80% of them were ordered removed without even being in court.

History appears to be repeating. Current Justice Department data shows that of San Francisco’s 1,138 dedicated docket cases being heard right now, 1,008 — nearly 90% — do not have legal representation.

“This docket is not fair to asylum seekers,” said Milli Atkinson, an attorney with the Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Association of San Francisco who has witnessed local dedicated docket hearings. “These expedited dockets make it extremely difficult for respondents to find counsel and puts enormous pressure on them to move forward with their case without an attorney.”

. . . .

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

Woman Tortured — “What if Garland had to hang out with us in his backlogs?”
Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Read Deepa’s full article at the link.

Notably, a 9-year wait for a merits hearing in Immigration Court more than spans the tenure of even a two-term Administration!

The scary thing is that San Francisco probably is by no means the most screwed up Immigration Court in the nation. The 9th Circuit, which reviews some of their cases and establishes precedents for the Circuit, does sometimes “call out” chronically poor performance by EOIR and poorly reasoned, anti-immigrant “precedents” emanating from the BIA and Garland’s predecessors as AG.

But, with a large number of Trump/McConnell right wing appointees, many of them younger, even the 9th Circuit is moving rightward. So, unless Biden can stem the tide, one of the last “fail safes” in a dysfunctional system might be neutered.

Although Garland has (too slowly) undone some of the worst precedents, he has yet to generate the positive legal guidance necessary to ”move dockets” by granting more cases like Ana’s. Without a new BIA, he lacks the “onboard, progressive, expert, due-process-oriented legal and judicial talent” to fashion and enforce the long overdue and badly needed “enlightened precedents” that will save lives and straighten out the law on a nationwide basis.

As pointed out by this article and other critics, EOIR is “far behind the eight-ball” in using technology to meet the challenges of justice in the age of COVID. Although EOIR has been using some form of televideo for over a quarter of a century, they fell behind other court systems when it came to adapting to COVID. After more than two decades of largely wasted time and money, the Immigration Courts still lack a functional e-filing system, which greatly compounded both dangers and chaos during COVID.

Worse yet, what limited technology that is available at EOIR appears to be used primarily for the benefit of EOIR and its bureaucrats, not for the convenience of the public it supposedly serves. How does this “practical nonsense,” unfolding on a daily basis, without meaningful engagement with judges and parties before the courts, meet any definition of competent “service to the public?” Garland has ignored aspirational, achievable, visions and progressive goals for a culture of “good enough for Government work” and “who cares, it’s only aliens and their ‘dirty’ attorneys!”

Moreover, his continuation of the unconscionable, scofflaw use of Title 42 to suspend the asylum process and send legal asylum seekers to danger or death without due process undermines his credibility and integrity as a leader and role model. Although Garland pretends otherwise, judicial, and legal leadership has a moral element that requires a sense of urgency, courage, and demonstrated competence. Garland’s leadership (and that of his “Senior Team” of political appointees at the DOJ) has fallen woefully short!

Judge Dana Leigh Marks is a good example of Garland’s exceptionally poor approach. One of the best judges in America, on any court, including the Supremes, Marks is a proven fearless leader and extraordinary legal mind. Her victory at the Supremes in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, establishing the “well-founded-fear” international standards for asylum, is probably the Court’s most important humans rights’ case of the 20th Century. Her dynamic, inspiring leadership of the National Association of Immigration Judges has helped expose the grotesque shortcomings of EOIR @ DOJ while giving rise to the national movement for an Article I independent Immigration Court outside the DOJ.

I daresay that Judge Marks can “move” asylum cases through the system without tromping on anyone’s due process tights. She, and others like her, both currently in and outside the system, could set a new tone and lead the way toward a better, fairer future!

Too many of her fellow judges, and most members of the BIA not named Saenz, lack the expertise, experience, motivation, and courage to do that. So, cases like Ana’s, which actually might serve as positive precedents for documenting and granting other asylum cases, languish among Garland’s inconceivable backlog while other potentially grantable cases are unfairly pushed to the front of the line without attorneys, adequate preparation time, or accountability for judges programmed to deny rather than stand up for due process and asylum seekers’ legal rights! Much, but by no means all, of this predictably sloppy work product is returned by the Article IIIs for “redos,” thus adding to the backlog, chaos, and “institutionalized arbitrariness” of this approach to “justice!”

Judge Marks is an articulate, energetic experienced public spokesperson for immigration and court reform. She knows where the “bodies are buried” and the “deadwood stored” at EOIR; she has has actual solutions and ideas for addressing many problems now infecting our Immigration Courts. And, unlike past generations of EOIR bureaucrats and “go along to get along judges,” she has no fear and can’t be intimidated!

Judge Marks is already on the payroll. Garland could and should have tapped her on “Day One” to be part of a “Transitional Leadership Group” at EOIR to start “knocking heads and making long overdue due-process-driven changes” while Garland and his Team, with outside input, conducted an expedited emergency, merit-based process to recruit and replace the BIA and Senior Management at EOIR with a diverse team of progressive “practical scholars” as judges and dynamic, progressive, problem-solving leaders and administrators of the Immigration Courts. These sensible recommendations actually were made during the transition period, only to be totally ignored by Garland!

Instead, after a nearly a year, Garland’s tone deaf and dilatory (non)approach to EOIR reform has allowed the system’s continued disintegration, further undermined the credibility of his DOJ, demoralized and “de-enthused” potential supporters in the advocacy community, and continued to degrade and destroy human lives.

Ah, Yes, What Timing!

Just as I was posting this, my friend, Professor Lindsay Muir Harris at UDC Law published what I call the “Practical Scholars Compendium” to the missed opportunities that Garland and other members of “Biden’s Gang With Neither Vision Nor Moral Courage” have been compiling, as documented on Courtside and other blogs! See https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2022/01/immigration-article-of-the-day-asylum-under-attack-by-lindsay-harris.html

Thing is, tough-minded, courageous, ethically-driven, “practical scholars” like Professor Harris, Professor Kit Johnson (who posted Harris’s article on ImmigrationProf Blog), and others like them could and should have been enticed by an “AG with a Plan” to join the BIA, serve on the trial bench at the Immigration Courts, or otherwise occupy key positions @ EOIR.

Like Judge Marks, these folks would put an end to “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” the culture of mindless denial, the improper use of Immigration Courts as (failed) deterrence, and start holding the “main perpetrators” at EOIR and at DHS accountable for their disregard and disrespect for the quasi-judicial system. They would also know how to write and apply accessible “practical scholarly” precedents (written in plain English, rather than “opaque judicial gobbledygook”) that would fulfill our legal (not to mention moral) obligations to provide fair and generous treatment of vulnerable asylum seekers and others caught up in this now-disreputable and dysfunctional parody of a court system.

Instead, Garland has countenanced a continuation of “Clown Courts” 🤡 and “star chambers” ☠️ that have become contributing factors in the precipitous and perhaps fatal disintegration of democracy in America.

Star Chamber Justice — ”This is Stephen Miller’s perverted ‘vision of justice in Immigration Court!’ Why hasn’t Garland moved beyond it by bringing in the ‘best and brightest’ to reform his dysfunctional EOIR system?” “Justice”
Star Chamber
Style

Undoubtedly, the same White Nationalist “replacement theory” motivation that was behind Trump’s weaponization of the Immigration Courts is a driver of the overall anti-democracy movement on the right.

It’s a shame, that given at least a good shot at making a difference, Dems are too timid, distracted, and frankly, inept to pick off the “low hanging fruit” within their reach!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever! And, many thanks to Deepa for putting in the spotlight Garland’s disgraceful failure to lead and institute due process reforms in his dysfunctional, hopelessly backlogged, wholly-owned and unprofessionally operated Immigration “Courts.”

PWS

01-02-22

👎🏽“GOOD ENOUGH FOR GOVERNMENT WORK” IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR GARLAND! ☹️ — FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR HEARINGS, BOGUS IN ABSENTIA REMOVAL ORDERS, UNREASONED PSG DENIALS, FAILURE TO FOLLOW CIRCUIT & OWN PRECEDENTS — The Life-Threatening ☠️☠️⚰️⚰️🪦 Errors Continue To Flow From EOIR’s “Culture Of Denial” — What’s Missing? — Accountability, Judicial Excellence, Due Process, Fundamental Fairness!

Alfred E. Neumann — Will Garland ever be held accountable for threatening the lives of migrants and undermining our entire justice system by running the most dysfunctional “court system” in America on his watch?
PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons

Dan Kowalski reports @ LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca9-on-fundamental-fairness-alcaraz-enriquez-v-garland

CA9 on Fundamental Fairness: Alcaraz-Enriquez v. Garland

Alcaraz-Enriquez v. Garland

“Despite its obligation under Saidane, the DHS made no effort—good faith or otherwise—to procure for Alcaraz’s cross-examination the witnesses whose testimony was embodied in the probation report and upon whose testimony the BIA ultimately relied in denying his appeal. See id. This failure impugned the probation report’s reliability and rendered the BIA’s procedure fundamentally unfair. … Based on the BIA’s failure to require the DHS to make a good faith effort to present the author of the probation report or the declarant for Alcaraz’s cross-examination and the prejudice generated therefrom, we grant in part Alcaraz’s petition and remand for a hearing that comports with the requirements of § 1229a(b)(4)(B). … On remand, cross-examination of the author of the probation report (or the declarant) could affect both the IJ’s credibility determination as to Alcaraz and the BIA’s decision to credit the probation report’s version of events over Alcaraz’s.”

[Hats off again to Bob Jobe!]

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

5th Cir. on illegal in absentia, defective notice, blown MTR:

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/20/20-60655.0.pdf

Rodriguez controls the outcome of this case. Here, as in Rodriguez, “[t]he initial NTA” sent to Lemus-Ayala “did not contain the time and date of [his] hearing.” Id. And just as in Rodriguez, see id., the BIA’s holding in this case that Lemus-Ayala was not entitled to recission of the in absentia removal order rested on the Board’s legal conclusion that an NTA “that does not specify the time and place of an individual’s removal hearing . . . meets the requirements of … §1229(a), so long as a hearing notice specifying this information is later sent to the individual.” The BIA’s conclusion to that effect was an abuse of discretion, as it was based on an erroneous interpretation of a statute. See Barrios-Cantarero, 772 F.3d at 1021.

An in absentia removal “order may be rescinded . . . upon a motion to reopen filed at any time if the alien demonstrates that the alien did not receive notice in accordance with . . . section 1229(a).” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C). Lemus-Ayala was not notified “in accordance with . . . section 1229(a),” and so, as in Rodriguez, the proper disposition is to vacate the BIA’s decision to deny Lemus-Ayala’s motion to reopen and rescind the in absentia removal order, and to remand the case for further proceedings. See 15 F.4th at 356.1

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is GRANTED, the BIA’s decision is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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

Dan Kowalski again:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca4-on-psg-escobar-gomez-v-garland-unpub-2-1

CA4 on PSG: Escobar Gomez v. Garland (Unpub., 2-1)

Escobar Gomez v. Garland

“Carlos Escobar Gomez seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of his application for asylum. The BIA determined that Escobar Gomez was ineligible for asylum because he failed to establish membership in a particular social group defined with sufficient particularity. Because this ruling is not supported by a reasoned explanation, we grant the petition for review and remand to the BIA for further proceedings.” [Note the long and detailed concurrence by Judge Wynn.]

[Hats off to Nathan Bogart!]

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

Even 4th Cir. “Ultra-conservative” Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III has finally had enough, joining his panel colleagues in remanding after the BIA ignored both their own precedent and Circuit precedent on administrative closing in their “rush to no” to please their “partners” @ DHS Enforcement:

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/202322.U.pdf

Finally, Merida-Saenz asserts that the Board erred by failing to remand to the IJ for the administrative closure of his case pursuant to our decision in Romero v. Barr, 937 F.3d 282, 297 (4th Cir. 2019) (holding that IJs and the Board possess “the general authority to administratively close cases”). While the Board acknowledged that Merida-Saenz had argued for administrative closure on appeal, it neither explicitly resolved that argument nor applied any of the relevant administrative closure factors thereto. See In re Avetisyan, 25 I. & N. Dec. 688, 696 (B.I.A. 2012) (specifying administrative closure factors). Moreover, the Board’s resolution of Merida-Saenz’s continuance request did not resolve his administrative closure argument. Although a continuance and an administrative closure are similar forms of relief, they are distinct in purpose and in result. See Romero, 937 F.3d at 289, 294 n.12 (contrasting circumstances in which continuance is appropriate with circumstances in which administrative closure is appropriate); Gonzalez-Caraveo v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 885, 892 (9th Cir. 2018) (explaining that administrative closure is “like” a continuance but not identical thereto). Because the Board’s decision does not demonstrate that it has actually considered Merida-Saenz’s administrative closure argument, we grant the petition for review as to this argument and remand to the Board for further proceedings. See Gonzalez, 2021 WL 4888394, at *10 (remanding for Board to address administrative closure argument in first instance); Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 693-94 (4th Cir. 2008) (explaining that we cannot review the Board’s decision when the Board has given us “nothing to review”).

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

Obviously, the Article IIIs have their own due process problems with burying significant rulings, particularly in immigration, in highly inappropriate, approaching unethical, “unpublished” decisions. These aren’t “routine” cases except that material errors at Garland’s BIA are so frequent that Circuit Courts have wrongly come to view them as “routine” and thereby to “normalize” substandard judging.

That’s basically sweeping the festering and ever-growing problem of a dysfunctional and unjust EOIR “under the carpet” — something that both Garland and EOIR apparently have come to rely upon. The unpublished cases highlighted above each have important messages and analytical points for practitioners as well as the EOIR judges who screwed them up! Even Garland could learn by paying attention to the poor quality work being churned out by EOIR in his name!

You know you’ve hit rock bottom as an immigration jurist when even Judge Wilkinson can’t think of a way to paper over your errors and explain away your abuse of immigrants! The same might be said when you start getting reversed on a regular basis by the 5th Circuit — a court that almost never saw a migrant they didn’t want to dehumanize and deport!

In a real court system with real judges, DHS would be treated as a “party” not a “partner.” But, not in Garland’s courts, where judicial quality and fundamental fairness have gone to die and be buried. ⚰️🪦

Wonder why Dems struggle to govern? Look no further than the astounding lost opportunity for transforming EOIR into a real court system where great judges could be modeling due process, fundamental fairness, backlog-reducing better precedents, and best practices.

One of the best ‘fixes” for any broken system is appointing talented experts who will get the decisions right in the first place and promote excellence and efficiency by establishing, promoting, and, most of all enforcing, “best practices” systemwide, with particular emphasis on getting it right at the initial level, be that Immigration Court or the USCIS Asylum Office.

Of course, at EOIR that would mean appointing a BIA with judges who have the backgrounds and expertise to actually recognize what best interpretations and best practices are in the first place! Hint: It’s got nothing to do with bending over backwards to help “partners” at DHS enforcement, maximizing removal orders, positioning OIL to argue Chevron or Brand X, or thinking of new and creative ways that the system can be mis-used as a “deterrent” to individuals making claims for legal relief. Those were Sessions’s and Barr’s “priorities,” and Garland has done little to change the rancid culture in his Immgration Courts. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/12/15/%f0%9f%8f%b4%e2%80%8d%e2%98%a0%ef%b8%8f%f0%9f%91%8e%f0%9f%8f%bd%f0%9f%a4%ae-aimless-docket-reshuffling-adr-on-steroids-eoir-dysfunction-shows-what-happens-when/

Instead, Garland has given us a potentially fatal dose of “good enough for Government work” — on steroids, with lives and the foundations of our democracy hanging in the balance every day!🤮👎🏽👎🏽👎🏽👎🏽👎🏽🤡

It’s an entirely unnecessary, ongoing national disgrace!🤮

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-20-21

☹️OFTEN INDIFFERENT OR OVERTLY HOSTILE TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL & HUMAN RIGHTS OF MIGRANTS & WOMEN, SUPREMES’ MAJORITY MIGHT GREEN-LIGHT “OPEN SEASON ON HUMANITY” FOR CBP AGENTS!☠️

Lydia Wheeler writes for Bloomberg Law’s Opening Argument:

https://openingargument.substack.com/p/kings-and-queens-of-border-puzzle

‘Kings and Queens’ of Border Puzzle Courts Divided on Liability

Lydia Wheeler

Welcome back to Opening Argument, a column where I dig into complicated legal fights, unpack issues dividing appeals courts, and discuss disputes ripe for Supreme Court review. On tap today: a look at when border patrol agents can be sued for violating someone’s constitutional rights.

Border patrol agents allegedly took Anas Elhady’s coat and shoes, and held him in a near-freezing cell without a blanket after he legally crossed the border back into the U.S. from Canada. Robert Boule was allegedly shoved to the ground by a border patrol agent who came onto his property without a warrant to check the immigration status of a guest at the inn Boule owns in Washington.

Can they each sue the agents for damages? The answer right now depends on which court is hearing their case.

The Supreme Court is expected to provide more clarity in a case it’s hearing later this term. Depending on how the justices rule, it could further insulate border patrol agents from liability.

If there’s no way to hold individual agents accountable for their conduct at the border, “then custom agents are kings and queens unto themselves,” said Elhady’s attorney Gadeir Abbas, a senior litigation attorney at the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

A 1971 Supreme Court decision gave people the right to hold federal officials liable when their constitutional rights are violated, but courts have been trying to figure out if or when that applies to immigration officials. So far, they’re coming to different conclusions.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit said Elhady, who claimed his detainment violated his Fifth Amendment right to due process, didn’t have a right to sue the agents involved. The Ninth Circuit said Boule did.

. . . .

But the Supreme Court specifically refused to consider whether Bivens should be overruled when it agreed to hear the agent’s appeal in the Boule case. The justices will instead decide if you can bring a suit under Bivens for a First Amendment retaliation claim and whether you can sue federal officers engaged in immigration-related functions for allegedly violating your Fourth Amendment rights. Oral arguments in the case haven’t yet been scheduled.

“I could imagine a Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Alito saying something like ‘Yes Bivens still is the law, but we find that in this case involving enforcement of the immigration laws, Bivens claims really don’t fit and don’t belong, and limit Bivens one step further and say immigration cases are different,” said Kevin Johnson, the dean of University of California Davis School of Law.

If the court does that, Johnson, who’s written extensively on immigration law and civil rights, said it would embolden border patrol agents to feel like they can act with a great deal of discretion that will never be questioned.

To contact the reporter on this story: Lydia Wheeler in Washington at lwheeler@bloomberglaw.com

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Andrew Childers at achilders@bloomberglaw.com; Jo-el J. Meyer at jmeyer@bloombergindustry.com

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

Read Lydia’s full report at the link.

Hard to argue with the analysis of Dean Kevin Johnson, the “most often cited” immigration scholar in America according to a recent survey.

Kevin R. Johnson
Dean
U.C. Davis Law, “Most Cited Immigration Practical Scholar”

The rampant abuses of legal and human rights by the CBP, systemic racial bias, and almost total lack of accountability have been well-documented by civil rights advocates. See, e.g., https://www.southernborder.org/border_lens_abuse_of_power_and_its_consequences

Here’s a telling excerpt from the foregoing report issued by the SPLC in 2020:

The number of deaths resulting from an interaction with CBP officers are indicators of the horrific culture of abuse, corruption, and disregard for human life that plagues the nation’s largest federal law enforcement agency. Unfortunately, these killings are not the only examples of abuse of power and corruption within CBP.

Numerous studies — both internal and external — have shown that CBP is plagued with a culture of impunity, corruption, and abuse. Its systemic problems also run deep. The discovery of a secret Facebook group full of racist, misogynist and xenophobic posts by Border Patrol agents brought to light more evidence of the agency’s culture of abuse. In it, agents routinely made sexist jokes, made fun of migrant deaths, and shared other hateful content. A year later, little action was taken by CBP, again pointing to the lack of transparency and accountability for the agency. Countless other reports have linked CBP to cases of officer misconduct, corruption and a general lack of accountability for criminal conduct and abusive actions.

Doesn’t sound to me like an ideal candidate for freedom from individual constitutional tort liability! Indeed, the reasons for applying Bivens to immigration agents appear quite compelling. Hard to think of a law enforcement agency more in need of “strict scrutiny.”

But, with the current Court majority, who knows? Kevin’s “highly educated guess” is as good or better than anyone else’s. After all, the Supreme’s majority had little difficulty enabling constitutional and human rights abuses carried out by the Trump regime on asylum seekers and other vulnerable migrants — in other words, “Dred Scottification” of the “other!”

Valerie Bauman
Investigative Reporter
Bloomberg
PHOTO: Twitter

Many thanks to Val Bauman over at Bloomberg for bringing this article to my attention. I’ve missed Val’s lively and incisive reporting on the “immigration beat” for her previous employer. Come on back to immigration, Val! We miss you!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-14-21

⚖️9TH PANEL LETS IT ALL HANG OUT ON IMMIGRATION CASE — Goulart v. Garland

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/11/18/19-72007.pdf

From the dissent by U.S. District Judge Edward R. Korman, EDNY, sitting by designation:

Goulart is not a sympathetic character. I can understand the desire to remove convicted burglars from this country. Indeed, Judge VanDyke questions why I have bothered to “champion” the cause of a convicted burglar. The answer should be obvious. The judicial oath, which was adopted in the Judiciary Act of 1789, requires us to “administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich.” See 1 Stat. 73, 76 (codified at 28 U.S.C. § 453). We take such an oath, which derives from biblical teachings, see Deuteronomy 1:17, so as not to be blinded by our like or dislike of the parties. We are not called to decide whether Goulart is a good person, but rather whether a person who has been banished from the United States without legal justification should be permitted to seek to return. The Supreme Court has held that the precise statute under which Goulart was deported violates the Constitution. Principles of law and equity require that he be permitted to move for reconsideration in this case. I respectfully dissent.

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

Wow! Three opinions on a three-judge panel! Been there, done that! Reminds me of my long gone days on the “Schmidt BIA” when we all took our jobs seriously, even if it often didn’t result in “fake unanimity” (the watchword of today’s dysfunctional BIA).

For those who like to apply “ideological analysis” to Article III decisions, this one doesn’t “fit the mold:”

Judge Richard A. Paez (“majority” opinion) is a Clinton appointee.

Judge Lawrence VanDyke (concurring opinion) is a Trump appointee.

Judge Edward R. Korman (dissenting opinion) is a Reagan appointee.

That being said, the majority’s rationale that a deported respondent should have been a “legal clairvoyant,” predicting the eventual Supreme Court decision finding the statute under which he was convicted unconstitutional, is a piece of absurdist legal sophistry. Wonder what the result might have been if the panel majority didn’t look at him as an “alien bank robber,” not deserving of fair treatment or legal rights? Reminds me of what my former “boss” the late “Iron Mike” Inman used to yell at me during heated arguments at the “Legacy INS OGC:” “What did they teach you at that law school!”

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

11-20-21

⚖️👎🏽LATEST QUAD OF ARTICLE III “BODY SLAMS” SHOWS ENDEMIC PROBLEM OF ANTI-IMMIGRANT BIAS, UNPROFESSIONAL WORK PRODUCT @ GARLAND’S BIA — Wrong On: PSG, Failure Of State Protection, Internal Relocation, Nexus, Right To Counsel, Statutory Interpretation!

Dan Kowalski
Online Editor of the LexisNexis Immigration Law Community (ILC)

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca6-on-psg-zometa-orellana-v-garland-unpub

CA6 on PSG: Zometa-Orellana v. Garland (Unpub.)

Zometa-Orellana v. Garland

“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.”

[Hats off to Dr. Alicia Triche!]

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

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca4-on-nexus-aleman-medrano-v-garland-unpub

CA4 on Nexus: Aleman-Medrano v. Garland (Unpub.)

Aleman-Medrano v. Garland

“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.”

[Hats off to Abdoul A. Konare!]

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

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca9-2-1-on-right-to-counsel-usubakunov-v-garland

CA9 (2-1) on Right to Counsel: Usubakunov v. Garland

Usubakunov v. Garland

“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!]

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

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/natz-victory-slams-matter-of-zhang-melara-v-mayorkas

Natz. Victory Slams Matter of Zhang: Melara v. Mayorkas

Melara v. Mayorkas

“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.”

[Hats way off to Sabrina Damast and Patricia M. Corrales!]

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

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!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

11-03-21

IMMIGRATIONPROF BLOG: Law Student Essay Captures Essence Of Problem In Immigration Courts: “Not all judges should be immigration judges. Sometimes being a judge is just not for everyone, period.” Structural Problems, Indefensible Personnel Decisions, Byzantine Bureaucracy Continue To Plague Garland’s Broken Courts!☠️

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2021/10/good-judge-bad-judge.html

Guest blogger: Kelsea Villanueva, law student, University of San Francisco

Not all judges should be immigration judges. Sometimes being a judge is just not for everyone, period. Bad attitudes and questionable decision making within the immigration courts often cause the most noise because the impact is often more than a rude remark. While I do not believe problematic judges make up the whole picture of immigration courts, just one bad judge can be enough to impact the lives of many, and I only wonder whether it is the system that perpetuates behavior, the history and beliefs of immigration, or both that give rise to bad experiences.

Surprisingly in our own city, San Francisco Judge Nicholas Ford was the subject of a complaint that was sent to the U.S. Justice Department for being hostile and having biased treatment of immigrants in the courtroom. The accusations stated that he belittled migrants’ stories and struggles by making inappropriate comments. One account stated that he said “I can tell an indigent person when I see one, and you can afford an attorney” in response to someone who claimed they could not pay. Many accounts also made it a point to mention that he had previously been criticized for jailing a pregnant woman without bail for a nonviolent crime – this gives an idea of his character in court. When he was first appointed by the Attorney General under the Trump administration, Ford had been a judge in the criminal justice system and apparently had no prior immigration law experience. Other judges that have similar backgrounds can take biases from the criminal justice system and bring them into the immigration law field. There is the risk that the treatment of criminals becomes synonymous with the treatment of immigrants.

Even if judges like Ford represent a minority, the behavior exhibited by him is not unusual in immigration courts. In Jacinto v. INS, 208 F. 3d 725 (9th Cir. 2000), it was difficult for the respondent to even answer basic questions about her family’s struggles; she was constantly faced with interruptions by the immigration judge and a blatant lack of patience. Most people regardless of being an immigrant or not could become overwhelmed during questioning or lack of information about legal procedures. Lacking compassion and basic manners, whenever Jacinto was asked a question regarding why she was seeking asylum, the immigration judge or government attorney would interrupt her midsentence and not allow her to ask any clarifying questions. The transcripts reveal a sense of confusion and urgency, as they treated her as if they were in a rush and like she was wasting their time.

. . . .

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

Kelsea Villanueva, a law student, “gets” it! So why don’t Garland and his lieutenants?

Perhaps, because they are too far removed from the human trauma and and the practical problems in the broken and unfair “courts” for which they are responsible! They obviously have become indifferent to the unnecessary human suffering they cause by tolerating this systemic stain on American justice.

It’s not that there aren’t lots of exceptionally well-qualified immigration lawyers, practical scholars, and effective litigators in the Bay Area (and most other areas where Immigration Courts are located) who would make great Immigration Judges. Therefore, it has taken a concerted effort over the past four Administrations, including the Biden Administration, NOT to recruit, attract, and hire the “best and brightest” for these life or death judicial positions.

One “key to building dysfunction” has been the childish, demeaning, and disrespectful treatment heaped upon the “IJ Corps” by DOJ politicos and EOIR “Management” trying to appease their “handlers.” Attempts to enforce “assembly line justice,” lousy technology, poor training, screwed up and always changing “priorities,” micromanagement by non-judges, and favoring “quick numbers” over thoughtful high quality judicial work product obviously discourages many of the most talented and well-qualified lawyers in the business from even applying.

Some of those who do make the effort are then demoralized and discouraged when clearly inferior candidates, some lacking even basic immigration and asylum knowledge, are hired by a DOJ bureaucratic system that too often seeks and rewards complicity and “following orders” over intellectual excellence, proven immigration and human rights expertise, and the courage to make the right decisions even in the face of political pressure from above to “go along to get along” with each Administration’s enforcement agenda.

Surely, no panel of immigration/human rights experts would have recommended hiring someone like Judge Ford for the job! So, why was he even on the Immigration Bench in the first place?

In every way, Judge Ford was EOIR’s self-created problem! It tied up both private resources and Government investigative resources that could have been better used. It further damaged EOIR’s reputation and ruined human lives. In the end, the “Ford brouhaha” produced no transparent results, thus further eroding public confidence in Government. It prompted neither accountability nor reforms to insure a better judicial selection process!

The best way to limit the administrative nonsense, unnecessary and inappropriate meddling, and time and resources wasted building a needless, ineffective bureaucracy to “monitor performance” and investigate complaints is to hire exceptionally well-qualified judges in the first place — good judges need neither much supervision nor significant monitoring. All they need is support, independence, professional training, continuing judicial education, and some inspirational encouragement from dynamic, well-qualified judicial leadership — things that generally have been in short supply within the EOIR bureaucracy, particularly over the past four years!

Leaders should be sitting judges — not just disconnected bureaucratic “managers” — who continue to handle regular dockets so they have the necessary perspective and first-hand experience to lead this broken system back to functionality. In what other “real” judicial system do the “chief judges and chief justices” largely or completely cease to perform judicial duties?

For example, Chief Justice John Roberts has no shortage of administrative and leadership tasks. Yet, somehow, he finds time to participate in every merits case coming before the Court!

Almost every day, we see Court of Appeals decisions in which the Chief Judge of the Circuit was a panel member, sometimes even writing the opinion. Chief U.S. District Judges hear cases and sometimes author lengthy opinions in notable and controversial cases.

There are few, if any, examples of successful judiciaries in which those in leadership positions isolate and insulate themselves from the judicial tasks of their colleagues! Yet, this has become “standard operating practice” at DOJ/EOIR. This is despite “clear and convincing evidence” that DOJ/EOIR’s bloated “Vatican style” (a/k/a “Legacy INS style”) bureaucracy is incapable of practical problem solving and has presided over the demise of a court system that once aspired to greatness, even if the efforts sometimes fell short!

The taxpayer money wasted on ludicrous “Immigration Judge Dashboards,” unnecessary “supervisors” who almost never go to court, ineffective and inefficient “Dedicated Dockets,” establishing “TV Adjudication Centers” in strange places, and running “kangaroo courts” embedded in the DHS Gulag could be repurposed into funding legal representation programs, a functioning e-filing system, more Judicial Law Clerks, judicial training by experts, and other badly needed and long overdue improvements and reforms. These things would actually help the system achieve justice with efficiency, rather than aggravating existing problems!

EOIR’s “customer service,” transparency, and engagement with the public get consistently low marks from Government watchdogs. I see no improvement under Garland.

Any legitimate system for judicial tenure or retention relies on robust public input and some peer involvement — things that are foreign to the DOJ/EOIR model which, if I do say so myself, bears a disturbing resemblance to the Byzantine bureaucracy of the “Legacy INS” (although the there are only a few us still around who experienced the latter “first hand”).

Ironically, EOIR was originally established as an independent agency within DOJ to “free” it from the “Legacy INS;” over the years it has come more and more to look, feel, and operate like the worst aspects of that long-disbanded agency.

In particular, it has “retaken on” the image of “being just another appendage of immigration enforcement” — a complete abandonment of the original goal of increased judicial independence in both fact and appearance!

Numerous private lawyers have related to me that being in an EOIR “courtroom” is too often “like facing two prosecutors.” Some say that their already traumatized clients are “re-traumatized” by the rude, disrespectful, and inhumane treatment they receive in Immigration Court as they attempt to plead for their lives and their families’ futures! What kind of judiciary “operates” in this manner?

For heaven’s sake, even former AG Alberto “Gonzo I” Gonzalez, hardly a “due process warrior,” spoke out publicly against demeaning treatment of migrants by Immigration Judges! Article III Courts continue to document instances of bias, incompetence, and cavalier treatment of human lives in Garland’s Immigration Courts at both trial and appellate levels. Yet, he says nothing and has taken few actions to solve the myriad of festering problems! We deserve better, much better, from the “people’s top lawyer!”

It’s also worth contemplating why law students understand the systemic problems and potential solutions better than the senior Government lawyers and officials we are employing and paying to mismanage it!

You can read the rest of Kelsea’s excellent piece at the above link!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

10-20-21

⚖️YET ANOTHER BIA PRECEDENT, MATTER OF SORAM, 25 I&N DEC. 378 (BIA 2010), BITES THE DUST IN 9TH CIR. — “We conclude that the text of 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) unambiguously forecloses the BIA’s interpretation of “a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment” as encompassing negligent child endangerment offenses.” — Diaz-Rodriguez v. Garland (2-1)

Diaz-Rodriguez v. Garland, 9th Cir., 09-10-21, published

Here’s the opinion:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/09/10/13-73719.pdf

PANEL: Consuelo M. Callahan and*Paul J. Watford, Circuit Judges, and Jed S. Rakoff, District Judge.

Opinion by Judge Watford; Dissent by Judge Callahan

* The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

STAFF SUMMARY:

Granting Rafael Diaz-Rodriguez’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the panel held that child endangerment, in violation of California Penal Code § 273a(a), does not constitute “a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment” within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i).

In Martinez-Cedillo v. Sessions, 896 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2018), a divided panel held to the contrary, and a majority of the non-recused active judges voted to rehear the case en banc. However, after the petitioner passed away, the en banc court dismissed the appeal as moot and vacated the panel decision. The panel here observed that Martinez-Cedillo is no longer binding precedent, but explained that between its issuance and the decision to rehear the case en banc, two published opinions relied on it: Menendez v. Whitaker, 908 F.3d 467 (9th Cir. 2018), and Alvarez-Cerriteno v. Sessions, 899 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2018).

The panel concluded that the unusual circumstance here led it to conclude that this case falls outside the scope of the general rule that three-judge panels are bound to follow published decisions of prior panels. The panel explained that both Alvarez-Cerriteno and Menendez simply followed Martinez-Cedillo as then-binding precedent without engaging in independent analysis of the deference issue, and

** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

DIAZ-RODRIGUEZ V. GARLAND 3

both decisions were effectively insulated from en banc review on that issue. The panel explained that both decisions are irreconcilable with a subsequent decision of the court sitting en banc because their reliance on Martinez-Cedillo is in conflict with the en banc court’s decision to designate that decision as non-precedential.

Applying the categorical approach, the panel identified the elements of California Penal Code § 273a(a): causing or permitting a child “to be placed in a situation where his or her person or health is endangered,” committed with a mens rea of criminal negligence. As to the federal offense, the panel explained that Congress enacted the ground of removability at 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) and did not define the phrase “a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment.” In Matter of Soram, 25 I. & N. Dec. 378 (BIA 2010), however, the BIA held that the phrase encompassed child endangerment offenses committed with a mens rea of at least criminal negligence. In considering whether Soram was entitled to deference, the panel was guided by the Supreme Court’s decision in Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, 137 S. Ct. 1562 (2017), where the Court observed that the term “sexual abuse of a minor” was undefined and then looked to normal tools of statutory interpretation in concluding that the statute unambiguously forecloses the BIA’s interpretation of it.

Applying this approach, the panel concluded that deference was precluded at Chevron step one because the text of §1227(a)(2)(E)(i) unambiguously forecloses the BIA’s interpretation as encompassing negligent child endangerment offenses. First, the panel explained that contemporary legal dictionaries from the time of IIRIRA’s enactment indicate that child abuse, child neglect, and child

4 DIAZ-RODRIGUEZ V. GARLAND

abandonment were well-understood concepts with distinct meanings that do not encompass one-time negligent child endangerment offenses. Second, the panel explained that the statutory structure suggested that Congress deliberately omitted child endangerment from the list of offenses specified in § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). Third, the panel explained that the general consensus drawn from state criminal codes confirms that the phrase does not encompass negligent child endangerment offenses. The panel noted that the fourth source consulted in Esquivel-Quintana, related federal criminal statutes, did not aid its analysis.

Because a violation of California Penal Code § 273a(a) can be committed with a mens rea of criminal negligence, the panel concluded that it is not a categorical match for “a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment.” Accordingly, the panel concluded that Diaz-Rodriguez’s conviction under that statute did not render him removable under § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i).

Dissenting, Judge Callahan wrote that she was compelled to dissent for two reasons. First, she did not agree that the three-judge panel could disregard Menendez and Alvarez-Cerriteno. Second, Judge Callahan did not agree with the majority’s peculiar reading of the phrase as not encompassing a child endangerment offense committed with a mens rea of at least criminal negligence. Judge Callahan wrote that majority’s suggestion that § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) is unambiguous is contrary to precedent and the unanimous opinions of the court’s sister circuits. Moreover, she wrote that the majority failed to recognize that the court’s task is limited to reviewing the agency’s interpretation for “reasonableness.” Instead, the majority proffered its own definition based primarily on selected dictionary definitions and its own research.

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

Who knows how this eventually will come out? But, what I can guarantee is until it is finally resolved, by the Supremes or otherwise, immigration practitioners and their clients will have a mess of inconsistency and bad decisions by EOIR on their hands.

Complicated issues involving criminal law come up all the time in EOIR “detention courts,” located in the Mayorkas/Garland “New American Gulag,” where many respondents are unrepresented or under-represented. How would an unrepresented respondent be able to prepare a “defense” like this? No way! The entire EOIR system suffers from some extreme constitutional problems that Garland has done nothing to address.

Having bad precedents like this in effect for a decade or more, almost always tilted toward DHS enforcement, results in many wrongful removals, as well as numerous remands and “redos” that help increase the astronomical 1.4 million case backlog! Having better judges on the BIA, real independent jurists with practical scholarly expertise, unafraid to interpret statutes and apply the law in favor of respondents when that is the “better view,” and to impose “best practices” on the Immigration Courts, is a necessary first step in addressing EOIR’s many legal and operational shortcomings.

It appears that Garland is disinterested in meaningful due process reforms and inserting real progressive judicial leadership into EOIR. The good news: With the vast majority of the immigration, human rights, and constitutional expertise and legal talent now in the private sector, and more talent coming out of law schools all the time, the NDPA stands a good chance of “litigating Garland’s failed EOIR to a standstill” over the next four years.

While that’s hardly the most desirable result, it would be infinitely better than the continuing due-process-denying “Clown Show” 🤡 that Garland currently runs at EOIR! Sometimes, you just have to take what the opposition gives you!

At what point will “powers that be” finally pay attention to the ongoing disaster at EOIR? When the backlog reaches 1.5 million? 2 million? 3 million? 4 million? 5 million? How many unjust and illegal removals will take place, and how many lives and futures irrevocably altered or ruined before this dysfunctional system finally reaches its “breaking point?”

EYORE — “Eyore is completely distraught that Garland has eschewed installing progressive expert judging and creative thinking, instead allowing the ‘death spiral’ to continue!” “Eyore In Distress”
Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

09-13-21

⚠️MORE PROBLEMS LIKELY LOOM FOR GARLAND’S TOTALLY DYSFUNCTIONAL 🤡 EOIR AS EN BANC 9TH REJECTS “GOOD ENOUGH FOR GOVERNMENT WORK STANDARD” FOR CREDIBILITY REVIEW — “Any Reason To Deny Gimmicks” Fail Again As Court Requires EOIR To Comply With REAL ID! — Alam v. Garland

Dan Kowalski
Online Editor of the LexisNexis Immigration Law Community (ILC)

Here’s “quick coverage” from Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca9-en-banc-on-credibility-alam-v-garland

CA9, En Banc, on Credibility: Alam v. Garland

“We voted to rehear this case en banc to reconsider our “single factor rule,” which we have applied in considering petitions for review from decisions by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The single factor rule, as we have applied it, requires us to sustain an adverse credibility finding if “one of the [agency’s] identified grounds is supported by substantial evidence.” Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1259 (9th Cir. 2003). On rehearing en banc, we hold that the single factor rule conflicts with the REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231 (2005), and we overrule our prior precedent establishing and applying it. We remand this case to the three-judge panel to re-examine the petition for review in light of our clarification of the standard for reviewing the BIA’s adverse credibility determinations. … Given the REAL ID Act’s explicit statutory language, we join our sister circuits and hold that, in assessing an adverse credibility finding under the Act, we must look to the “totality of the circumstances[] and all relevant factors.” § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). There is no bright-line rule under which some number of inconsistencies requires sustaining or rejecting an adverse credibility determination—our review will always require assessing the totality of the circumstances. To the extent that our precedents employed the single factor rule or are otherwise inconsistent with this standard, we overrule those cases. We remand this case to the three-judge panel for reconsideration in light of the newly articulated standard for reviewing adverse credibility determinations.”

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

Even with Article III Courts, including the 9th Circuit, generally “drifting right,” “good enough for Government work” has been rejected! That ought to help Garland boost the EOIR backlog!

The EOIR/DOJ policy right now appears to be “give any reason to deny,” hope that OIL can make at least one of them stick, and count on righty Circuit Judges to “swallow the whistle.” While that has certainly happened in the 5th Circuit, and to some extent in the 11th Circuit, there still appear to be enough Article IIIs out there critically reviewing EOIR’s too often patently substandard work product to make Garland’s indolent “look the other way” approach to the EOIR mess highly problematic.

Analyzing all the factors also might be inconsistent with mindless, due-process-denying three or four per day “merits quotas,” invented and imposed by Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions (someone with zero (0) Immigration Court experience and a well-justified lifetime reputation as a racist xenophobe — how does Matthews v. Eldridge allow a guy like that to pick and “run” judges — the Article IIIs might choose to look the other way, but most L-1 students know this is wrong and unconstitutional).

Just aimlessly listing common testimonial problems and hoping OIL will find one or more of them actually in the record is much faster (if you don’t count the impact of Circuit remands!) That it’s inconsistent with the statute, the Constitution, and, actually, BIA precedent seems to be beside the point these days. Of course, EOIR’s “assembly line jurists” also get “dinged” for remands.

Is there is anybody left at EOIR HQ today who could properly teach “totality of the circumstances” under REAL ID?

My observation from Arlington was that the number of adverse credibility findings and asylum denials went down substantially once the Fourth Circuit, and even occasionally the BIA, began enforcing “totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors” under REAL ID. As lawyers “got the picture” and began providing better independent corroborating evidence and documentation, the ability to “nit-pick” testimony, find the respondent “not credible,” and make it stand up on review diminished, as its well should have!

Of course, in my mind, REAL ID and the Fourth Circuit were just “re-enforcing and adopting” observations that members of our deposed “Gang of Four or Five” had made in numerous dissents from our BIA colleagues “undue deference” to poorly reasoned and thinly supported adverse credibility determinations, particularly in asylum cases.

More careful analysis of the record as a whole, often with the help of JLCs, became the rule at Arlington. And, after a few initial setbacks in the Fourth Circuit, ICE in Arlington generally stopped pushing for unjustified adverse credibility rulings and adopted approaches that actually complied with Fourth Circuit law.

The antiquated “contemporaneous oral decision format,” put on steroids by Sessions and Barr, is particularly ill-suited to the type of careful analysis required by the current statute, not to mention due process. And, having far too many newer Immigration Judges who have no immigration background and who have never had to represent an individual in Immigration Court is also a formula for failure, particularly when combined with inadequate training and idiotic “quotas.”

I’m not sure that the famous Rube Goldberg could have created a more convoluted, inefficient, and irrational process than exists at today’s EOIR. It simply can’t be fixed without leadership and assistance from outside experts who understand the problems (because they and their clients have “lived them”) and who aren’t wedded to all the mistakes and failed “silver bullet solutions” of the past!

By contrast with the EOIR mess, it’s amazing what changes an expert appellate body that actually takes its job and due process seriously can effect. Imagine if we had an expert BIA that made due process and treating individuals fairly “job one,” rather than operating as a “whistle stop on the deportation railroad.”

The ongoing EOIR clown show 🤡 just keeps getting exposed. But, nobody in charge seems to care! That’s a shame, 🤮 because “human lives, ⚰️ and perhaps the survival of our democracy, 🇺🇸 hang in the balance here!”

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-09-21

🤮☠️ GARLAND’S EOIR STAR CHAMBERS CONTINUE TO GRIND OUT ANTI-ASYLUM TRAVESTIES! — Read What Passes For “Justice” In Garland’s Deadly Parody Of A Court System!

Garland’s “right hand man” on EOIR matters is eerily familiar, in a Himmleresque way! Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com

Kangaroos — “Miller’s Mob” is still alive and well at Garland’s EOIR. Legal asylum seekers — not so well, not so alive!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/
Creative Commons License

Four Horsemen — BIA Asylum Panel In Action — At Garland’s BIA, a “Miller-trained and inspired” Asylum Panel can, and does, kill dozens of unarmed asylum seekers in a single day to “make quota.” Despite being thoroughly discredited for judicial use, Garland has inexplicably continued due-process-denying, corner-cutting, quality-killing “production quotas” for his assembly line worker/judges in Immigration Courts!
Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/08/25/19-72890.pdf

CA9 on Credibility: Munyuh v. Garland

Munyuh v. Garland

“Ms. Munyuh’s case concerns us. From our reading of the record, the IJ seemed determined to pick every nit she could find. Besides erring procedurally, the IJ discounted probative evidence on flimsy grounds and displayed a dubious understanding of how rape survivors ought to act. Although we give great deference to the IJ as factfinder, substantial-evidence review does not require us to credit the credibility finding of an IJ who cherry-picks from—or misconstrues—the record to reach it. The IJ must consider the “totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (emphasis added). At the very least, the two legal errors we have identified warrant remand. The IJ erred by failing to give specific, cogent reasons for rejecting Ms. Munyuh’s reasonable, plausible explanations for the discrepancies tied to her declaration that the police truck broke down after only four or five kilometers. And she further erred by discounting the supporting documentation without giving Ms. Munyuh adequate notice and opportunity to provide corroborative evidence. We therefore vacate the removal order and remand the case to the Board for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. PETITION GRANTED; VACATED and REMANDED.”

[Hats off to Ronald D. Richey!]

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

Congrats to Attorney Ronald D. Richey, who appeared before me many times at the Arlington Immigration Court.

Here’s a quote from the opinion by Senior Circuit Judge Danny Boggs, a Reagan appointee “on loan” from the 6th Cir., that shows the appallingly unprofessional performance of the Immigration Judge and the BIA in this “life or death” case:

On this point, the IJ made findings with which no reasonable factfinder could agree. She found Ms. Munyuh’s testimony that “the truck had traveled over two hours” to conflict with her earlier estimate that it had traveled “over an hour.” And she found Ms. Munyuh’s redirect testimony that “the truck [had] traveled approximately four to five hours before breaking down” to be “clearly in conflict with each of [Ms. Munyuh]’s prior estimations.”

But these time estimates are all consistent with each other. Indeed, assuming the truck really had traveled for four to five hours, Ms. Munyuh had no other choice but to give those answers. The IJ asked her if the truck had traveled more or less than an hour, to which Ms. Munyuh said more than an hour. Then the IJ asked whether the truck had traveled at least two hours, to which Ms. Munyuh answered in the affirmative.

No reasonable factfinder could find those two statements to conflict with Ms. Munyuh’s later testimony that the truck traveled for four to five hours. The IJ’s contrary finding is therefore unsupported by substantial evidence.

Wow! Is this what constituted “acceptable performance” when Judge Garland was on the D.C. Circuit? And, don’t forget, OIL actually defended this garbage product in May 2021, well after Garland took office and after experts had advised him to “clean house.”

The bad judges at EOIR whose lack of competence and/or bias unfairly condemn asylum seekers to persecution, torture and death, or all three, do NOT have life tenure and should NOT be on the Immigration Bench. Period! It’s not rocket science!

“No reasonable fact finder.” Isn’t that a problem in life or death cases? So-called “judges” who time after time stretch and misinterpret facts, ignore due process, and misapply basic asylum law to unfairly sentence asylum seekers to death! Why isn’t this grounds for removal from the bench? Or at least removing them from all asylum cases!

While Judge Boggs and his colleagues are rightfully “concerned” with EOIR’s performance in this case, Garland doesn’t appear to share those concerns. This is “business as usual” at Garland’s EOIR, just as it was when Stephen Miller was calling the shots! Obviously, Garland isn’t taking the human lives at stake here with even a modicum of seriousness. That’s totally unacceptable! Maybe Judge Boggs needs to pick up pen ✒️ and paper 📜 and express his outrage in writing to his former Circuit Court colleague, attaching an annotated copy of the garbage being turned out by his EOIR Star Chambers!

Also, don’t think that cases like this are an “aberration.” No, they aren’t! The only “aberration” is that this is one of a tiny sliver of injustices that was actually caught and corrected by the Article IIIs. How many unrepresented or under-represented individuals do you think that this judge and this BIA panel “railroad” in a week?

🏴‍☠️⚰️THEATER OF THE ABSURD: Incredibly, Garland & Mayorkas are now proposing to put this “Miller-Lite” EOIR infested with many incompetent, poorly trained, asylum-denying “judges,” with no credible leadership, totally lacking in professionalism and quality control, “in charge” of establishing precedents, insuring, and enforcing due process in their proposed “streamlined” asylum system! In other words, the solution for those who have repeatedly demonstrated an outrageous inability to conduct fair hearings and whose ignorance of asylum law and best practices is often stunning is to put them in charge of doing “paper reviews” of applications denied by Asylum Officers!

https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/08/18/%F0%9F%97%BDcourtsides-instant-analysis-bidens-proposed-asylum-regs-advocates-beware-%E2%9A%A0%EF%B8%8F%E2%98%B9%EF%B8%8F-despite-a-potentially-workable-framework-adminis/

Good luck with that! Could there be a more insane proposal under current conditions? Making Stephen Miller the new “Asylum Czar” at EOIR? Perhaps, don’t be surprised!

Of course, in the nutsos world of Garland and Mayorkas, their fatally flawed proposal arguably would be a better than the current illegal and immoral use of Miller’s bogus Title 42 scheme to return legal asylum seekers to torture or death WITHOUT ANY PROCESS WHATSOEVER.

It’s simple. A complete “housecleaning” at EOIR, starting with the BIA, new progressive leadership and professional expert training at EOIR and the Asylum Office, new progressive asylum precedents and guidance, and an operating program for universal representation of asylum seekers are ABSOLUTE PREREQUISITES for fair and efficient regulatory reform of the asylum system! In the meantime, allow Asylum Officers to grant asylum to those who pass credible fear, but continue to give full Immigration Court hearings to any who can’t be granted. Get rid of Title 42 and start processing legal asylum seekers in an orderly fashion through ports of entry!

More than seven months into the Administration, Garland and Mayorkas could, and should, have had these needed progressive personnel, leadership, and structural changes in place, producing due process, and most important, actually saving lives! Instead, they have wasted time and squandered goodwill by continuing to run Stephen Miller’s White Nationalist system with Miller’s personnel in place! Simply incredible!

And, the bumbling, highly predictable weakness of the team of DOJ lawyers trying to defend the Administration’s few humanitarian immigration initiatives has become patently obvious. How can you expect lawyers who have spent the last four years misrepresenting asylum seekers as less than human and a threat to society suddenly start setting the record straight and effectively advocating for their human and legal rights? Obviously, they can’t! While EOIR is clearly the most glaringly dysfunctional part of DOJ, it’s obviously not the only problem and the only place Team Garland needed to (but didn’t) “clean house.”

I “get” that this isn’t Judge Bell’s, Ben Civiletti’s, or Janet Reno’s DOJ any more! But, remarkably, and tragically for the poor souls and their lawyers involved, Garland doesn’t!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-26-21

☠️⚰️👎🏽BIDEN ADMINISTRATION EMBRACES “NEW AMERICAN GULAG” — SUPREMES LIKELY TO HELP THEM OUT!🤮

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2021/08/supreme-court-to-review-bond-hearings-for-detained-immigrants.html

Dean Kevin Johnson posts on ImmigrationProf Blog:

Monday, August 23, 2021

Supreme Court To Review Bond Hearings For Detained Immigrants

By Immigration Prof

Share

The Supreme Court has decided a number of immigrant detention cases in recent years. Next Term brings another case. Alyssa Aquino for Law360 reports that the Court agreed today to review a Ninth Circuit decision that required bond hearings for immigrants who have been detained for more than six months with final removal orders. A split ruled that the Immigration and Nationality Act requires the federal government to hold bond hearings for detained migrants, and that the government bears the burden of proving that detainees are a flight risk or public safety threat.

The consolidated cases are Garland. v. Gonzalez and Tae D. Johnson v. Guzman Chavez. Amy Howe on SCOTUSBlog offers some background on the cases her.

KJ

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

Notice any difference between the Biden-Harris campaign rhetoric and actual performance once elected?

Never know when a “due process free zone” where individuals not charged with crimes can be detained forever without individualized bond determinations will be a handy hammer to have in your toolbox!

And, don’t forget those huge profits being raked in by the private detention industry, so beloved by DHS and politicos who receive contributions and can tout the “job creation” in the Gulag! Also, states and localities who rent out substandard prison space on questionable contracts love the Gulag!

Significantly, none of the lower court decisions the Biden Administration seeks to overturn requires the release of anyone! Nope! All the lower courts have done is to give the “civil prisoners” a right to plead their cases for release and to require the Government to provide an individualized rationale for continued indefinite detention! Sure sounds like simple due process to me!

Maybe, if Garland, Mayorkas, and the Supremes had a chance to spend a few “overnights in the Gulag” they would take the Fifth Amendment’s application to people of color in our nation and pleading for their lives at our borders more seriously!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever! The “New American Gulag,” Never!

PWS

08-24-21

☠️ 9TH CIR. PELTS BIA WITH MORE ROTTEN TOMATOES 🍅! — Attempt To Deport Refugee Woman Entitled To Asylum, Withholding & CAT Thwarted! — BIA Wrongly Conflates Registered Nurse With Taxi Driver In Insane Misogynistic Bid To Return Mexicana Refugee To Death!⚰️👎🏽

Plancarte Sauceda v. Garland, 9th Cir., 08-20-21, (Panel = Fletcher, Watford, Collins; Opinion = Fletcher)

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/08/20/19-73312.pdf

Court staff summary:

. . . .

Citing Matter of Acosta, 19 I. & N. Dec. 211 (BIA 1985), the Board concluded that “female nurses” were not a cognizable “particular social group” because being a nurse, like being a taxi driver, is not an immutable characteristic. The panel held that the Board erred by simply citing Matter of Acosta, and failing to provide any meaningful analysis about the immutability of “female nurses.” The panel explained that in contrast to Acosta, Plancarte cannot avoid compulsion by the cartel simply by changing jobs, because even if she ceased employment as a nurse, she would still be a nurse, as she has received specialized medical training and has a professional license as a nurse. Moreover, the cartel targeted Plancarte precisely because of her specialized nursing skills, and threatened her and her family with torture and death to force her to use those skills to provide medical treatment to the cartel. Thus, regardless of whether she would continue to work as a licensed nurse, Plancarte lacks “the power to change” the immutable nursing characteristics—her medical knowledge and nursing skills—that make her important to the cartel. The panel therefore granted the petition with respect to Plancarte’s asylum and withholding of removal claims, and remanded for consideration of the other required characteristics of her proposed particular social group of “female nurses.”

Turning to Plancarte’s CAT claim, the panel concluded that the Board’s decision ignored uncontradicted record evidence showing both acquiescence and direct involvement by government officials. The panel held that substantial evidence therefore compelled the conclusion that there was official involvement and acquiescence in the cartel forcing Plancarte to provide medical treatment to cartel members. The panel granted the petition with respect to CAT, and remanded for a determination whether the likelihood of

4 PLANCARTE SAUCEDA V. GARLAND

torture if Plancarte were returned to Mexico is sufficient to warrant CAT relief.

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

Welcome to the “any reason to deny culture” at Garland’s EOIR!

In addition to the gross errors noted by the panel, I also think that there is a winning argument that being a registered nurse is “fundamental to identity” and therefore not something we should require an individual to change. Put it in today’s COVID context, for Pete’s sake!

Think that being a lawyer isn’t “fundamental” to the identity of a BIA Appellate Judge, an Immigration Judge, or an Article III Judge? Only when these “judges” are thinking of ways to deny protection to others do they engage in such obvious intellectual dishonesty and absurd reasoning!

This is the type of case that should have been a “quick grant” and a precedent for other grants of protection in a functioning justice system! Instead it’s an disaster! One that just happens to have been “outed” by a conscientious Court of Appeals panel — something no person of color can count on! It should be no mystery why this maliciously incompetent system creates huge, growing, out of control backlogs while squandering public resources and destroying lives!

Immigration Court — Failure
BIA — Failure
OIL — Failure
Garland — Failure

And this gang is going to be in charge of setting precedents and protecting due process and human rights of women and other asylum seekers under the Administration’s proposed “streamlined” asylum system? Absurd! It will be a death sentence for far too many refugees!

Congrats to Vallerye Allyn Anderson for saving a life here! Her outstanding performance and understanding of human rights were far superior to that of any “judge” or other DOJ lawyer involved in this case. So, why are the wrong judges still making life or death decisions at EOIR without competent “adult supervision” from qualified judges at the BIA with expertise in asylum law and the guts to apply it correctly, humanely, and generously? See, e.g., Cardoza-Fonseca, Mogharrabi, Kasinga. Just hope that Vallerye and others like her will pursue EOIR judgeships until the disgraceful, deadly, two-decade old “progressive expert lockout from the 21st Century Immigration Judiciary” finally ends and quality, courage, and due process prevail!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever! Failure to “clean house” of Miller Lite White Nationalism, it’s acolytes, go along to get along toady enablers, and to bring common sense, long overdue, obvious, recommended, available progressive human rights reforms and better judges and leaders to EOIR — An ongoing national disgrace!🤮

PWS

08-22-21

🇺🇸🗽BREAKING: US JUDGE IN NEVADA NIXES FEDERAL ILLEGAL REENTRY LAW AS RACIST, UNCONSTITUTIONAL — U.S. v. Carrillo-Lopez (USD Judge Miranda Du) — “The federal government’s plenary power over immigration does not give it license to enact racially discriminatory statutes in violation of equal protection,” Du wrote.

https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/nevada-judge-says-immigration-law-making-reentry-a-felony-is-unconstitutional-has-racist-origins

Michelle Rindels & Riley Snyder report for The Nevada Independent:

A federal judge in Nevada has ruled that a nearly 70-year-old section of law that makes it a felony to reenter the U.S. after being deported is unconstitutional, saying it was enacted with discriminatory intent against Latinos and therefore violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Judge Miranda Du issued an order on Wednesday dismissing a case against Gustavo [Carrillo]-Lopez, who was indicted last summer for being in the U.S. in spite of being deported in 1999 and 2012. It appears to be the first time a court has made such a decision, even though the statute known as Section 1326 has been under consideration by several district courts.

“Because Carrillo-Lopez has established that Section 1326 was enacted with a discriminatory purpose and that the law has a disparate impact on Latinx persons, and the government fails to show that Section 1326 would have been enacted absent racial animus … the Court will grant the Motion,” Du wrote.

The case is a blow for the Department of Justice (DOJ), which initially filed the charge during the Trump administration — an era of hardline immigration policies — but has since switched hands to the Biden administration. Left-leaning groups have asserted that the Trump administration had “weaponized” Section 1326 and other decades-old immigration laws as part of their “zero tolerance” immigration strategy.

Julian Castro, a former Democratic presidential candidate and secretary of the Housing and Urban Development Administration, tweeted that “this law has an incredibly racist history. I doubt the Biden DOJ will want to defend it in the appellate court.”

. . . .

The order notes that the law has a disparate impact on Latinos, noting that 87 percent of people apprehended at the border in 2010 were of Mexican descent. While the federal government argued those statistics are a function of geography and Mexico’s proximity to the U.S. rather than discrimination, Du said the argument was unpersuasive.

“The federal government’s plenary power over immigration does not give it license to enact racially discriminatory statutes in violation of equal protection,” Du wrote.

. . . .

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

Read the complete article at the link,

Great decision! Notable for you “liberal artists” that historical analysis of racism and eugenics in America presented by Kelly Lytle Hernández, a history professor at UCLA, helped make the record and carry the day!

Just the kind of interdisciplinary interaction that permeates judging, particularly in immigration and human rights, and argues for more liberal arts grads with backgrounds in history, the humanities, linguistics, demographics, and social sciences on the Immigration Bench and the Article IIIs.

I’ve long criticized the “ahistorical” sometimes “anti-historical” approach taken by the BIA and other Federal Courts! For example, promoting the fiction that treaties, laws, ombudpersons, and even elections magically change centuries’ old animuses and make everything “hunky dory” for long-persecuted social, political, ethnic, religious, or racial groups.

Now, if we can only get the Article IIIs to do their job and hold the entire EOIR system, as currently operating, which has fatal racial bias, fairness, impartiality, expertise, and operational problems that make it a “walking violation of due process,” unconstititional, we could be on the way to the change America needs to bring an end to the present national disgrace in our Immigration Courts which is diminishing justice for everyone in America.

Nevertheless, while this decision is correct, and I’d like to share Julian Castro’s optimism, I’m inclined to doubt that the DOJ will forgo an appeal. Garland has taken a lackadaisical approach to both immigrant justice and its relationship to racial justice in America. He’s also failed to reign in, redirect, or replace DOJ attorneys defending Trump-era White Nationalist policies, procedures, and bad BIA decisions in court. See my post earlier today: https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/08/18/the-gibson-report-08-16-21-compiled-by-elizabeth-gibson-esquire-ny-legal-assistance-group-garland-doj-continues-to-defend-millers-white-nationalist-agenda-in/

Additionally, despite life tenure, most Federal Courts have been reluctant to enforce the Constitution against the many Executive and Legislative abuses in the area of immigration and human rights. So, I would be disappointed, but not surprised, if this ruling is reversed on appeal.

Nevertheless, it’s an important step in exposing racism, connecting it with immigration, establishing truth, and fighting the Executive’s unconscionably bad and often illegal performance on immigration and race! While Garland might incorrectly think that immigration and human rights are “back burner” issues, by the time the NDPA is done with him they might well be issues that consume most of his time and irreparably damage his reputation. That’s why a wise Attorney General would be “leading the bandwagon for Article I” while immediately bringing in the progressive experts necessary to re-establish due process and efficiency at EOIR.

At any rate, this is exactly the kind of “creative disruption” that needs to happen until the system wakes up and makes the necessary progressive, due process, equal justice reforms long overdue at EOIR and other parts of the immigration bureaucracy.

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-18-21

👎🏽🤮EOIR DENIES DUE PROCESS, AGAIN! — Proper Notice Is “Of Signal Importance” For Due Process In Our Justice System — Except For Those In Immigration Court Where You Have To Litigate To The Circuit To Get Basic Rights Guaranteed To All! — This Is What “Dred Scottification” & “Systematic De-Personification” In A Totally Dysfunctional Outlaw Tribunal Looks Like! — Meet NDPA “Rising Star” Karen S. Monrreal, Esq., Who “Bested” Garland’s DOJ In Flores-Rodriguez v. Garland (9th Cir.)!

Dan Kowalski reports in LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca9-on-due-process-flores-rodriguez-v-garland

CA9 on Due Process: Flores-Rodriguez v. Garland

Flores-Rodriguez v. Garland

“The IJ’s failure to put Flores-Rodriguez on notice of this central issue in his case denied him “a full and fair hearing” by preventing him from submitting significant testimony and other evidence. Colmenar, 210 F.3d at 971. Because the IJ’s conduct potentially affected the outcome of the proceedings, Flores-Rodriguez has also suffered prejudice. Id. For these reasons, a due process violation warranting reversal has occurred. We express no opinion whether, if Flores-Rodriguez had received notice and defended against the claim that he had made false claims of citizenship, he would have likely prevailed or to the contrary been held inadmissible. But what is of signal importance in our system of justice is that when a person is charged with a crime or charged with allegations warranting removal from the country, that person is fairly entitled to notice of the claims against him and an opportunity to be heard in opposition. Because that opportunity was not given here, we grant the petition and remand to the BIA with instructions that it hold whatever future proceedings are necessary to ensure due process is given to Flores-Rodriguez before decision is made. PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED.”

[Hats off to Karen S. Monrreal!]

Karen S. Monrreal, Esquire
Reno, NV

******************
Many, many congrats Karen! You are quickly establishing yourself as a “fearless warrior queen” of the NDPA. 🛡⚔️ Looking forward to a time when you and others like you will take your places on the Immigration Court and other Federal Benches. That will bring some much needed, and obviously now missing, expertise, courage, humanity, practicality, and diversity to our Federal Judicial system that is stale, out of step, non-representative of our diverse nation, and floundering from top to bottom, even as the future of our democracy remains in peril.

Here’s an inspiring video about Karen and how and why she became an immigration attorney:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjisfnSorjyAhXMneAKHVkYAqMQwqsBegQIFxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D8CMfnvxMaKk&usg=AOvVaw3jOePmv5PGtnWvd2TeEB3M

Thanks for being such a great role model, Karen, for the “new generation” of the NDPA! And believe me, those of us in the “Over the Hill Brigade” of the NDPA are out there recruiting all the time!

Wow! Providing due process before making a final decision! What a radical concept! Clearly at odds with the Sessions/Barr emphasis on prejudging cases in favor of ICE enforcement and against individuals and their “dirty lawyers” out to “game” the system. That’s what the “rote form denial orders” that Sessions and Barr encouraged to generate more removals are all about! No need to know much about the law or the facts of the case. Just fill in the blanks and check “denied” and “removed!”

It’s telling, however, that even with a massive increase in judges, these “corner cutting restrictionist gimmicks” astronomically increased an already out of control backlog of cases, even while denying fair hearings to thousands! Seven months into the Biden Administration (which has the remarkable benefit of numerous “expert action plans” for reducing backlog without denying due process), that backlog continues to grow with no apparent plan for controlling it.

🔌 How many “Team Garland” Senior Officials does it take to pull this at EOIR?

Will Garland ever “pull the plug” on this parody of a “court” that keeps “blowing the basics” with human lives and futures at stake? Not very surprising when expertise is “optional” and due process takes a back seat to “cranking out removal orders” and meeting clearly unethical, due-process-denying “quotas.” Also, it’s one where a bureaucratic judicial selection process designed by the last Administration to “dumb down” and “bias out” the Immigration Courts in favor of DHS Enforcement is still in use!

One can imagine a court system where repeated significant due process violations, questionable ethics, continuing substandard legal performance, disturbing lack of subject matter expertise, grotesque inconsistencies, and statistically inexplicable patterns of anti-individual decision-making would raise some “red flags” among peers and those charged with maintaining professional standards. These days, however, it appears that only failure to meet “production quotas” or actually taking extra time to get decisions right can get an EOIR judge in hot water.

Gotta wonder what Judge Garland would have thought if one of his Article III colleagues produced “garbage work” like this on, say, a routine Federal Tort Claims case? He probably would have been pretty upset and acted accordingly.

But, where it’s only people’s lives and futures at stake — “the loss of everything that makes life worth living” as famously stated by the Supremes of yore — anything seems “good enough for government work” in Garland’s malfunctioning, yet deadly and inefficient, “clown courts.” 🤡 (NOTE: With a sense of false optimism, I had hoped to put the poor “EOIR Clown Emoji” — forced to work extreme overtime during the Trump Kakistocracy — out to rest. But, alas, Garland’s failure to take the lives and rights of migrants, not to mention the health, welfare, and sanity of my litigating colleagues, seriously, and his inability to connect the dots between officially-sanctioned injustice @ EOIR and injustice throughout our society, has forced him back into duty!)

I must admit that I don’t “get it” as to why Garland thinks this is acceptable performance by a public agency and fails to take the obvious steps to end to this ongoing disgrace that ruins human lives, frustrates hard-working private lawyers trying to do their jobs (actually the only folks, in addition to some in the NAIJ, keeping this sinking boat afloat right now), and undermines our entire justice system! It also diminishes his own reputation, stature, and legacy.

Many of us understand that the Biden Administration can never attain racial justice in America as long as racially charged injustice, lack of due process, and bad judging prevails in our Immigration Courts. Tragic that those in charge haven’t achieved that same level of enlightenment, understanding, and urgency! Delay in making long overdue progressive reforms and personnel changes costs lives, squanders resources, and further undermines our democracy!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-17-21

THE GIBSON REPORT — 06-28-21 — Compiled By Elizabeth Gibson, Esquire, NY Legal Assistance Group!

TOP NEWS

Migrant youth describe desperation to leave large shelters

AP: The children were interviewed by immigrant advocates from March to June, and their accounts were filed late Monday with a federal court in Los Angeles that oversees a longstanding settlement governing custody conditions for children who cross the border alone.

Driven by pandemic, Venezuelans uproot again to come to US

WaPo: Many of the nearly 17,306 Venezuelans who have crossed the southern border illegally since January had been living for years in other South American countries, part of an exodus of millions since President Nicolás Maduro took power in 2013.

Biden admin won’t oppose bid to revive immigration judges union

Reuters: DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) on Friday withdrew its opposition to the National Association of Immigration Judges’ motion for reconsideration of the November ruling, which said the judges were management employees who cannot unionize under federal law.

U.S. border arrests top 1 million in fiscal year 2021

Reuters: At the current pace, the total border arrests for the fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30, would be the highest since 2000, when nearly 1.7 million migrants were apprehended by U.S. authorities.

Touring the Border, Harris Asked Questions, and Had Few Answers

NYT: Advocates pushed the vice president to end Title 42, a Trump-era rule that allows the government to expel migrants for public health reasons.

Biden administration forces out Border Patrol chief, a supporter of Trump’s policies.

NYT: The Biden administration is forcing out the chief of the United States Border Patrol, Rodney S. Scott, who took over the agency during the final year of the Trump administration, a Department of Homeland Security official said on Wednesday.

U.S. planning to evacuate thousands of interpreters from Afghanistan

Politico: The plan is to use the Special Immigrant Visa category to process the interpreters once they’re moved to a third country, likely to happen in August.

NJ Senate Votes To End Immigration Detention

Law360: New Jersey is on track to join California and become the first East Coast state to ban U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facilities following a vote Thursday.

U.K. wants to send asylum seekers to offshore centers after Denmark passes similar law

WaPo: Downing Street is even exploring sharing a center in Africa with Denmark, the Times of London reported.

LITIGATION/CASELAW/RULES/MEMOS

Justices Vet Court Review Of Non-Discretionary BIA Orders

Law360: The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to assess an Eleventh Circuit decision holding that courts lack authority to review “non-discretionary” determinations by the Board of Immigration Appeals related to findings of inadmissibility.

High Court Wraps Up Moot ‘Remain In Mexico’ Suit

Law360: The U.S. Supreme Court undid two lower court rulings that blocked a Trump-era asylum policy Monday, deeming an injunction on the Migrant Protection Protocols moot three weeks after President Joe Biden formally ended the program.

BIA Remands for IJ to Determine Qualification for “Simple Possession” Exception

The BIA sustained the appeal and remanded to allow the IJ to evaluate if the respondent qualifies for the “simple possession” exception to §245(h)(2)(B) under the circumstance-specific approach. Matter of Moradel, 28 I&N Dec. 310 (BIA 2021) AILA Doc. No. 21062335

1st Circ. Won’t Nix Its Ruling On ICE Courthouse Arrests

Law360: The First Circuit stood by its decision to wipe a lower court ruling that had blocked federal immigration authorities from making arrests in and around Massachusetts courthouses, ruling Thursday that the Biden administration’s decision to curb many such arrests does not render the case moot.

CA3 Upholds BIA’s Denial of Motion to Reopen CAT Claim Based on Changed Country Circumstances in Jamaica

The court found that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in dismissing petitioner’s motion to reopen as untimely, finding that her motion did not contain any evidence that Jamaican officials would likely acquiesce to her torture if she were returned to Jamaica. (Darby v. Att’y Gen., 6/17/21) AILA Doc. No. 21062533

5th Circ. Nixes Mentally Ill Pakistani Man’s Asylum Bid

Law360: The Fifth Circuit on Thursday refused to reinstate the asylum status of a schizophrenic Pakistani man who called his brother and threatened to kill up to 50 people in Amarillo, Texas, rejecting his counsel’s arguments that his threat wasn’t serious because he’s mentally ill.

CA7 On Niz-Chavez: Avila De La Rosa V. Garland

LexisNexis: Avila de la Rosa v. Garland “Cristian Avila de la Rosa received a procedurally defective Notice to Appear for his immigration removal proceedings, and (unlike many others) he made a timely objection to that Notice. The immigration judge, however, disregarded Avila’s objection, and the Board of Immigration Appeals thereafter insisted that Avila was not entitled to relief unless he could demonstrate prejudice.

CA9 On Voluntary Departure: Zamorano V. Garland

LexisNexis: Zamorano v. Garland “Victor Luis Angeles Zamorano, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from a decision of the immigration judge (IJ) that denied his application for voluntary departure. Because the IJ failed to evaluate the factors weighing in favor of granting Zamorano voluntary departure, we grant the petition and remand.

9th Circ. Faults Credibility Finding For Asylum-Seeker

Law360: The Ninth Circuit ordered the immigration courts on Tuesday to reconsider a Ukrainian asylum-seeker’s request for protection, finding a series of errors with a judge’s ruling that the migrant wasn’t credible.

CA9 Finds Changed Country Conditions Exception Applies Where Personal Circumstances Changed in a Way Entirely Outside Petitioner’s Control

The court held that while a self-induced change in personal circumstances does not qualify for the changed country conditions exception, that principle does not apply when changed country circumstances, while personal to petitioner, are entirely outside her control. (Kaur v. Garland, 6/21/21) AILA Doc. No. 21062831

Obscure DHS Databases Make FOIA Impossible, Suit Says

Law360: An immigrant advocacy group wants to know more about the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s “obscure” network of databases and how immigration agencies store their enforcement data, but alleges that the agencies are dodging its records request in violation of the Freedom of Information Act.

DOJ Issues Guidance Regarding Adjudication of Motions to Reopen in MPP Cases

DOJ issued guidance to all immigration court and BIA personnel with information regarding the adjudication of motions to reopen in Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) cases. AILA Doc. No. 21062437

DHS Announces Expanded Criteria for MPP-Enrolled Individuals Who Are Eligible for Processing into the United States

DHS announced that it will expand the pool of MPP-enrolled individuals who are eligible for processing into the United States. Beginning June 23, 2021, DHS will include MPP enrollees who had their cases terminated or were ordered removed in absentia. AILA Doc. No. 21062332

Update Regarding VSC Address Change Announcement

In response to member inquiries, AILA updated its practice alert to inform members that the new zip code for Essex Junction is correct, however, it appears that some courier services do not yet recognize the new zip code, which goes into effect on 6/25/21. AILA Doc. No. 21061642

USCIS Will Now Provide Self-Service Kiosks for BIA and EOIR Payments

USCIS announced that, as of June 2021, will allow attorneys and accredited representatives to use self-service kiosks in USCIS field offices to pay the fees for filing an appeal of a DHS officer decision to the BIA or EOIR immigration court motions. AILA Doc. No. 21062231

RESOURCES

AILA: Conversations with Discipline Counsel Podcast Series

AILA: Country Profile: Kenya (June 2021)

AILA: Country Profile: Rwanda (June 2021)

ASISTA: ICYMI – Important Policy & Practice Updates, June 2021

CLINIC: Supreme Court Addresses Asylum Credibility in Garland v. Dai

CLINIC: Biden Administration Announces New Prosecutorial Discretion Policy

CLINIC: USCIS Policy Manual Updates on Naturalization and False Claims to Citizenship and Unlawful Voting

CLINIC: Practice Advisory: Adjustment Options for TPS Beneficiaries

CRS: Iraqi and Afghan Special Immigrant Visa Programs

ILRC: U Visa Derivatives Age-Out Practice Advisory

ILRC: Overview and Cost of Common Immigration Remedies for Youth

NILA: ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS FOR TPSHOLDERSAFTERSANCHEZV.MAYORKAS

NIP/NLG: Issue Brief: Qualified Immunity in Immigration

NIP/NLG: Borden v. United States: Supreme Court Limits Scope of “Crimes of Violence”

NIP/NLG: Advocating for Clients in Removal Proceedings Using the OPLA Prosecutorial Discretion Memo

EVENTS

6/29/21 Immigrant eligibility for public benefits

6/30/21 “Objection!” How to Object Effectively in Immigration Court

6/30/21 Immigration Update – June 2021

7/7/21-7/21/21 Webinar Series: Navigating Refugee and Asylee Issues

7/8/21-7/29/21 Webinar Series: Overview of Removal Proceedings and Orders of Removal

7/9/21 FOIA Requests with DHS

7/15/21 Using litigation to end statelessness

7/15/21 Build Bridges, Not Walls: A Journey to a World Without Borders

7/15/21 Hot Topics in Crimmigration: The Modified Categorical Approach and State Decriminalization and Reclassification Statutes

7/16/21 Review of Attorney General Decisions and BIA on Asylum In Effect and Practice Tips

7/18/21 Prosecutorial Discretion in Removal Proceedings

7/21/21 The ethics of dual representation (child and guardian) in SIJS practice

7/21/21 Ethical Considerations for Immigration Law

7/21/21 Webinar: Litigation Updates: Implications for Survivor Representation

7/22/21 PLI: Defending Immigration Removal Proceedings 2021

7/26/21 Understanding Parole

9/23/21 Representing Children in Immigration Matters 2021: Effective Advocacy and Best Practices

ImmProf

Monday, June 28, 2021

National Association of Immigration Judges

Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in Judicial Review/Adjustment of Status Case

Immigration Article of the Day: Terrorism and the Inherent Right to Self-Defense in Immigration Law by Faiza W. Sayed

Nolan Rappaport: “Border crisis deepens as governors assert control”

Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s #Pride tweet conceals a violent history

Sunday, June 27, 2021

Kenya To Expel Refugees?

Saturday, June 26, 2021

The Last Days of Immigrant Heritage Month

Medical experts urge coordinated vaccine strategy in ICE detention

Friday, June 25, 2021

“World’s Happiest Country” Seeks Migrants

On border visit, Vice President Harris cites ‘progress’ in ‘tough’ situation

Immigrant Heritage Month and a George W. Bush Presidential Center Podcast: The Story of U.S.

Thursday, June 24, 2021

From the Bookshelves: Questions for Ada by Ijeoma Umebinyuo

UCTV: Challenges & Opportunities in Central America’s Northern Triangle Region

Senator Tammy Duckworth advocates for noncitizens in military

ACLU Report: Involuntary Medical Procedures, Force-Feeding, Solitary Confinement, and Other Forms of Retaliation Against Hunger Strikers

Wednesday, June 23, 2021

EB-5 Rule, That Increased Investment Requirements, Struck Down

Casebook Supplement for Immigration and Nationality Law (Updated June 24)

Black Immigrants Are Still Fighting Racism In The U.S. Immigration System

From the “You Can’t Win” Category: “Right-Wingers Who Demanded Kamala Harris Visit the Border Are Now Mad She’s Going”

Guest Post: Two Days at the Nogales Border by Raquel Aldana (Revised June 24)

In Expert Defense of DACA

Tuesday, June 22, 2021

Your Playlist: MF DOOM

Denied MPP Asylum Applicants to Get a Second Chance

The dip in the US birthrate isn’t a crisis, but the fall in immigration may be

Supreme Court dismisses moot ‘Remain in Mexico’ case

Monday, June 21, 2021

Notification of Temporary Travel Restrictions Applicable to Land Ports of Entry and Ferries Service Between the United States and Canada

President Biden’s program for migrant children doesn’t go far enough

President Biden Will Use Border Wall Funding for Safety and Environmental Protections

Lady Liberty’s “Little Sister,” on its Way to the U.S. from France

Ending, not extending, the rocket docket in immigration court

Immigration Article of the Day: Migrant Protection Protocols and the Death of Asylum by Austin Kocher

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

Thanks for keeping us up to date, Elizabeth!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-01-21

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Deepa Fernandes reports for the SF Chron:

Ah, Yes, What Timing!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever! And, many thanks to Deepa for putting in the spotlight Garland’s disgraceful failure to lead and institute due process reforms in his dysfunctional, hopelessly backlogged, wholly-owned and unprofessionally operated Immigration “Courts.”

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports @ LexisNexis Immigration Community:

CA9 on Fundamental Fairness: Alcaraz-Enriquez v. Garland

5th Cir. on illegal in absentia, defective notice, blown MTR:

Dan Kowalski again:

CA4 on PSG: Escobar Gomez v. Garland (Unpub., 2-1)

It’s an entirely unnecessary, ongoing national disgrace!🤮

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Lydia Wheeler writes for Bloomberg Law’s Opening Argument:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

From the dissent by U.S. District Judge Edward R. Korman, EDNY, sitting by designation:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

CA6 on PSG: Zometa-Orellana v. Garland (Unpub.)

CA4 on Nexus: Aleman-Medrano v. Garland (Unpub.)

CA9 (2-1) on Right to Counsel: Usubakunov v. Garland

Natz. Victory Slams Matter of Zhang: Melara v. Mayorkas

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Guest blogger: Kelsea Villanueva, law student, University of San Francisco

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Diaz-Rodriguez v. Garland, 9th Cir., 09-10-21, published

Here’s the opinion:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Here’s “quick coverage” from Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dean Kevin Johnson posts on ImmigrationProf Blog:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever! The “New American Gulag,” Never!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Michelle Rindels & Riley Snyder report for The Nevada Independent:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports in LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts: