"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
“This court grants a petition for review of an agency denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief only under the most extraordinary circumstances. See Gutierrez-Alm, 62 F.4th at 1194; Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2021). This is one of those rare instances. For the reasons discussed above, the agency’su adverse credibility determination is amply supported by substantial evidence. But the IJ failed to properly consider and evaluate the evidentiary weight of multiple documents Kalulu offered into the record independent of her testimony, and the BIA made clear factual errors when it reviewed those documents. Because the agency’s decision therefore “cannot be sustained upon its reasoning,” this case must be remanded for the IJ or BIA to reconsider its decision. De Leon, 51 F.4th at 1008 (internal quotation marks omitted). On remand, the agency must reexamine the three declarations and medical document discussed in section III(b) to consider whether they, when properly read alongside other nontestimonial evidence in the record, independently prove Kalulu’s claims for asylum or withholding of removal. This court takes no position on whether those documents provide such proof or whether Kalulu merits any of the relief for which she applied.”
Dissent: “The majority ignores our precedent and instead concludes that the agency would have reached the same adverse credibility determination in the absence of these unsupported findings. That approach contravenes the REAL ID Act, binding circuit precedent, and fundamental principles of administrative law. I respectfully dissent.”
Many congrats to Amalia, Judah, and their NDPA team!
As my friend Dan often says about EOIR, “you can’t make this stuff up!”🤯
Well, the panel judges all agree that the BIA is wrong! It’s just a question of HOW wrong.
Note Van Dyke is a Trump appointee, and one of the most far-right judges on the bench. Murphy is a Bush II appointee. Sanchez (concur/dissent) is a Biden appointee.
The BIA has to have worked overtime to do such a miserable job that even Van Dyke couldn’t paper it over, although he took a stab at it!
The majority decision is basically a restatement of the 4th Circuit’s pre-REAL ID precedent Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361 (4th Cir. 2004). That case materially affected practices, changed results, and saved lives during my tenure at the “Legacy”Arlington Immigration Court!
So, it’s not that requiring that testimony be evaluated along with independent, non-testimonial evidence is something “new” or “rocket science!”🚀 Heck, it’s even incorporated in the REAL ID Act. This is “Immigration 101!” Yet, theBIA came up woefully short while Garland ignores fundamental flaws in his judicial system.
It’s well worth looking at a bit more of Judge Gabriel Sanchez’s vigorous separate opinion:
Petitioner Milly Kalulu, a native of Zambia, alleges she
was persecuted because she is a lesbian in a country that
criminalizes same-sex relationships. When her relationship
with a woman was discovered by her girlfriend’s brothers,
she was beaten, whipped, injected with an unknown
substance, stabbed in the chest, doused with gasoline, and
threatened with death over several violent encounters.
Kalulu submitted documentary evidence corroborating her
claims, including a copy of her medical report, a declaration
from her aunt in California, and declarations from several
Zambians who witnessed the attacks on her. The agency,
however, dismissed this evidence based on unsupportable or
trivial grounds.
I agree with the majority that the agency failed to
consider whether Kalulu’s supporting evidence
independently proves her claims for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
(CAT). “Where potentially dispositive testimony and
documentary evidence is submitted, the BIA must give
reasoned consideration to that evidence.” Cole v. Holder,
659 F.3d 762, 772 (9th Cir. 2011); see also Antonio v.
On the basis of his robust SOTU performance, I have every confidence that President Biden can more than adequately defend himself from the “Hur report.” Sadly, the same can’t necessarily be said for all the asylum seekers and other immigrants harmed by Garland’s indifference to systemic injustice in his “courts!”
This is the real “immigration crisis” that threatens our legal system and our democracy!
“Zhi Bo Chen petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming a decision of an Immigration Judge (IJ) that denied his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture, and ordered him removed from the United States. The IJ’s decision was based, in part, on its finding that Chen was not credible. Because certain reasons for that credibility finding were erroneous, and because we cannot be confident that the IJ would have made the same determination absent those errors, Chen’s petition for review is GRANTED, the BIA’s decision is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Gary Yerman, Esquire Managing Partner The Yerman Group NY, NY
*****************************
My favorite quote from the Circuit’s decision by Judge Raymond J. Lohier (Obama appointee): “We conclude that the IJ misidentified part of Chen’s testimony as inconsistent, improperly relied on trivial inconsistencies, and misconstrued as an omission a part of Chen’s testimony that comported with his Form I-589 asylum statement.”
But, even with all these glaring defects, the IJ’s findings were affirmed by the BIA without much, if any, critical analysis. What does this say about EOIR under AG Garland?
Credibility should be “bread and butter” for EOIR Judges and particularly the BIA. But, when the “culture” is “any reason to deny,” bad things happen!
As my Round Table colleague Hon. “Sir Jeffery” Chase commented: “You have to wonder what percentage of all BIA decisions contain significant errors.”
I think that’s a particular concern in unrepresented cases, which are much less likely to reach the Circuits. Additionally, the unduly restrictive legal standard for judicial review means that marginal BIA adverse credibility findings will often get “rubber stamp” affirmances from the Circuits.
Essentially, EOIR often denies the respondent “the benefit of the doubt” in close credibility cases and then the Courts of Appeals give the BIA “the benefit of the doubt.” So, it ends up being a “double whammy” for the respondent!
That’s why it is critical to have individuals effectively represented at the trial level!At each level thereafter, the law skews heavily in favor of the Government!
That also supports the position that “dedicated dockets” and “expedited dockets” that discourage and impede (one could argue intentionally) effective representation and full presentation of all the evidence should be held to be prima facie denials of due process!
It’s also why I argue that it’s so important that exceptionally well qualified experts with experience representing asylum seekers be appointed to these hugely important (yet widely ignored and under-appreciated) EOIR judgeships! Better judges would make the entire EOIR system fairer and more efficient, without sacrificing due process!
That’s also why appellate victories like this by Attorney Gary Yerman are so impressive and telling about the continuing dysfunction at EOIR!
Additionally, given the “loading of the system” against the respondent on credibility, the BIA has to REALLY screw up to get reversed, as they did in this case! That, in turn, raises a fundamental unresolved issue: Why is a Dem Administration running a specialized court system that all too often lacks the expertise and judgement to get “bread and butter” issues like this correct in the first instance?
It’s obvious that a BIA that goofs up cases like this is NOT providing the type of clear, expert guidance to IJs necessary to achieve due process and fundamental fairness on a continuing systemic basis! That should be of huge concern to everyone who values justice in America!
“Hipppity, hippity, hop! Deny, deny, deny! For any reason, in any season, or for no reason at all! Hippity, hippity, hop!” https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:
Fwd: CA2 Vacates Matter of Y-I-M-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 724 (B.I.A. 2019)
“Petitioner, a native and citizen of Ukraine, seeks review of a December 12, 2019 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Based on ostensible inconsistencies in Petitioner’s testimony and a purported failure to submit corroborating evidence, an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) entered an adverse credibility finding. However, we conclude that the adverse credibility finding is not supported by substantial evidence and that the IJ unjustifiably refused to allow Petitioner to present readily available witness testimony, thereby depriving him of a full and fair hearing. As such, we GRANT the petition for review, VACATE the BIA’s decision, and REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
First, many congrats to NDPA super lawyer John Giammatteo! Obviously (to everyone but Garland), experts like John belong on the Immigration Bench, not just in front of it!
Something is horribly wrong with a system that designates fabrications and denials of due process as “precedents” to guide other judges! Something is also disturbingly wrong with an Attorney General, a former Article III Federal Appeals Judge no less, who has failed to bring in real expert progressive judges to run EOIR, redo defective precedents as proper legal guidance, eradicate the disgraceful anti-asylum bias, and enforce due process, fundamental fairness, and decisional excellence in America’s most important “retail level” court system!
There currently are opportunities for better judges to get into the system, start eradicating bad judging like this, and replacing it with expert, due process focused, efficient, “real judging” by better judges. Get those applications in!
The “message” of Matter of Y-I-M- is clear: make it up, ignore it, cut it off, hustle off to lunch — whatever it takes to “get to no” — we’ll have your back!
“The decision is scorching,” says Dan Kowalski. And, well it should be! This is a disgusting,institutionalized travesty of justice 🤮, in life or death cases ☠️, going on right under AG Merrick Garland’s nose! It’s undermining American democracy! And, it’s totally preventable!
Remarkably, the BIA selected this pathetically bad adjudication — one that raises questions as to whether anyone at EOIR even read the record — combined with a horrendous denial of due process, and an IJ who obviously felt “empowered” to elevate time over fairness and substance — as a precedent! That means it was supposed to be a “model” for IJs — essentially a message that you should go ahead and deny asylum for any reason — even if largely fabricated — and the BIA will give you a “pass.” This actually raises some serious ethical problems with the whole EOIR mess and Garland’s indolent stewardship over this critical part of our justice system!
The IJ actually said this: “So, don’t get frustrated if I shutdown your arguments. It’s just that —we’re now at 12:00, and we’re nowhere . . . near done in the case.”
Amazingly, this IJ “touted” that cutting off relevant testimony, actually “helped” the respondent by giving him more possible reasons to appeal! Does this sound like a system that encourages “efficiency” and “excellence?”
No wonder they have backlogs coming out the wazoo! Yet, rather than slamming this IJ and using it as a precedent of how NOT to handle an asylum case, the BIA basically “greenlighted” an egregiously defective performance and made it a “model” for other judges! Outrageous!
It’s an example of why this system needs progressive, due process oriented leadership and radical reforms! Now!
A competent IJ could have granted this corroborated case and still have made their “noon lunch date!” Recognizing and institutionalizing consistent grants of relief is what “moves” the Immigration Court system without violating anyone’s rights and without tying up the Article III Courts!
Instead, because of the unchecked “culture of denial” and the incompetence allowed to flourish at EOIR, after four years this case is still bouncing around the system. That’s a key reason why EOIR is dysfunctional and their backlogs are out of control!
Correct, positive precedents establishing and enforcing best practices are essential to due process and fundamental fairness — once, but no longer, EOIR’s “vision.”
One of the “uninitiated” might logically expect that having exposed and eliminated this disingenuous “any reason to deny asylum” precedent, advocates for due process and fundamental fairness have “won this battle.” Not so in the “parallel universe” of Garland’s EOIR!
As pointed out by Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase of the Round Table:
If they follow past practice, the BIA will continue to apply this decision as a model for IJs in every circuit but the 2d.
Come on, man!
The author of the Second Circuit decision, U.S. District Judge Gary Brown has an interesting background, according to “Sir Jeffrey:”
Also, the judge who wrote the decision for the panel, Gary Brown, is a Trump appointee to the Eastern District of NY sitting by designation on this panel. When John’s argument was being mooted, we actually discovered that Judge Brown is also a renowned magician, who invented an effect called the Viking Spirit Trumpet.
Actually, Judge Brown was nominated for the bench by both President Obama and President Trump! Wonder if he has any magic spells up his sleeve that would make EOIR disappear and reappear as a real, due-process-focused court!
Magic Hat & Wand Could U.S. District Judge Gary Brown, also a famous magician, conjure up a spell that would make due process “reappear” at EOIR? PHOTO: Public Realm
Amazing how busy Article III Judges can take the time to read and understand records in asylum cases, but the BIA can’t! This system is broken!
Meaningful reform starts with a new, better qualified, expert BIA focused solely on due process, fundamental fairness, and decisional excellence. It’s very straightforward! Why doesn’t Garland “get it?” How many more will be wrongfully denied while our disconnected AG floats around in his surreal, yet deadly, “intellectual never never land?”
Lost in an intellectual fog, and far removed from the “retail level of justice,” AG Merrick Garland can’t be bothered with the injustices heaped on asylum seekers and their dedicated representatives in his dysfunctional, deny for any reason, Immigration Courts! PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
Every time I read this decision I get more and more outraged about the continuing horrors of EOIR! Attorneys could face sanctions for making material misrepresentations in briefs. Yet, nothing happens to EOIR Judges who “make it up as they go along” to deny asylum!
I was told by some withknowledge of the EOIR disaster that, at least until recently, those at higher levels of the Administration who (curiously) are “pulling the strings” at EOIR were unaware that Immigration Judges are not automatically “packaged” with Judicial Law Clerks! Duh! Anybody who has actually worked at the “line level” of EOIR as well as a whole bunch of widely available reports and studies could have told them that!
So, according to my sources, in at least some locations “flooded” with new IJs, the already poor IJ to JLC ratio has gotten much, much worse!
Just another piece of “low hanging fruit” that Garland has failed to “harvest.” I’ve also been told that problems with grade levels discourage individuals from making a career out of working in the law clerk program.
All of this makes it critical that new Immigration Judges be experts in immigration law with “hands on” experience. So, NDPA practical scholars, get those applications for judgeships in NOW! Indolence about due process at the top creates opportunities for spreading and institutionalizing due process at the “retail level!” But, that requires great judges with the right experience. So, don’t wait! Apply today!🗽⚖️👨🏾⚖️👨🏼⚖️👩🏾⚖️🧑🏻⚖️
“Any reason to deny, any reason to deny, any reason to deny, any reason to deny, any reason to deny, any reason to deny, any reason to deny . . . .” https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:
“For decades, the authoritarian regime in Cuba has utilized its police force to intimidate and physically assault political dissidents and peaceful demonstrators throughout the island. Ignacio Balaez Serra, a Cuban immigrant seeking asylum in the United States, maintains he experienced this abuse first-hand after multiple arrests, imprisonments, and beatings by the Cuban police. Serra seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of Serra’s application for asylum, withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”) (together, “Application”). The IJ denied Serra’s Application, finding Serra’s testimony “not credible.” In reaching this adverse credibility determination, the IJ cited two inconsistencies between Serra’s hearing testimony and Application. The first purported inconsistency dealt with the timing of Serra’s passage of a kidney stone; specifically, whether he passed it on the day he was beaten by Cuban police or several days thereafter. The second pertained to the number of countries Serra passed through en route to the United States; he listed ten countries in his written Application but later testified that he traveled through “about 11 or 12.” The IJ also reached his adverse credibility determination based on Serra’s perceived non-responsiveness to certain questions. On appeal, the BIA rejected the IJ’s finding that Serra was non-responsive but affirmed the IJ’s adverse credibility determination based on the two inconsistencies alone. After careful review and with the benefit of oral argument, we conclude the record lacks substantial evidence that would allow us to affirm the adverse credibility determination. We therefore reverse and remand. … [T]he IJ perceived two instances of non-responsiveness and two discrepancies in the record, resulting in an adverse credibility determination. The BIA rejected the IJ’s findings of non-responsiveness. Thus, the IJ’s adverse credibility determination hinged only on two purported inconsistencies in the record. But upon consideration of the totality of the circumstances, it is clear these inconsistences are unsupported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence—and thus cannot form the basis for an adverse credibility determination. Therefore, we grant Serra’s petition. We further vacate the BIA’s decision and the IJ’s opinion and remand this case to the IJ to rule on Serra’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under CAT in accordance with this opinion. In doing so, the IJ must ensure that all relevant factors are considered—and the totality of the circumstances ascertained—before reaching a conclusion as to credibility. PETITION GRANTED, VACATED and REMANDED.”
[Hats off to Marty High and Joshua Carpenter and Jonathan Morton for amici American Immigration Council and Immigration Justice Campaign!]
**************************
Super congrats to NDPA superstar litigators Marty High, Joshua Carpenter, and Jonathan Morton.
This respondent was a unrepresented before the IJ. Thus, we see another example of how EOIR routinely mistreats pro se litigants and why counsel is a due process necessity even in a very straightforward asylum case like this. Obviously, here, the IJ played the role of “co-counsel” to the ICE Assistant Chief Counsel. Yet, AG Garland has intentionally established “dedicated dockets” and bogus “adjudication timelines” that have been shown to reduce opportunities for representation and diminish the chances of success for asylum seekers.
To borrow a memorable phrase used by my late BIA colleague Appellate Judge FredW. Vacca, “this pathetic attempt at an adjudication” by EOIR was actually defended before the Circuit by the DOJ’s OIL. The glaring problems with immigration and asylum adjudication at DOJ begin at EOIR, but by no means end there.
This case isn’t “rocket science,” nor is it legally or factually complicated. It’s a very straightforward asylum grant to somebody persecuted by Cuba, where, in the words of the 11th Circuit, “[f]or decades, the authoritarian regime . . . has utilized its police force to intimidate and physically assault political dissidents and peaceful demonstrators throughout the island!”
I also note the statutory provision on credibility that the IJ completely bolluxed here and the “any reason to deny” BIA then “rubber stamped” (in part, even while noting that some of the IJ’s analysis was wrong) was part of the REAL ID Act, passed in 2005. That’s 15 years before the the IJ hearing in this case! Heck, I used to give training classes for incoming EOIR JLCs where decisions very much like this IJ’s were used as “teaching examples” of how NOT TO APPLY Real ID! EOIR not only isn’t making “progress,” it’s actually stuck in reverse!
Having spent eight years as an Appellate Judge at the BIA and having reviewed thousands of records, I know that when an IJ goofs up one part of the analysis it’s often indicative of an overall careless, flawed analysis that should be viewed with considerable skepticism. Yet, here the IJ’s “clear error,” acknowledged by the BIA, in basically inventing “unresponsiveness” doesn’t appear to have inspired the BIA to critically examine the rest of the adverse credibility ruling below. On the contrary, it appears to have spurred the BIA to find “any other reason to deny” despite the indication that this was an inaccurate and unreliable analysis by an IJ having a bad day.
It also appears from the Circuit’s decision that there might have been interpretation issues before both the IJ and the Asylum Office. That makes the IJ’s “cherry picking” and “excessive focus on insignificant testimonial inconsistencies” particularly egregious.
The 11th Circuit decision here was written by U.S. District Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz II, SD FL, sitting by designation. Judge Ruiz is a Trump appointee. He was joined on the panel by Judge Jill Pryor (Obama) and Judge Charles R. Wilson (Clinton) of the 11th Circuit. Thus, apparently the abysmal performance of EOIR is one of the few things capable of uniting and creating “bipartisan agreement among Article III Judges!”
Perhaps Senator Gillibrand is right, and she will be able to obtain sufficient bipartisan support for her Article I Immigration Court bill, which would remove this system from the DOJ’s chronic mismanagement. Seehttps://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/02/17/⚖️🗽-teas-coffee- Because the current situation at EOIR, the continuing indifference to injustice, and its damage to human lives and the law is totally unacceptable!
Also, what about the legal and judicial resources consumed on this and similar cases? Wouldn’t it be great if both the USG and the private sector could “redeploy” them to making the immigration justice system work, rather than correcting sophomoric, yet life threatening, errors? (Admittedly, describing the errors made by DOJ attorneys at all three levels here as “sophomoric” could be viewed as a slight to sophomores everywhere.)
Not only is EOIR’s “any reason to deny” system patently unjust, it’s a colossal waste of public resources! “Bureaucracy 101” — “Get it right at the initial level of the system.”
Of course the battle here hasn’t concluded. The remand gives EOIR yet another opportunity to screw up. Given EOIR’s current indifference to quality and fairness, I wouldn’t count on them to “get it right this time around” — even with Judge Ruiz basically providing them with the correct answer!
For some (not all) EOIR judges, ignoring the record and making up reasons to deny asylum has become “business as usual.” The BIA, dominated by notable asylum deniers, often ”papers over” or “doubles down” on mistaken denials. There are no consequences for wrongfully endangering the lives of vulnerable asylum seekers. How would YOU (or for that matter Judge Garland) like YOUR life and future to be in the hands of an organization that has lost sight of its due process and fundamental fairness mission? Why isn’t fixing this unfair national disgrace (which falls disproportionately on individuals of color and other minorities) “job one” at the Biden/Harris/Garland DOJ? https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:
“Mariana Ndudzi, a native and citizen of Angola, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision denying her appeal of an immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). She argues that the Agency erred in finding her not credible and failed to review her corroborating evidence. We vacate and remand. … The main issue in this appeal is whether the BIA erred in upholding the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. That decision is largely based on perceived contradictions between Ndudzi’s alleged statements in her CFI and her sworn testimony in her removal hearing. Ndudzi makes two arguments against the adverse credibility finding. … [N]one of the inconsistencies the Agency relied on are in fact inconsistent. … In sum, the BIA and IJ’s adverse credibility determination rests largely on “inconsistencies” in the record that are not actually inconsistent. … In summary, the BIA and IJ relied heavily on an unsupported conclusion that Ndudzi is not a credible witness. At the same time, there appears to be little dispute that, if Ndudzi’s claims are true, she would be entitled to asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A). Because the adverse credibility finding is not supported by specific and cogent reasons derived from the record, we GRANT the petition for review, VACATE the decisions of the BIA and IJ denying Ndudzi’s application for asylum and CAT relief, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“Because the adverse credibility finding is not supported by specific and cogent reasons derived from the record:”The 5th Circuit states the correct standard for adverse credibility findings, derived from BIA precedents! But, neither the IJ nor the BIA applied it! How is this professionally acceptable “judging” from supposed (but not really) “experts? Why is it tolerated at Garland’s DOJ?
Folks, stripped of the legal niceties, the most conservative Article III court in America just spent 16 pages analyzing and finding that the IJ and the BIA invented bogus “inconsistencies” to deny an otherwise clearly “grantable” asylum application from a woman who fled Angola.
Why is this type of unprofessional judicial performance, at both the trial and appellate levels of EOIR, acceptable in “life or death” cases? Why is it “OK” to submit asylum seekers to a “crap shoot” for their lives rather than giving them fair hearings before expert judges committed to great scholarship, careful analysis, and, most important, “getting it right the first time around?” Both the IJ and the BIA actually “went to some lengths” to invent reasons to disbelieve credible testimony. Isn’t unwillingness to fairly and routinely grant asylum to qualified applicants a major contributing factor in EOIR’s uncontrolled backlog? Wouldn’t getting it right at the “first level” promote efficiency and reduce the need for appellate litigation?
Also worthy of note: The 5th Circuit’s “footnote 2” punches huge holes in the myth of demeanor as an indicator of credibility:
Such deference is perhaps unfounded, however, given the wealth of contemporary psychological research suggesting that subjective perception of a witness’ demeanor is an unreliable indicator of the witness’ veracity. E.g., Mark W. Bennett, Unspringing the Witness Memory and Demeanor Trap: What Every Judge and Juror Needs to Know about Cognitive Psychology and Witness Credibility, 64 AM. U. L. REV. 1331, 1332 (2015) (“[C]ognitive psychological studies have consistently established that the typical cultural cues jurors rely on, including averting eye contact, a furrowed brow, a trembling hand, and stammering speech, for example, have little or nothing to do with a witness’s truthfulness.”); Liz Bradley & Hillary Farber, Virtually Incredible: Rethinking Deference to Demeanor When Assessing Credibility in Asylum Cases Conducted by Video Teleconference, 36 GEO. IMMIGR. L.J. 515, 535 (2022) (“Decades of research by social scientists have shown that the nonverbal ‘cues’ commonly associated with deception are based on false assumptions,” and cultural differences between an asylee and an IJ can “lead to cross- cultural misunderstandings of nonverbal cues,” especially when testimony is mediated through an interpreter).
Conscientious judges and advocates take note! In plain terms, “demeanor” is a largely bogus device used by bad judges to deny potentially valid claims. Obviously, in a “deny and deport oriented culture” like today’s EOIR (the very antithesis of the generous approach the Supremes in Cardoza and an earlier BIA in Mogharrabi said should apply to asylum adjudication), “bogus demeanor findings” become just another “device to deny protection.”
🇺🇸Due Process Forever!
PWS
07-23-22
Revised on 07-23-22 to reflect the panel’s revised opinion.
“Petitioner Mario Rajib Flores Molina (“Flores Molina”) participated in demonstrations against the ruling regime in his native Nicaragua, where he witnessed the murder of his friend and fellow protester by police and paramilitary members. Thereafter, he was publicly marked as a terrorist, threatened with torture and death by government operatives, and forced to flee his home. Flores Molina, however, was tracked down at his hideaway by armed paramilitary members, and was forced to flee for his life a second time. Flores Molina still was not safe. He was discovered, yet again, assaulted, and threatened with death by a government-aligned group. Flores Molina ultimately fled a third time— from Nicaragua altogether—out of fear for his safety. He eventually presented himself to authorities at the United States border and sought asylum and other relief. When Flores Molina sought asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) determined that his past experiences in Nicaragua did not rise to the level of persecution. They also determined that Flores Molina did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. The IJ and BIA denied all forms of relief and ordered Flores Molina’s removal to Nicaragua. Flores Molina petitions for review of the BIA’s denial of his appeal of the IJ’s decision, as well as of the BIA’s subsequent denial of his motion to reopen proceedings. Because the record compels a finding that Flores Molina’s past experiences constitute persecution and because the BIA erred in its analysis of the other issues, we grant the first petition and remand for further proceedings. Accordingly, we dismiss the second petition as moot.
[Hats off to Mary-Christine Sungaila (argued) and Joshua R. Ostrer, Buchalter APC, Irvine, California; Paula M. Mitchell, Attorney; Tina Kuang (argued) and Natalie Kalbakian (argued), Certified Law Students, Loyola Law School!]
*******************************
EOIR’s deadly, incorrect approach to sending refugees back to face persecution is legally incorrect, factually erroneous, and morally bankrupt. But, it does have one huge fan. Recently appointed Trump Ninth Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke:
In the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), Congress codified the highly deferential substantial evidence test and established what should be our court’s guiding star in the review of immigration decisions: that “administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” INA § 242(b)(4)(B) (codified as 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (emphasis added)). Congress later amended the INA by passing the REAL ID Act, further reining in our role and discretion as a reviewing court and stripping federal courts of jurisdiction to hear certain immigration claims. See Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683, 1698 (2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). Over time, however, this court’s decisions have chipped away at these statutory standards—broadening the scope and standard of our review far beyond the limited and deferential posture that Congress unmistakably set out in the INA. See id.
To properly apply our deferential standard of review, we are supposed to scour the record to answer a single question: could any reasonable adjudicator have agreed with the agency’s result, or does the record as a whole compel a different conclusion? See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992) (explaining that substantial evidence review requires that we review “the record considered as a whole” and reverse the agency only if no reasonable factfinder could agree with its conclusion); see also Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1995) (describing Elias-Zacarias as “the touchstone” and “definitive statement of ‘substantial evidence’ in the context of . . . factual determinations in asylum cases”). On its face, this is an exceptionally deferential standard of review. But there’s more.
“Scour the record” to defeat asylum claims that should have been granted below, huh?That clearly defective, biased, one-sided approach is “due process and fundamental fairness” for a “person” under our Constitution? Or maybe asylum seekers of color aren’t “persons” to VanDyke and his righty cronies? That’s how VanDyke would like the Constitution applied if his life were at stake?
He’d like to use legal mumbo-jumbo to allow refugees to have their lives ended or threatened by non-expert decision makers making it up as the go along to deny meritorious claims. Under his “standard of review,” judicial review would be no review at all. Just scour the record for any obscure reason to deny asylum or, failing that, just make one up. Doesn’t matter as long as the individual loses and gets removed! That’s pretty much what too many EOIR judges and BIA “panels” (which can be a single judge) are already doing. Why add another layer of intellectual dishonesty, moral corruption, and absence of judicial ethics to the mess?
Mr. Flores-Molina is not buy any means the only one subjected to Judge VanDyke’s loony right-wing legal nonsense.You can “meet” the judge right here:
“The Rude Trump Judge Who’s Writing the Most Bonkers Opinions in America.”
One might legitimately ask why already vulnerable asylum seekers and their courageous lawyers are being subjected to such judicial abuse at all levels of our system. Why doesn’t Garland just appoint “real, expert, fair EOIR Judges” who will do the right thing at the “retail level” without having to enter the “appellate circus” 🤡 that Trump and the GOP have created?
“[T]he BIA upheld an adverse credibility determination that the IJ reached in part based on an inconsistency in Reyes’s story that simply was not an inconsistency. Nor can we say that absent the adverse credibility finding, Reyes’s CAT claim would necessarily fail. We therefore must vacate the BIA’s ruling affirming the IJ’s denial of that claim. … Reyes’s petition for review is granted, the ruling of the BIA is vacated, and we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Here’s a key sentence from the preamble to the L.A. Declaration on Migration and Protection:
We are committed to protecting the safety, dignity, human rights, and fundamental freedoms of all migrants, refugees, asylum seekers, and displaced and stateless persons regardless of their migratory status.
So I’d like to know how the following fit within our solemn commitment to “protecting the safety, dignity, human rights, and fundamental freedoms of all migrants, refugees, asylum seekers?”
Falsely finding that systematic assaults, death threats, being driven from your home, and being tracked down after fleeing, carried out by a Nicaraguan Government so repressive that it wasn’t even invited to the L.A. Conference, do not constitute persecution; and
Inventing a bogus inconsistency in an asylum seeker’s testimony and using it to wrongfully deny asylum.
Clearly they don’t! And, this kind of official misconduct goes on somewhere at EOIR on both levels every day! Just ask any experienced asylum practitioner! So, why hasn’t Garland replaced the EOIR judges who are not qualified to be deciding asylum claims with readily available expert talent?
Asylum seekers face systematically unfair treatment by “judges” who serve at Garland’s pleasure. Many of those judges, particularly at the BIA, were appointed or “elevated” by Garland’s openly xenophobic, virulently anti-asylum predecessors during the Trump regime. Yet, inexplicably, they continue to inflict bad decisions and sloppy, legally defective, morally vapid work on the most vulnerable? Why?
What if we had an expert, due-process-oriented Immigration Court that uniformly interpreted asylum law correctly and actually granted much-needed and well-deserved protection? What if asylum seekers didn’t have to enter the “Circuit Court crap shoot” — or deal with bad “no review is judicial review” judges like Judge VanDyke — to get life-saving justice? What if the rule of law and human rights were honored and advanced in Immigration Court rather than being mocked and disparaged? What if Immigration Courts modeled good judicial behavior instead of operating as a shockingly dysfunctional parody of due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices?
Wouldn’t it be better for everyone?
Perhaps there is some modest movement in the right direction. I’ve received reports from at least two Immigration Courts that unqualified Trump-era appointees have been removed over over the past week. That’s a start! But, it will take lots more “removals or reassignments” and a complete “redo” of the mal-functioning BIA to get due process, expertise, fundamental fairness, and best (as opposed to worst) judicial practices back on track at EOIR!
“Elvis Njenula Yahm, a citizen of Cameroon facing removal, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) based on his pro-Anglophone political opinion. An immigration judge denied all three avenues for relief, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Yahm’s appeal. … A recent decision supports Yahm’s view that an adverse credibility finding does not relieve the agency of its obligation to also consider documentary support for a CAT claim. See Arulnanthy v. Garland, 17 F.4th 586 (5th Cir. 2021). … Because Yahm offered nontestimonial evidence of country conditions in Cameroon, the BIA erred by not considering it in the context of his CAT claim and instead treating Yahm’s lack of credibility as dispositive. See Arulnanthy, 17 F.4th at 598. Yahm’s petition for review is GRANTED and these proceedings are REMANDED for the BIA to address the CAT claim consistent with Arulnanthy.”
Way to go, Keith! Congrats! Winning justice for asylum seekers in the 5th Circuit is no mean feat!
The 5th Circuit decision in Arulnanthy sounds very much like the 4th Circuit’s decision in Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F. 3d 361 (4th Cir. 2004). Camara actually changed for the better the preparation, presentation, and most of all results in asylum cases in the 4th Circuit.
I consider it the “precursor” to the REAL ID provision now incorporated in the INA requiring IJ’s and the BIA to consider the “the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors,” in making credibility determinations. If that is actually done, which it isn’t in far too many cases in today’s broken Immigration Courts, the results are likely to be far more positive for asylum seekers and other respondents seeking relief in Immigration Court.
The “Camara effect” was real. For example, in 2004, on the “eve of Camara,” the asylum denial rate at the Arlington Immigration Court, where I sat, in the 4th Circuit, was in excess of 70%. By the time I retired in 2016, it was the polar opposite. The asylum grant rate exceeded 70%! SOURCE: TRAC Immigration.
Of course, no one factor is responsible for that positive change. And, I acknowledge that in the Charlotte Immigration Court, also in the 4th Circuit, where several judges were reknowned for their hard-core anti-asylum attitudes, the denial rates remained disturbingly above the national average. And, of course, the “institutionalized anti-asylum bias” ushered in and promoted at EOIR by the Trump regime resulted in another dramatic, totally unjustified, downturn in asylum grants by EOIR across America after 2016.
Nevertheless, positive appellate guidance on asylum is a major factor in establishing and maintaining due process in the Immigration Courts. Unfortunately, almost none of that expert positive guidance on asylum and other forms of relief comes from Garland’s BIA precedents. Additionally, although some of his appointments have been welcome, overall, Garland has done a very poor job of bringing in dynamic progressive expert leaders and judges to reverse the anti-asylum, anti-due-process, anti-immigrant “culture” that continues to haunt EOIR at all levels.
The “results” of his dysfunctional courts speak for themselves. Backlogs build, Circuit Courts struggle with EOIR’s poor “haste makes waste” work product, and decisional consistency on asylum is shockingly, “tragicomically” lacking!
In almost all ways, this system has seriously regressed in the past decade, even while eating up more resources! That’s about as much of an “engineered lose-lose” as one can imagine! Yet, Biden, Harris, and Garland appear impervious to this glaring, “fixable” problem that threatens our entire justice system!
Shouldn’t racial justice advocates be all over Garland, Monaco, Gupta, and Clarke for the EOIR’s disgraceful performance on asylum claims involving Cameroonians and other applicants of color! If not, why not? The entire “progressive social justice community” should be expressing “collective outrage” to the Biden Administration about the Garland DOJ’s disgraceful performance at EOIR and on other human rights issues involving race and immigration.
It’s also worthy noting, as my Round Table colleague retired Judge Jeffrey Chase has pointed out before, that the Biden Administration has granted TPS to Cameroonians in the U.S.So, there is really no issue about the truly miserable human rights conditions there. That is, apparently, except in Garland’s Immigration Courts where the “programmed to deny” and “good enough for government work” mentalities continue to prevail — even where the stakes are life or death!
Additionally, the regulations implementing the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) at EOIR initially became effective on Mar. 22, 1999 — over two decades ago. I remember that at one of the next Immigration Judge Conferences, probably in 1999 or 2000, the training specifically instructed that because of the country-conditions related nature of CAT, adverse credibility rulings against a respondent were not determinative of CAT claims.
Yet, more than two decades later, Immigration Judges and, worse yet, the BIA are still making that same fundamental error! How does this make the idea that EOIR is an “expert court” or that “constitutional due process is being protected at EOIR” anything other than a “sick joke.” Yet, the mockery of justice continues and nobody at Justice, from the top down, is being held accountable for stomping on life-determining legal and Constitutional rights! Why?
“Petitioner Giscard Nkenglefac, a native and citizen of Cameroon, applied for admission into the United States on May 9, 2018. The immigration judge (“IJ”), Agnelis Reese, denied Nkenglefac’s application for relief from removal and ordered him removed to Cameroon after determining that Nkenglefac was not credible. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) subsequently affirmed the IJ’s determination, and Nkenglefac was removed to Cameroon. Nkenglefac now petitions for review of the BIA’s dismissal of his appeal from the IJ’s denial of application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Nkenglefac challenges the IJ’s reliance on his U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) and asylum credible fear interviews that were not entered into the hearing record of the removal proceeding, nor, indeed, raised in that hearing at all, to make an adverse credibility finding. … Nkenglefac argues that the IJ erred as a matter of law by drawing negative credibility inferences from summaries of his CBP and credible fear interviews because neither interview was submitted into the record during his proceeding, much less adverted to. Nkenglefac also argues that he did not waive this argument because he could not have raised the issue before the IJ given that he had no notice the IJ would rely on these documents prior to issuance of her decision. … [A]t no point during the hearing before the IJ was Nkenglefac provided with the opportunity to explain any apparent inconsistencies or dispute the accuracy of the records in question, or cross examine the individuals who prepared the interview summaries, much less object to their introduction, or offer views on weight to be given to the evidence. Inspection of the hearing record confirms that Nkenglefac was not given the opportunity to explain perceived inconsistencies in the government summaries of his prior uncounseled interviews.5 Indeed, the voluminous testimonial record, including extensive government cross-examination and IJ direct inquiry, gives no indication that Nkenglefac had previously made any inconsistent statements, yet the IJ, three months later, determined that “inconsistencies and omissions . . . undermine critical parts of Respondent’s claim” to such an extent that the court denied “Respondent’s application based on lack of credibility.” … The BIA majority—affirming the IJ’s decision—also determined that Nkenglefac’s argument regarding the absence of the CBP and credible fear interviews from the record was “waived” because “the [trial] transcript reflects that [Nkenglefac’s] former counsel never requested that these records . . . be made a part of the record.” However, we fail to understand why Nkenglefac’s counsel should have introduced these government summaries into the record to anticipate and explain later-perceived inconsistencies when they were never identified, referenced, or discussed. It is also worth noting that there is no evidence—beyond the statement of the BIA majority—that Nkenglefac’s counsel failed to preserve this issue on appeal. The issue was discussed at length in Nkenglefac’s appeal brief to the BIA and again in his brief to this court. Furthermore, this observation stands in contravention to existing BIA law that “an adverse credibility determination should not be based on inconsistencies that take an alien by surprise.” Matter of Y-I-M-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 724, 726-29 (BIA 2019) (quote at 726). Notably, the Government’s brief on appeal does not argue that Nkenglefac has waived this argument. … We GRANT the petition for review and REMAND this case to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
[Hats waaaayyyy off to Homero López, Jr., who reports that he is in touch with his client and is hopeful of bringing him back to the USA. Audio of the oral argument is here.]
Once again, credibility, the problematic issue in this case, is not a profound legal concept. It’s supposedly the “bread and butter of Immigration Judging.” Yet, both the IJs and the BIA continue to often get it wrong. Perhaps “dead wrong” in the cases of asylum seekers! Why isn’t this fundamental flaw at the all-important “retail level” of our justice system receiving the necessary attention and corrections from Garland and the Biden Administration?
As one “Courtside Commenter” said:
I think this is the IJ who retired with a 100% asylum denial rate [actually it was 99.4%, denying 155 of 156 claims she “heard” — but didn’t listen to — over a career that lasted far too long]!And Cameroon is now a TPS country.
This decision is proof perfect of EOIR’s deportation assembly line approach.And I’ve mentioned a number of times the alarming problems with CBP arrival statements noted by the US Commission for International Religious Freedom, an internal government component, which has repeatedly flagged the fact that the resulting “statements” are not the verbatim transcripts they appear to be, and often contain questions that were never actually asked of the respondent.
As pointed out in the above comment, Cameroon is now a TPS country. Additionally, one of the “five top nationalities” that came before this “asylum denial machine” were asylum seekers from Eritrea. Although they found no success with her, the EOIR statistics for FY 2022 show that that every “merits decision” on Eritrean asylum was granted. There were exactly ZERO, “0” merits denials. Seehttps://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1107366/download.
Thankfully, Judge Reese has retired. But the endemic problems she symbolized, the lack of effective appellate review, and disdain for due process for asylum seekers by the BIA remain overarching problems that Garland has stubbornly failed to effectively address.
Additionally, in another “under the radar yet highly significant problem,” Garland’s OIL within the USDOJ Civil Division continues to “defend the indefensible” coming out of the BIA. This wastes Government and private sector litigation resources, not to mention precious Article III Court time. It also turns due process and immigrant justice in the U.S. into a random game of chance.
Obviously, there is a severe lack of leadership all over the USDOJ under Garland. Moving toward the “halfway point” in the Biden Administration, there still is no appointed and confirmed Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division!
The need for effective assistance of counsel applies in immigration law just as it does in criminal law. Aliens, many of whom do not speak English and some of whom are detained before their immigration hearings, can be particularly susceptible to the consequences of ineffective lawyers.
Petitioner Arckange Saint Ford paid a lawyer to represent him in removal proceedings, but Saint Ford’s requests for relief from deportation were denied after the lawyer failed to present important and easily available evidence going to the heart of Saint Ford’s claims. Saint Ford retained new counsel, and his new lawyer asked the Board of Immigration Appeals to reopen his case because of his former attorney’s ineffective assistance. The Board declined to do so. Because Saint Ford presents a meritorious ineffective-assistance claim, we will vacate the Board’s decision and remand.
And concurring Judge Ambro had a harsh assessment of the IJ, the BIA, and most of all A.G. Garland, who has been remarkably “tone deaf” about correcting the grotesque expertise and due process problems in his “wholly owned, astoundingly dysfunctional” Immigration “Courts:”
Arckange Saint Ford will get a second shot at canceling the Government’s order of removal—that’s what matters. The majority is remanding because of his former counsel’s deficient performance at Saint Ford’s removal hearing. I agree with that and concur in full.
But former counsel was not the only one who made significant missteps at the hearing. The Immigration Judge did as well. I therefore would have granted Saint Ford’s initial petition for review and remanded on that basis. I write separately to explain these errors in the hope that similar ones will not be made at Saint Ford’s new hearing.
. . . .
Here, though it was reasonable to request Saint Ford corroborate his testimony about the identity and motive of his harassers, the IJ did not tell him what corroboration she needed or give him a chance to present that evidence. There is no indication she engaged in the Abdulai inquiry as required before skipping straight to “hold[ing] the lack of corroboration against [Saint Ford].” Id. (alterations adopted). She went from first to third across the pitcher’s mound. Our Abdulai inquiry is there to ensure these important corners aren’t cut.
**************
What’s wrong with this picture? Going on two decades after the enactment of the REAL ID Act, this IJ gets basic corroboration wrong on a life or death asylum case. Then, she compounds the error by failing to apply a two-decades old circuit precedent. The case sails through the BIA. Then, Garland’s OIL defends the indefensible. “Corner cutting” has become institutionalized, permitted, and even encouraged in today’s broken EOIR!
Meanwhile, it’s left to Circuit Judge Ambro to do the jobs of Garland, his failed BIA, and an IJ badly in need of remedial training! This is an expert tribunal? This is justice? This is due process? Gimmie a break!
This is squarely on Garland! He enables and defends defective, due-process-denying decisions by EOIR. His grotesque failure to appoint and empower a BIA that will end this nonsense and insist on competent legal performance from ALL Immigration Judges in these life or death cases is disgraceful!
Cases like this also “give lie” to the bogus claims that today’s EOIR is comprised of “experts” who can be trusted to remedy due process defects, model best practices, or (perhaps most absurdly) insure that the rights of all respondents, including the unrepresented, are protected. Why is a Dem Administration running a “due process denial machine?” Why is OIL defending the indefensible? Why is Garland still the AG, despite showing little interest and scant skill in creating a due process/fundamental fairness oriented tribunal at the “retail level” of our staggering justice system!
You don’t have to be a “rocket scientist” to trace the disrespect for the Constitutional, statutory, and human rights of migrants, largely individuals of color, to hate crimes, misogyny, curtailment of voting rights, and disrespect for equal justice and racial justice throughout our nation. The stunningly poor performance of the U.S. Immigration Courts under Garland also sets an unfortunate tone for the staggering and highly politicized Federal Court system from bottom to top!
“Jose Ernesto Menjivar Bonilla, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial of his application for withholding of removal under Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) Section 241(b)(3) and relief under Article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We grant the petition in part and remand for further proceedings. … [B]ecause the IJ’s assessments of Bonilla’s credibility and the decision to require corroborating evidence were based in significant part on discrepancies with the 2012 Record, which we have determined to be unreliable, further factfinding is required. See Mboowa v. Lynch, 795 F.3d, 222, 229 (1st Cir. 2015) (finding remand warranted where a central aspect of the agency’s credibility assessment is flawed). Accordingly, we remand to the agency for further factfinding. Guta-Tolossa v. Holder, 674 F.3d 57, 61 (1st Cir. 2011) (“Where a question is best resolved by the agency in the first instance, or is left primarily in the agency’s hands by statute, and the agency has failed to address that question, we generally must remand.”); see also Kho v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 50, 56 (1st Cir. 2007) (“If, in the absence of a credibility finding by the IJ, a reviewing court determines that such a finding is necessary for effective review of the case, it may remand to the agency for further factfinding.”). Accordingly, we vacate the denials of withholding and relief under the CAT and remand for further consideration consistent with this opinion.”
Let’s see, an IJ gets it wrong, a “single member BIA panel” summarily affirms w/o opinion, and a three member panel of the First Circuit unanimously reverses in a published opinion!
“Cristian Josue Diaz Ortiz, a native of El Salvador, seeks review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial of his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) rejection of Diaz Ortiz’s petition for relief rested on an adverse credibility determination that primarily drew its support from a “Gang Assessment Database.” Flaws in that database, including its reliance on an erratic point system built on unsubstantiated inferences, compel us to conclude that the credibility judgment — and, in turn, the rejection of Diaz Ortiz’s request for relief — is not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we grant the petition for review and remand for new immigration proceedings.”
Nkemchap Nelvis Takwi seeks review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from a removal order entered by an Immigration Judge (IJ) and denying his motion to remand. Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, we grant the petition for review. We remand this matter to the BIA because the IJ did not make an explicit adverse credibility determination, and the BIA did not afford Mr. Takwi the required rebuttable presumption of credibility.
Just for a good measure, the 9th Circuit also “busted” Garland’s BIA on an agfel issue:
“Petitioner Longinos Togonon, a native and citizen of the Philippines, was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 2013. In 2015, he was convicted of arson in violation of California Penal Code § 451(b) and sentenced to three years of imprisonment. In 2018, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against Togonon, alleging (as relevant for our purposes) that his arson offense qualifies as an “aggravated felony.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) (“Any alien who is convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after admission is deportable.”). The Immigration and Nationality Act defines the term “aggravated felony” to include “an offense described in” 18 U.S.C. § 844(i). 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(E)(i). The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held that a conviction under California Penal Code § 451(b) is an offense described in 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) and that Togonon is therefore subject to removal from the United States. Reviewing that decision de novo, see Sandoval v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 986, 988 (9th Cir. 2017), we conclude that the BIA erred in so holding. We accordingly grant Togonon’s petition for review.”
[Hats off to pro bono publico appointed counsel Matthew N. Ball (argued), Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Denver, Colorado; Paul J. Collins, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Palo Alto, California; Andrew T. Brown and Matt Aiden Getz, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Los Angeles, California!]
*****************************
The First Circuit decision was 4-3. It appears that the respondent’s lawyers, experts, and the majority did the careful, critical analysis that the BIA failed to perform. Even the dissenters, who got it wrong, appear to have spent more time and thought on this issue than Garland’s BIA.
The Tenth Circuit decision highlights “Basic Asylum 101” failures by both the IJ and the BIA. It’s not that hard to make a specific credibility finding in every case. I did it in every contested asylum case I heard over 13 years on the bench. Nor is applying the presumption of credibility on appeal profound.
I’ll concede that the 9th Circuit agfel issue was more tricky. But, the BIA’s practice of almost always going with the most expansive, pro-DHS interpretations of the agfel definition to maximize deportation and minimize relief doesn’t help.
Garland’s “right hand man” on EOIR matters is eerily familiar, in a Himmleresque way! Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com“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 LicenseBIA 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:
“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.”
Congrats to Attorney Ronald D. Richey, who appeared before me many times at the Arlington Immigration Court.
Ronald D. Richey, Esquire Rockville, MD
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!
Just look the other way, it’s the Garland way! “Justice” Star Chamber Style
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!
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!
GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL v. MING DAI CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 19–1155. Argued February 23, 2021—Decided June 1, 2021*
In each of these cases, a foreign national appeared before an immigration judge (IJ) and requested that he not be returned to his country of origin. For Cesar Alcaraz-Enriquez, the IJ first had to determine whether Mr. Alcaraz-Enriquez had committed a disqualifying “partic- ularly serious crime” based on his prior California conviction for “in- flicting corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant.” See 8 U. S. C. §1231(b)(3)(B)(ii). The IJ considered both the probation report issued at the time of the conviction (which detailed a serious domestic vio- lence incident) and Mr. Alcaraz-Enriquez’s own testimony at the re- moval proceeding (which included an admission that he hit his girl- friend but allegedly did so in defense of his daughter). Relying in part on the version of events in the probation report, the IJ held Mr. Al- caraz-Enriquez ineligible for relief. On appeal, the Bureau of Immi- gration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. In Ming Dai’s case, he testified that he and his family had suffered past persecution by Chinese officials and expected future persecution upon return. But Mr. Dai initially failed to disclose that his wife and daughter had both returned volun- tarily to China since accompanying him to the United States. When confronted, Mr. Dai told the “real story” of why he remained in the United States. The IJ found that Mr. Dai’s testimony undermined his claims and denied relief. On appeal, the BIA affirmed. Mr. Alcaraz- Enriquez and Mr. Dai each sought judicial review, and in each case, the Ninth Circuit noted that neither the IJ nor the BIA made an ex- plicit “adverse credibility determination” under the Immigration Na- tionality Act (INA). §§1158(b)(1)(B)(iii), 1231(b)(3)(C), 1229a(c)(4)(C).
——————
* Together with No. 19–1156, Garland v. Alcaraz-Enriquez, also on cer- tiorari to the same court.
2 GARLAND v. MING DAI Syllabus
Applying its own judge-made rule that a reviewing court must treat the noncitizen’s testimony as credible and true absent an explicit ad- verse credibility determination, the Ninth Circuit granted relief.
Held: The Ninth Circuit’s deemed-true-or-credible rule cannot be recon- ciled with the INA’s terms. Pp. 6–15.
(a) The Ninth Circuit’s rule has no proper place in a reviewing court’s analysis. The INA provides that a reviewing court must accept “administrative findings” as “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudi- cator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” §1252(b)(4)(B). And a reviewing court is “generally not free to impose” additional judge-made procedural requirements on agencies. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U. S. 519, 524.
Judicial proceedings in cases like these do not constitute “appeals” in which the “rebuttable presumption of credibility on appeal” applies absent an explicit credibility determination. §§1158(b)(1)(B)(iii), 1231(b)(3)(C), 1229a(c)(4)(C). Here, there is only one appeal—from the IJ to the BIA. See §§1158(d)(5)(iii)–(iv). Subsequent judicial review takes place not by appeal, but by means of a “petition for review,” which the INA describes as “the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an order of removal.” §1252(a)(5). A presumption of credi- bility may arise in some appeals before the BIA, but no such presump- tion applies in antecedent proceedings before an IJ or in subsequent collateral review before a federal court. This makes sense because re- viewing courts do not make credibility determinations, but instead ask only whether any reasonable adjudicator could have found as the agency did. The Ninth Circuit’s rule gets the standard backwards by giving conclusive weight to any testimony that cuts against the agency’s finding. Pp. 6–9.
(b) Mr. Alcaraz-Enriquez and Mr. Dai offer an alternative theory for affirming the Ninth Circuit. Because, they say, they were entitled to a presumption of credibility in their BIA appeals, they are entitled to relief in court because no reasonable adjudicator obliged to presume their credibility could have found against them. Even assuming that there was no explicit adverse credibility determination here, the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning is flawed for at least two reasons. Pp. 10–15.
(1) The presumption of credibility on appeal under the INA is “re- buttable.” And the INA contains no parallel requirement of explicit- ness when it comes to rebutting the presumption on appeal. Reviewing courts, bound by traditional administrative law principles, must “up- hold” even “a decision of less than ideal clarity if the agency’s path may reasonably be discerned.” Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., 419 U. S. 281, 286. In neither case did the Ninth
Cite as: 593 U. S. ____ (2021) 3 Syllabus
Circuit consider the possibility that the BIA implicitly found the pre- sumption of credibility rebutted. The BIA expressly adopted the IJ’s decision in Mr. Alcaraz-Enriquez’s case, which, in turn, noted that Mr. Alcaraz-Enriquez’s story changed from the time of the probation report to the time of the hearing—a factor the statute specifically identifies as relevant to credibility, see §§1158(b)(1)(B)(iii), 1231(b)(3)(C), 1229a(c)(4)(C). And in Mr. Dai’s case, the BIA also adopted the IJ’s decision, which discussed specific problems with Mr. Dai’s demeanor, candor, and internal inconsistency—an analysis that certainly goes to the presumption of credibility even if the agency didn’t use particular words. See ibid. In each case, the Ninth Circuit should consider whether the BIA in fact found the presumption of credibility overcome. If so, it seems unlikely that the conclusion in either case is one no rea- sonable adjudicator could have reached. Pp. 10–13.
(2) The presumption of credibility applies with respect to credibil- ity but the INA expressly requires the noncitizen to satisfy the trier of fact on credibility, persuasiveness, and the burden of proof. §§1158(b)(1)(B)(ii), 1231(b)(3)(C), 1229a(a)(4)(B). Even if the BIA treats a noncitizen’s testimony as credible, the agency need not find such evidence persuasive or sufficient to meet the burden of proof. Here, the Ninth Circuit erred by treating credibility as dispositive of both persuasiveness and legal sufficiency. Pp 13–15.
884 F. 3d 858 and 727 Fed. Appx. 260, vacated and remanded. GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
*********************************
Can’t win ‘em all: The Round Table filed an amicus brief on behalf of the respondent in this case. Sadly, on this occasion, we didn’t convince anyone.☹️
Attorney General Hon. Merrick B. Garland — Are these really what “A” papers looked like when he was at Harvard Law? If not, how come it’s now “good enough for government work” when it’s only the lives of the most vulnerable among us at stake?” Official White House Photo Public RealmDan Kowalski Online Editor of the LexisNexis Immigration Law Community (ILC)
Dan Kowalski forwards these two 2d Circuit reversals on basic “bread and butter” issues: 1) mental competency (BIA unable or unwilling to follow own precedent); 2) credibility; 3) corroboration; 4) consideration of testimony and evidence:
These aren’t “cases of first impression,” “Circuit splits,” complex questions involving state law, unusual Constitutional issues, or difficult applications of treaties or international law. No, these are the “basics” of fair, competent adjudication in Immigration Court. Things most law students would get correct that IJs and BIA Appellate Judges are getting wrong on a daily basis in their “race to deny.”
Don’t kid yourself! For every one of these “caught and outed” by Circuit Courts, dozens are wrongly railroaded out of America because they are unrepresented, can’t afford to pursue judicial review in the Article IIIs, or are duressed and demoralized by unconstitutional detention and other coercive methods applied by the “unethical partnership” between EOIR and ICE enforcement.
Others have the misfortune to be in the 5th Circuit, the 11th Circuit, or draw Circuit panels who are happy to “keep,the line moving” by indolently “rubber stamping” EOIR’s “Dred Scottification” of “the other.” After all, dead or deported (or both) migrants can’t complain and don’t exercise any societal power! “Dead/deported men or women don’t talk.”☠️⚰️ But, members of the NDPA will preserve and tell their stories of unnecessary human suffering and degradation for them! We will insure that Garland, Monaco, Gupta, and others in the Biden Administration who ignored their desperate moans and tortured screams in their time of direst need are held accountable!🤮
Unfortunately, these decisions are unpublished. They should be published! It’s critically important that the daily gross miscarriages of justice @ EOIR be publicly documented, citable as precedent, and serve as a permanent record of perhaps the most unconstitutional and corrupt episode in modern American legal history.
It’s also essential to keep the pressure on Garland and his so far feckless lieutenants to fix the problem:
Remove the Trump/Miller holdovers @ EOIR;
Prune out the “go along to get along” deadwood;
Rescind the improper hiring of 17 “Billy the Bigot” judicial selections (including the one absurdist selection by “AG for a Day Monty Python” — talk about a “poke in the eyes with a sharp stick” to progressives);
Bring in top notch progressive practical scholars as leaders and REAL judges at both the appellate and trial levels of EOIR –NOW;
Make the “no brainer” changes to eradicate Trump-era unethical, xenophobic “precedents” and inane “rules” and establish due process and fundamental fairness, including, of course, racial and gender equity in decision making.
So far, Garland has pretended that the “Culture of Denial” flourishing under his nose at HIS EOIR doesn’t exist! It does exist — big time — and it continues to get worse, threaten more lives, and squander more resources every day!
Due process (not to mention simple human decency) requires bold, immediate ACTION. Garland’s continued dawdling and inaction raises the issue of what is the purpose of an Attorney General who allows his “delegees” (basically Stephen Miller’s “judges”) to violate due process every day! There is no more important issue facing the DOJ today. Garland’s silence and inaction raise serious questions about his suitability to serve as the American public’s top lawyer!
Garland, Monaco, and Gupta appear to be enjoying their “Miller Lite Happy Hour @ DOJ.” Those communities of color and women suffering from their indolence and inaction, not so much! — “Miller Lite” – Garland’s Vision of “Justice @ Justice” for Communities of ColorAbused, battered refugee women don’t appear to be enjoying “Miller Lite Time” @ DOJ quite the way Garland, Monaco, and Gupta are! Hard to hold that 16 oz. can when your hands are shackled and you are being “racked” by A-B-, L-E-A-, Castro-Tum and other “Miller brewed” precedents. “She struggled madly in the torturing Ray” Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
With respect to the new evidence that Cuesta Rojas presented to the BIA regarding corroboration, the BIA stated in summary fashion in its opinion that “the newly submitted evidence does not address or resolve the credibility concerns raised by the Immigration Judge,” and then added that it declined to “remand [the] proceedings to the Immigration Court for further consideration” of that evidence.
At oral argument before us, the government represented that, in the event we were to vacate and remand the agency’s
continue[] to be a common government method for controlling independent public expression and political activity.”
– 28 –
decision even without addressing these findings regarding corroboration as such, the evidence concerning corroboration just described that the BIA appeared not to consider in depth would be treated as part of the record for the IJ to review. And we understand, in consequence, that the documents in question — which purport to corroborate two attacks that resulted in injuries to Cuesta Rojas, his political activity in Cuba, and the concern it drew from Cuban authorities — will be given such weight as it may warrant.
In light of that representation, and the fact that our ruling as to the discrepancies finding suffices to require us to vacate and remand, see Mukamusoni, 390 F.3d at 122 (explaining that it is error to treat an asylum applicant’s testimony as if it were “weaker than it actually was” and to then “demand[] a higher level of corroboration” on that mistaken basis than otherwise would be required); see also Mboowa, 795 F.3d at 229 (explaining that “[i]n the ordinary course we do not . . . attempt to read the tea leaves” in the event that a central aspect of the agency’s credibility assessment is flawed); Castañeda-Castillo v. Gonzales, 488 F.3d 17, 25-26 (1st Cir. 2007) (en banc) (similar),7 we need
Cf. also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (“The testimony of the applicant, if credible, may be sufficient to sustain the burden of proof without corroboration.”); 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii) (similar).
7
– 29 –
not resolve the aspects of Cuesta Rojas’s petition for review that concern the IJ and the BIA’s corroboration findings. Rather, consistent with the government’s representation about what the record will consist of on remand, we remand those matters to be decided by the agency in a manner consistent with this opinion, and on the understanding that the new evidence that Cuesta Rojas supplied that the BIA appeared not to evaluate in depth will be given the weight that is warranted.
IV.
We grant the petition for review, vacate the decisions of the IJ and BIA denying Cuesta Rojas’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
2) 8th Cir. — BIA Bobbles “No Brainer” In Absentia Reopening By Ignoring Evidence!
This court concludes that the BIA abused its discretion by applying a heightened evidentiary standard and disregarding record evidence in concluding Petitioners failed to overcome the presumption of delivery of the NOH. In determining whether a noncitizen has overcome the presumption of delivery by regular mail, the agency considers (1) the noncitizen’s affidavit; (2) affidavits from family members or others with personal knowledge of whether notice was received; (3) the noncitizen’s due diligence, after learning of the in absentia order, in seeking to redress the situation; (4) prior applications for relief, demonstrating the noncitizen had an incentive to appear, and any prima facie evidence in the record or the respondent’s motion of statutory eligibility for relief; (5) previous attendance at immigration hearings, if applicable; and (6) any other evidence indicating possible nonreceipt of notice. See Diaz, 824 F.3d at 760 (citing Matter of M-R-A-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 665, 674 (BIA 2008)); see also Ghounem v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 740, 744-45 (8th Cir. 2004) (while a strong presumption of effective delivery is appropriate where service is made by certified mail, a weaker presumption and lesser evidentiary requirements are appropriate where service is by regular mail). Petitioners provided two affidavits, sought to redress the situation by moving to reopen proceedings shortly after the order of removal was entered, applied for relief and protection for removal, had no occasion to appear for any prior immigration hearings, and regularly
-3-
attended immigration appointments both before and after the removal order was entered. Considering this evidence, this court concludes that remand is necessary so that the agency may consider all relevant evidence Petitioners proffered—both favorable and unfavorable—under the weaker evidentiary standard applied in cases where notice has been delivered by regular mail.
The petition for review is granted, the decision of the BIA is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
_________________
**************************
Ah, haste makes waste. Been saying it for years! It also harms and potentially kills☠️⚰️🪦 vulnerable individuals seeking fairness and undermines the credibility of our entire justice system. Other than that, what’s the problem?
It’s really nice that the 1st and 8th Circuits cared enough and took the time to do a proper judicial analyses of these cases, to make up for the BIA’s shortcomings. But, frankly, that’s not the way the system should work!
Obviously, constant remands and “churning” of cases wrongly decided at several levels of EOIR is one of many self-created problems fueling the astounding 1.3 million case backlog. And, to state the obvious, that unnecessary backlog and the lack of effective expert judicial guidance on applying asylum law fairly and efficiently is actively hampering the Biden Administration’s efforts to re-establish the rule of law at the border after four years of unmitigated disaster and dismemberment of our asylum legal system by the defeated regime. It’s just a variation on “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” which was on steroids at EOIR under the Trump regime.
And, most respondents, particularly unrepresented ones, can’t count on this type of careful, searching analysis from Article III Circuit Courts. Unhappily, many Circuit decisions simply “paper over”EOIR’s errors by hiding behind the deferential “standard of review” as an excuse to rubber stamp the BIA without a thorough examination of the merits. For starters, this whole system of supposedly fair and impartial expert judges actually controlled by Executive Branch politicos doing the bidding of DHS Enforcement is clearly unconstitutional under Fifth Amendment due process as currently constituted and “operated” (using that term lightly) under EOIR.
As I predicted, it hasn’t taken long for Judge Garland’s name to become associated with some really bad jurisprudence and boneheaded defenses stemming from the broken DOJ. And, this is just the beginning!
Sure, most of us are going to “cut him a break” on these travesties that actually originated during the Trump regime. But, “the pipeline” and volume is such that if Judge Garland doesn’t “pull the plug” on EOIR and OIL soon, he will “own” this ongoing disparagement of American justice — lock, stock, and barrel! The chance to make a “favorable first impression” evaporates rapidly, in government as well as the private sector.
And, patience runs thin when you are being beat up and your clients treated unfairly by a “star chamber” ☠️ under the control of someone who should know better.👨🏻⚖️ Much better!
EOIR must be put out of its misery, as well as the misery and irreparable harm it causes humanity. 🏴☠️ Sooner, rather than later! Come on, Judge G — step up to the plate before it’s too late! ⚾️
