AILA BLASTS BARR’S M-S- DECISION STRIPPING IMMIGRATION JUDGES OF BOND AUTHORITY FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS WHO HAVE ESTABLISHED A “CREDIBLE FEAR” OF PERSECUTION — “Asylum seekers arriving at the southern border can be processed in an orderly way while also being provided with thorough and fair review of their asylum cases. To accomplish that, the immigration courts must be allowed to operate as courts, not puppets of the Attorney General.”

https://www.aila.org/advo-media/press-releases/2019/aila-ag-aims-to-detain-asylum-seekers-intruding

AILA: AG Aims to Detain Asylum Seekers, Intruding Further on Immigration Court Independence

AILA Doc. No. 19041734 | Dated April 17, 2019

CONTACTS:

George Tzamaras
202-507-7649
gtzamaras@aila.org Belle Woods
202-507-7675
bwoods@aila.org

WASHINGTON, DC – On April 16, 2019, Attorney General William Barr issued a decision in Matter of M-S- in which he determined that asylum seekers who establish a credible fear of persecution and will be placed in removal proceedings are not eligible for an individualized determination of their custody status before the immigration court.

AILA Treasurer Jeremy McKinney stated, “With this decision, the Attorney General is unilaterally depriving asylum seekers of their right to a bond hearing in front of an immigration judge despite the fact they have passed a credible fear interview administered by a USCIS asylum officer. By overturning Matter of X-K, which provided for an independent review of the government’s justification to detain someone, the Attorney General is sweeping aside 14 years of standing Board of Immigration Appeals precedent that the courts and DHS have long implemented. This is a devastating blow to those seeking protection from persecution at the U.S. border, since far more will be held in detention. This decision further expands mandatory and prolonged detention of people who are neither dangerous nor flight risks, practices which are constitutionally suspect and a waste of taxpayer money. This administration is using detention as a sword against both due process and the humanitarian principles our nation was founded upon.”

AILA Executive Director Benjamin Johnson added, “While Matter of M-S- will not take effect for 90 days, the impact of Attorney General Barr’s decision, along with the other decisions issued by his immediate predecessors on asylum and the nation’s immigration courts, cannot be overstated. With full control over the immigration court system, the Attorney General is not only rewriting asylum and detention law but also stripping judges of the most basic operational authorities and judicial independence. Asylum seekers arriving at the southern border can be processed in an orderly way while also being provided with thorough and fair review of their asylum cases. To accomplish that, the immigration courts must be allowed to operate as courts, not puppets of the Attorney General. Without delay Congress should create an Article One immigration court system, separate from the Department of Justice to counteract the political machinations of the administration.”

Cite as AILA Doc. No. 19041734.

CONTACTS:
George Tzamaras 202-507-7649 gtzamaras@aila.org	Belle Woods 202-507-7675 bwoods@aila.org

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

There is no end to this Administration’s campaign of unrelenting cruelty toward asylum seekers. Even lack of ability to carry out their morbid fascination with creating the “New American Gulag” —- this time targeting individuals who actually have established a “credible fear” of persecution — doesn’t deter their inhumanity. It’s likely to face Constitutional obstacles, at least in the lower Federal Courts.

AILA gets it right. It would be possible to fairly process asylum seekers with additional trained Asylum Officers (not Border Patrol Officers masquerading as Asylum Officers) through an independent Article I Immigration Court System committed to fairly and efficiently applying asylum laws. Lawyers are an essential part of the equation.

We should stop confusing families seeking asylum with “security threats.” Indeed, the obsession with those who present no real threat to our country actually detracts from efforts to combat real threats — drug smugglers and human traffickers. Those require undercover and anti-smuggling investigative techniques that have little to do with individuals and families turning themselves in at or near the border to apply for asylum or building physical barriers (although a modest building program could be part of a rational border security package).

True “Border Security” doesn’t require harsh, demeaning, or unfair treatment of asylum seekers, nor does it involve huge walls or more immigration prisons. A fairly administered asylum system along with targeting of smugglers and other criminals and more attention to the root causes of the migration would actually enhance real border security along with Due Process and adherence to the rule of law.

PWS

04-18-19

LORELEI LAIRD @ ABA JOURNAL: Judges Make The Case For An Independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court, Featuring Interviews With “Our Gang” Members Judge Carol King & Me!

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/immigration-judges-executive-politicizing-courts

Lorelei writes in the ABA Journal:

There was no reason to think that the relatively routine immigration case of Reynaldo Castro-Tum would make headlines.

Castro-Tum, a Guatemalan national who entered the United States at 17, was one of thousands who were part of 2014’s “surge” of unaccompanied minors. Like most of those minors, he was eventually released to the custody of a relative—in this case, a brother-in-law who lived outside Pittsburgh. The government repeatedly sent notices to appear at immigration court hearings to that address, but Castro-Tum never showed up.

Normally, that’s the end of the story, since failure to appear in immigration court generally results in a deportation. But Judge Steven Morley of the Philadelphia immigration court suspected the address on file for Castro-Tum was not correct, in part because that’s a common problem with addresses provided for unaccompanied minors. So Morley administratively closed the case, essentially pausing it to look into the address problem. The government appealed it, along with about 200 similar cases, and the Board of Immigration Appeals, the court of next resort in immigration cases, instructed Morley to deport Castro-Tum.

But before he could do that, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions assigned the case to himself, a power the attorney general has as the head of the federal agency that controls the immigration courts. His opinion in Matter of Castro-Tum, issued in May 2018, says immigration judges have no legal authority to administratively close cases. That alone would have been a big deal in the immigration law world because it took away a well-established tool for managing the already overwhelmed immigration court dockets.

Photo of Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions by Shutterstock.

But what came next drew widespread attention among immigration lawyers as well as the national media, catapulting the otherwise unknown case of a single teenage immigrant into the spotlight. On remand, Morley continued the case to resolve the address problem—and immigration court leadership promptly took it away from him, reassigning it to an administrative judge. Then they reassigned 86 more of his cases. According to a grievance filed by the National Association of Immigration Judges, the union that represents Morley, a supervisor told him that he had been expected to order Castro-Tum deported if he didn’t appear.

NAIJ President A. Ashley Tabaddor says that’s not actually in Sessions’ opinion—and if it were, it would violate federal regulations on immigration judges’ independence. (Morley, like most sitting immigration judges, could not comment on the case per Justice Department policy. Tabaddor, who is also a sitting judge, stresses that she is speaking only in her role as union president.)

“We think that is a clear, clear violation of a judge’s decisional independence,” says Tabaddor, who presides in Los Angeles. “When you tell a judge how the process … should be handled, by definition, that is going to have an impact, and a significant impact, on the outcome.”

The Executive Office for Immigration Review, the DOJ agency that controls the immigration courts, declined to comment, citing pending litigation. Tabaddor said in January that she was unaware of litigation related to the matter.

Before Sessions’ opinion, the ABA had urged in an amicus brief to the DOJ that the attorney general continue to allow administrative closure in immigration cases, citing it as a “practical necessity” for judges to deal with the courts’ huge backlog.

Immigration courts have always been susceptible to politics; presidents have, for example, rearranged dockets to suit their political needs. But the NAIJ and others are concerned that the Trump administration has moved from reprioritizing cases to deliberately trying to affect case outcomes. Changes that have caused concern include unilateral changes to case law, like the one Sessions made in Castro-Tum; pressure on judges to rule faster; and even allegations that the DOJ is considering political affiliation in hiring new immigration judges.

“It’s all part of what our association has referred to as ‘the deportation machine,’ ” says Jeremy McKinney, treasurer of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. “In other words, transforming a court that is supposed to be an independent and neutral trier of law and fact into an arm of law enforcement.”

A TROUBLED HOME

For critics, a major problem with the immigration courts is where they’re housed: within the Department of Justice, an executive-branch department headed by a politically appointed leader. That’s unlike the Article III federal courts or most of the federal administrative law courts.

Immigration law observers have long worried that this exposes the courts to political interference—and recent history supports that. In 2008, the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General found that political appointees had hired only politically connected Republicans as immigration judges between 2004 and 2006, despite knowing judges were part of the civil service system. Over the past 30 years, several attorneys general have referred themselves cases in order to overturn the decisions of predecessors from a different party. Presidents of both parties have reprioritized dockets for political reasons.

Most of that is perfectly legal and within the political leadership’s powers—and to some observers, that’s a problem. Take the fact that attorneys general may certify Board of Immigration Appeals cases to themselves. There’s no requirement that they follow precedent or consult anyone else. This permits an attorney general to change case law unilaterally.

“Just allowing that kind of interference compromises the integrity of the court,” Tabaddor says. “Because that’s not how a court is supposed to run. That’s not how law is supposed to be developed.”

Asked for comment on the matter, Justice Department speechwriter Steven Stafford noted that the attorney general’s legal authority to refer himself cases, and authority to control the immigration courts and their judges, is clear under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

“Further, the acting attorney general’s exercise of this authority has been entirely appropriate in each particular case,” Stafford said in an emailed statement. “Those who oppose the use of this authority have a problem not with the acting attorney general, but with the INA.”

If this power of the attorney general is obscure, that might be because most—from both parties—have used it sparingly. Using DOJ archives of agency decisions, the ABA Journal determined that over three eight-year presidencies, former President Barack Obama’s two attorneys general referred themselves a total of four cases; George W. Bush’s three AGs referred themselves 10 cases; and Bill Clinton’s one AG referred herself one case. The ABA Journal found no record of any self-referrals during new Attorney General William Barr’s first time in the job, from 1991 to 1993.

By contrast, Sessions referred himself seven cases during 21 months in office, though he was able to publish decisions on only five before President Donald Trump asked him to resign.

Any hope that former Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker would take a lighter touch were dashed in December, when Whitaker certified two cases to himself: Matter of Castillo-Perez, concerning intoxicated driving and the good moral character standard in immigration law, and Matter of LEA, on whether a family connection can be the basis of an asylum claim. The cases were waiting for Barr after he was sworn in.

And the decisions Sessions handed down are not small tweaks. Take Matter of AB, in which Sessions decided that asylum should only rarely be available to people fleeing serious crimes not sponsored by a government. (“AB” are the initials of a woman who said she suffered prolonged domestic violence in El Salvador.) Essentially, Sessions ruled that when the persecution doesn’t come from the government itself, asylum claimants must work harder to show that the home government couldn’t or wouldn’t protect them.

“In practice, [nongovernmental violence] claims are unlikely to satisfy the statutory grounds for proving group persecution that the government is unable or unwilling to address,” Sessions wrote. “The mere fact that a country may have problems effectively policing certain crimes—such as domestic violence or gang violence—or that certain populations are more likely to be victims of crime, cannot itself establish an asylum claim.”

Infographic by Sara Wadford

In making that ruling, Sessions swept away precedents set by the Board of Immigration Appeals and the federal appeals courts on what constitutes a “particular social group” under asylum law.

“The attorney general did not rewrite the underlying test for who qualifies for asylum and who does not,” says McKinney, who also runs McKinney Immigration Law in Greensboro, North Carolina. “He just announced that he would have applied the test differently, and his result would have been different. It’s a very, very strange way to issue sweeping precedent decisions.”

Photo of Jeremy McKinney by Shelli Craig Photography

The ruling also removed the basis for asylum claims from thousands of Central Americans who arrived in the United States in recent years to flee uncontrolled domestic abuse or gang violence in their home countries. Retired immigration Judge Paul Wickham Schmidt does not believe that’s a coincidence.

“The grounds that some people have been succeeding on are domestic violence and family-based claims,” says Schmidt, who belongs to the ABA Judicial Division’s National Conference of the Administrative Law Judiciary.” So it’s basically in my view a race-based attack on Central American asylum seekers.”

Because of this, Matter of AB attracted substantial attention. Sessions invited amicus briefs, and the ABA was one of many organizations that filed one, urging the attorney general to let the case law stand. That brief argues that federal appeals courts and the board of appeals have repeatedly found non-state-sponsored crimes—organized crime, “honor killings,” female genital mutilation—adequate for granting asylum. It also pointed out that the attorney general may not unilaterally overturn decisions of the federal appeals courts; the American Civil Liberties Union later cited this theory when it sued the federal government over AB. It won an injunction in that case in December.

It’s still possible to grant asylum on gang or domestic violence grounds, says retired immigration Judge Carol King, also part of the National Conference of the Administrative Law Judiciary, but everyone doesn’t see it that way.

“The danger is that the agency has been now encouraging judges not even to hold hearings if the cases are based on domestic violence,” says King, now a Berkeley, California-based consultant to immigration lawyers.

GUMMING UP THE WORKS

And that’s just asylum. For the immigration court system as a whole—and especially for working immigration judges—bigger problems have emerged from three decisions from Sessions that constrain judges’ ability to end or pause cases. That could worsen the already substantial backlog of cases in immigration court, which totaled more than 829,000 pending cases as of February, according to Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse.

Chief among these is Castro-Tum, the administrative closure case. Administrative closure ends a case without a decision, which permits judges to take cases off their dockets if they’re not ready to go forward. This was Morley’s intention in Castro-Tum, where the judge was concerned that the young man’s address was unreliable. Indeed, Tabaddor says the notice to appear was returned to the court after Castro-Tum was ordered deported; immigrant advocates suspect he may have returned to Guatemala.

There are multiple reasons why a pause might be desirable, McKinney explains. Many immigration cases depend on outside agencies’ actions; the State Department issues visas, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services confers green cards and citizenship. Some benefits are also available through state courts, and cases may hinge on a decision from a police agency or an expert of some kind.

For example, McKinney cites special immigrant juvenile status. That’s an immigration status granted to minors who were abandoned, abused or neglected by one or both parents, and recipients must get a court order saying so.

“You go through state court, and then you submit an application to USCIS,” McKinney says. “So what we would see generally is these cases would be either administratively closed or given extended continuances, and then the person would pursue the status. Those kids are now being ordered deported.”

Continuances could have helped, but three months after Castro-Tum, Sessions handed down another decision, Matter of LABR, that requires judges to write a full decision every time they grant a continuance.

“I probably got five to 40 requests for continuances daily when I was on the bench,” King says. “It discourages granting continuances because they’re not requiring the same sort of diligence if a judge denies the continuance.”

Photo of Carol King by Allan Brill

That’s why King believes LABR weighs the decision-making in favor of deportation. It’s also likely to drastically limit judges’ ability to end or postpone cases, along with Castro-Tum and a third decision from Sessions—Matter of SOG and FDB, which limits judges’ ability to terminate or dismiss deportation cases. In addition to making it harder for judges to manage their workloads, King says it’s bad for the system as a whole.

“It means that every case has to come into court, and if it’s not ready to go for some reason, it has to be reset in court,” she says. “It encourages double-booking of cases … which means that parties are not encouraged to be prepared.”

For clients and practitioners, McKinney says the end result is likely to be a flood of appeals.

“We had a 10-year-old ordered deported [while waiting for a USCIS decision],” he says. “Do you think we just said, ‘OK, judge,’ with the 10-year-old and then just took our order of deportation? No, we appealed!” After the Board of Immigration Appeals, litigants can take their cases to the federal appeals court for their circuits, and McKinney believes many will. Thus, he predicts that much of the immigration court backlog will filter up to the appeals courts in a few years.

CARROT OR STICK?

The DOJ is well aware of the backlog and has hired judges aggressively to address it. Several of the actions Sessions took on immigration were announced as ways to address that backlog.

That includes another of his controversial decisions: imposing quotas on immigration judges. Starting with the 2019 fiscal year, judges who want to be rated “satisfactory” on their performance reviews must complete at least 700 cases per year. No more than 15 percent of those cases should be overturned on appeal. There are also completion requirements for specific types of cases. A software dashboard allows judges to check their progress daily.

Asked about this in December, Executive Office for Immigration Review spokeswoman Kathryn Mattingly pointed the ABA Journal to a public conversation that agency Director James McHenry had in May 2018 with Andrew Arthur, executive director of the restrictionist Center for Immigration Studies. McHenry told Arthur that EOIR plans to take circumstances into account when evaluating judges under the new standards—most likely in fall 2019. However, McHenry said EOIR believes that the numbers chosen are reasonable expectations for experienced and properly trained judges.

The NAIJ and some retired judges don’t agree, in part because two judges may handle very different kinds of dockets. Cases involving serious criminal convictions, for example, might be quicker than asylum cases involving unaccompanied minors.

McHenry also testified about the changes before Congress, where he said the performance measures were “neither novel nor unique to EOIR,” and in line with measures recommended by the ABA and used by other federal administrative law systems.

Tabaddor sees that differently.

“The numbers are used as what I would say a carrot in many courts; it’s used to evaluate whether [changes] are needed,” she says. “But no legitimate court uses quotas and deadlines as a stick to put a judge’s job on the line, which directly interferes with their ability to sit impartially on a case.”

The ABA Judicial Division’s 2005 Guidelines for the Evaluation of Judicial Performance do not mention case completions. They say judges should be evaluated on legal ability, integrity, communication, professionalism and administrative ability. They also say evaluations shouldn’t compromise judicial independence and “should be free from political, ideological and issue-oriented considerations.”

King doesn’t think that’s the case here.

“To have judges evaluated on how quickly they’re pushing cases through the system is a really, really dangerous thing to do,” she says. “Because you’re basically tying the judges’ job security to whether they’re pushing cases through, and it’s clear from this administration that their idea with pushing cases through the system is to deny as many as possible.”

Tabaddor sees this as another encroachment on immigration judges’ independence.

“It’s basically psychological warfare with judges, [creating] a constant reminder of their numbers through this dashboard and a constant pressure to reach these unreasonable goals,” she says.

McKinney says he has seen this play out in practice. In one case, he discovered that his client’s minor child had been sexually assaulted in their home country, which became important to the family’s asylum application. The minor had not spoken to a mental health counselor, so McKinney moved for a continuance to allow her to do that. The judge denied it, in part because the evidence for the assault was not from a mental health professional.

“So what we got was … only half-baked consideration, because obviously in the motion we are asking for the time to talk to the precise professional that the judge wanted the minor child to talk to,” he says. “That is the pressure these judges are under.”

JOB OFFERS RESCINDED

The Justice Department actions raised earlier in this story may be concerning to some people, but they’re perfectly legal. However, there are also allegations that the Justice Department is taking politics into account in hiring immigration judges, who are part of the civil service system. The allegations have not been proved—but if true, they might break the law.

Washington, D.C., labor law attorney Zachary Henige says he has been approached by several people who were offered jobs as immigration judges or members of the Board of Immigration Appeals but had those offers rescinded after the 2016 election for what they believe are political reasons. The ABA Journal spoke to Henige about Dorothea Lay, the only client who has authorized him to discuss her case.

Photo of Zachary Henige courtesy of Kalijarvi, Chuzi, Newman & Fitch.

Lay has spent 25 years in the federal government’s immigration services agencies, and she is currently at USCIS. She was offered a job at the appeals board in October 2016. This required a fresh background check (she already has clearance at her existing job), so she understood that she would have to wait to finalize the job.

In late February 2017, Lay did hear back—but only via a two-sentence letter. It said that during the time it had taken to complete the background check, the needs of the agency had evolved, so EOIR was withdrawing the offer. However, the letter was postmarked on the same day that EOIR announced it would expand the number of seats on the board from 17 to 21—requiring four new hires. That’s one reason Lay was not convinced the agency’s needs had changed.

Another was that two of Lay’s recommenders were political appointees of Democrats. Her application also showed that she had worked on issues the Trump administration strongly opposed, including domestic violence as a basis for asylum, the issue in AB. Thus, it would have been easy to guess her politics. Asked about the allegations, EOIR spokeswoman Mattingly did not address them specifically, instead redirecting her comments about others who were hired.

Lay is pursuing a complaint through the federal government’s Office of Special Counsel, an independent agency that investigates alleged violations of the merit system for federal employees. Henige says he has been approached by others who had job offers rescinded after the election, not all of whom retained him.

Members of Congress have also gotten involved. In April 2018, Democratic Reps. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, Don Beyer of Virginia and Lloyd Doggett and Joaquin Castro of Texas wrote a letter to the Justice Department, saying multiple people had approached their offices after having job offers suspended or withdrawn for suspected political reasons.

Six people were hired not long after the letter, according to a statement from Cummings and Doggett. The DOJ did not make its response public, but that response was apparently leaked to Fox News, which said the DOJ acknowledged that 14 people were no longer under consideration for jobs, and gave nonpolitical explanations for all of those decisions.

Henige notes that there’s precedent for improperly politicized hiring, including the 2008 inspector general report from the DOJ. After that became a scandal in 2007, then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales implemented a hiring process intend-ed to insulate the immigration courts from political considerations, with final candidate recommendation duties shared by the EOIR director, a senior career employee and a senior political appointee.

In 2017, however, Sessions authorized substantial changes to that process, according to a memo uncovered by Human Rights First, a New York-based nonprofit that advocates for human rights and the rule of law, through the Freedom of Information Act. Those changes removed the EOIR director or his designee from the final recommendation stage and removed the chief immigration judge from an earlier stage. The effect is less direct oversight from the agency that will actually employ the judges, and a greater proportion of responsibility to the political appointee.

HIT THE ROAD, JUDGE

Immigration judges aren’t on the edge of revolt. Not every judge agrees with the NAIJ or the retired judges quoted for this article. Arthur, for example—a retired immigration judge—has praised both the use of self-certifications and some of the decisions Sessions made that way.

Perhaps more importantly, immigration judges have limited recourse. As career federal employees, they aren’t legally permitted to strike, Tabaddor says, and lawsuits are limited to cases of individual judges with specific grievances. She says labor union negotiations have been minimally helpful. The grievance filed after the cases were taken from Morley was denied by EOIR last fall on the grounds that EOIR’s actions were lawful, and the NAIJ has merely filed formal correspondences on other matters.

Photo of Ashley Tabaddor by Melodi Miremadi

That’s why Tabaddor wants a more permanent solution: Take the immigration courts out of the Justice Department and put them into an independent agency.

“It’s been done with the bankruptcy courts, it’s been done with the Court of Federal Claims, it’s been done with Tax Court,” she says. “Having a court within the same agency that basically has a law enforcement mandate cannot be defended.”

Mattingly says EOIR believes this is unnecessary and would take substantial resources. But it’s a long-standing goal—not just for NAIJ, but for the ABA House of Delegates, which called for independent immigration courts in 2010’s Resolution 114F. More recently, former ABA President Hilarie Bass testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Border Security and Immigration in 2018 in favor of independent immigration courts, as did Tabaddor. Arthur testified against it, citing constitutional concerns. Immigration court independence has also long been on the wish lists of AILA and the Federal Bar Association.

The four organizations have been working on legislation to make that a reality, McKinney says, though the coalition differs on details of how best to structure the agency. But the goal is the same: insulating the immigration courts from politics by moving them into an independent agency.

McKinney, who is actively involved in the effort through AILA, notes that major agency reforms don’t happen overnight—but he’s bullish about the possibilities.

“We have seen some genuine interest, and now that the Democrats are taking control of the House, we will see if that can turn into actual legislation,” McKinney says. “My heart goes out to the literally thousands of people who are going to be victims of this flawed system until the day comes that we can get it fixed. But I believe that we can get it fixed.”

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

Jeremy McKinney is right. Thousands of humans have been and will continue to be victimized by this screwed up system until it finally gets fixed. Immigration Judges have become “robed pawns” in what has become a cruel parody of justice. And, to be honest about it, far, far too many Article III Judges “punt” on their oaths of office by giving unwarranted “deference” to a system that merits none. Indeed, in a “court” controlled by prosecutors and driven by overtly political, restrictionist agendas, it would make much more sense and be fairer to presume that each removal order is biased in favor of DHS unless the DOJ can establish otherwise.

PWS

03-29-19

COURTING DISASTER: NEW AILA REPORT SHREDS DOJ’S “BUILT TO FAIL” IMMIGRATION COURT BACKLOG REDUCTION PROGRAM — “Malicious Incompetence” Turns Tragedy To Travesty! — McKinney, Lynch, Creighton, & Schmidt Do Press Conference Exposing Injustice, Waste, Abuse — Listen To Audio Here!

OUR TEAM:

Jeremy McKinney, Attorney, Greensboro, NC, AILA National Treasurer

Laura Lynch, Senior Policy Counsel, AILA,

Emily Creighton, Deputy Legal Director, American Immigration Council

Paul Wickham Schmidt, Retired U.S. Immigration Judge

Read the AILA Report (with original formatting) at the link below:

19021900

FOIA Reveals EOIR’s Failed Plan for Fixing the Immigration Court Backlog February 21, 2019
Contact: Laura Lynch (llynch@aila.org) 1
On December 19, 2018, AILA and the American Immigration Council obtained a partially redacted memorandum through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), entitled the Executive Office for Immigration Review’s (EOIR) Strategic Caseload Reduction Plan (hereinafter “EOIR’s plan”). EOIR’s plan, which was approved by the Deputy Attorney General for the Department of Justice (DOJ) on October 31, 2017,2 states that the overarching goal was “to significantly reduce the case backlog by 2020.” 3 In the following months, DOJ and EOIR implemented the plan by rolling out several policy initiatives, including multiple precedent-setting opinions issued by then-Attorney General (AG) Jeff Sessions.
Contrary to EOIR’s stated goals, the administration’s policies have contributed to an increase in the court backlog which exceeded 820,000 cases at the end of 2018.4 This constitutes a 25 percent increase in the backlog since the introduction of EOIR’s plan.5 For example, the October 2017 memorandum reveals that EOIR warned DOJ that the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) potential activation of almost 350,000 low priority cases or cases that were not ready to be adjudicated could balloon the backlog.6 Nonetheless, then-AG Sessions ignored these concerns and issued a decision that essentially stripped immigration judges (IJs) of their ability to administratively close cases and compelled IJs to reopen previously closed cases at Immigrations Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) request.7
The policies EOIR implemented as part of this backlog reduction plan have severely undermined the due process and integrity of the immigration court system. EOIR has placed enormous pressure on IJs by setting strict case quotas on and restricting their ability to manage their dockets more efficiently. This approach treats the complex process of judging like an assembly line and makes it more likely that judges will not give asylum seekers and others appearing before the courts enough time to gather evidence to support their claims. People appearing before the courts will also have less time to find legal counsel, which has been shown to be a critical, if not the single most important factor, in determining whether an asylum seeker is able to prove eligibility for legal protection.
The foundational purpose of any court system must be to ensure its decisions are rendered fairly, consistent with the law and the Constitution’s guarantee of due process. Efforts to improve efficiency are also important but cannot be implemented at the expense of these fundamental principles. EOIR’s plan has not only failed to reduce the backlog but has eroded the court’s ability to ensure due process. Furthermore, EOIR’s plan demonstrates the enormous power DOJ exerts over the immigration court system. Until Congress creates an immigration court that is separate and independent from DOJ, those appearing before the court will be confronted with a flawed system that is severely compromised in its ability to ensure fair and consistent adjudications.
I. Background on EOIR’s Inherently Flawed Structure
The U.S. immigration court system suffers from profound structural problems that have severely eroded both its capacity to deliver just and fair decisions in a timely manner and public confidence in the system
AILA Doc. No. 19021900. (Posted 2/21/19)

itself.8 Unlike other judicial bodies, the immigration courts lack independence from the Executive Branch. The immigration courts are administered by EOIR, which is housed within DOJ – the same agency that prosecutes immigration cases at the federal level. This inherent conflict of interest is made worse by the fact that IJs are not classified as judges but as government attorneys, a classification that fails to recognize the significance of their judicial duties and puts them under the control of the AG, the chief prosecutor in immigration cases. The current administration has taken advantage of the court’s structural flaws, introducing numerous policies — including EOIR’s plan — that dramatically reshape federal immigration law and undermine due process in immigration court proceedings.
II. Policies Identified in EOIR’s Plan
Administrative Closure
Stated Policy Goal: To reduce the case backlog and maximize docket efficiency, EOIR’s plan called for the strengthening of EOIR and DHS interagency cooperation.9 EOIR’s plan advised DOJ that “any burst of case initiation by a DHS component could seriously compromise EOIR’s ability to address its caseload and greatly exacerbate the current state of the backlog.”10
Reality: Despite EOIR’s warning, then-AG Sessions issued a precedent decision in Matter of Castro Tum,11 which contributed to a rise in the case backlog. This decision severely restricts a judge’s ability to schedule and prioritize their cases, otherwise known as “administrative closure” and even compels IJs to reopen previously closed cases at ICE’s request.12
Administrative closure is a procedural tool that IJs and the BIA use to temporarily halt removal proceedings by transferring a case from active to inactive status on a court’s docket. This tool is particularly useful in situations where IJs cannot complete the case until action is taken by USCIS or another DHS component, state courts and other authorities. Prior to the issuance of Matter of Castro Tum, numerous organizations, including the judges themselves, warned DOJ that stripping IJs of the ability to utilize this docket management tool “will result in an enormous increase in our already massive backlog of cases.”13 In fact, an EOIR-commissioned report identified administrative closure as a helpful tool to control the caseload and recommended that EOIR work with DHS to implement a policy to administratively close cases awaiting adjudication in other agencies or courts.14
Nonetheless, the former AG issued Matter of Castro Tum15 sharply curtailing IJs’ ability to administratively close cases. The decision even called for cases that were previously administratively closed cases to be put back on the active immigration court dockets.16 In August 2018, ICE directed its attorneys to file motions to recalendar “all cases that were previously administratively closed…” with limited exceptions—potentially adding a total of 355,835 cases immediately onto the immigration court docket.17 Three months later, ICE had already moved to recalendar 8,000 cases that had previously been administratively closed, contributing to the bloated immigration court case backlog.18 In response, members of Congress sent a letter to DOJ and DHS outlining their concerns about ICE’s plans to recalendar potentially hundreds of thousands of administratively closed cases, further clogging the system and delaying and denying justice to the individuals within it.19
Quotas and Deadlines
Stated Policy Goal: To expedite adjudications, EOIR’s plan calls for the development of caseload
management goals and benchmarks.20
Reality: EOIR imposed unprecedented case completion quotas and deadlines on IJs, that pressure judges to complete cases rapidly at the expense of balanced, well-reasoned judgment.21
2
AILA Doc. No. 19021900. (Posted 2/21/19)

At the time EOIR’s plan was issued, EOIR’s collective bargaining agreement with the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) prohibited “the use of any type of performance metrics in evaluating an IJ’s performance.”22 Despite opposition from NAIJ,23 DOJ and EOIR imposed case completion quotas and time-based deadlines on IJs, tying their individual performance reviews to the number of cases they complete.24 Among other requirements, IJs must complete 700 removal cases in the next year or risk losing their jobs.25 Disturbingly, DOJ unveiled new software, resembling a “speedometer on a car” employed to track the completion of IJs’ cases.26
Sample Image of “IJ Performance Data Dashboard”
(Source: Vice News)27
AILA, the American Immigration Council, and other legal organizations and scholars oppose the quotas that have been described by the NAIJ as a “death knell for judicial independence.”28 The purported argument for these policies is that it will speed the process up for the judges. However, applying this kind of blunt instrument will compel judges to rush through decisions and may compromise a respondent’s right to due process and a fair hearing. Given that most respondents do not speak English as their primary language, a strict time frame for completion of cases interferes with a judge’s ability to assure that a person’s right to examine and present evidence is respected.29
These policies also impact asylum seekers, who may need more time to gather evidence that is hard to obtain from their countries of origin, as well as unrepresented individuals, who may need more time to obtain an attorney. The Association of Pro Bono Counsel explained that the imposition of case completion quotas and deadlines “will inevitably reduce our ability to provide pro bono representation to immigrants in need of counsel.”30 Unrepresented people often face hurdles in court that can cause case delays, and scholars have concluded that immigrants with attorneys fare better at every stage of the court process.31 Furthermore, these policies compel IJs to rush through decisions may result in errors which will lead to an increase in appeals and federal litigation, further slowing down the process.
Continuances
Stated Policy Goal: To “streamline current immigration proceedings”32 and “process cases more
efficiently,”33 EOIR’s plan called for changes in the use of continuances in immigration court.34
Reality: The restrictions DOJ and EOIR placed on the use of continuances make it far more difficult for immigrants to obtain counsel and interfere with judges’ ability to use their own discretion in each case.
EOIR and DOJ introduced policies that pressure judges to deny more continuances at the expense of due process. In July 2017, the Chief IJ issued a memorandum which pressures IJs to deny multiple continuances, including continuances to find an attorney or for an attorney to prepare for a case.35 Following this policy change, then-AG Sessions issued the precedential decision, Matter of L-A-B-R- et al., interfering with an IJ’s ability to grant continuance requests and introducing procedural hurdles that will also make it harder for people to request and IJs to grant continuances.36
3
AILA Doc. No. 19021900. (Posted 2/21/19)

These policy changes weaken due process protections and contradict the agency’s plan to “improve existing laws and policies.” Continuances represent a critical docketing management tool for IJs and are a necessary means to ensure that due process is afforded in removal proceedings. The number one reason respondents request continuances is to find counsel, who play a critical role in ensuring respondents receive a fair hearing.37 Continuances are particularly important to recent arrivals, vulnerable populations (such as children), and non-English speakers—all of whom have significant difficulties navigating an incredibly complex immigration system. Furthermore, individuals represented by counsel contribute to more efficient court proceedings. NAIJ’s President, Judge A. Ashley Tabaddor, explained, “It is our experience, when noncitizens are represented by competent counsel, Immigration Judges are able to conduct proceedings more expeditiously and resolve cases more quickly.”38
Video Teleconferencing (VTC)
Stated Policy Goal: To expand its adjudicatory capacity, EOIR called for pilot VTC “immigration
adjudication centers.”39
Reality: EOIR expanded the use of VTC for substantive hearings undermining the quality of communication and due process.
A 2017 report commissioned by EOIR concluded that court proceedings by VTC should be limited to “procedural matters” because appearances by VTC may lead to “due process issues.”40 Despite these concerns, EOIR expanded use of VTC for substantive hearings. A total of fifteen IJs currently sit in two immigration adjudication centers—four in Falls Church, Virginia, and eleven in Fort Worth, Texas.41 IJs are currently stationed at these “centers” where they adjudicate cases from around the country from a remote setting.42
For years, legal organizations such as AILA and the American Bar Association (ABA) have opposed use of VTC to conduct in immigration merits hearings, except in matters in which the noncitizen has given consent.43 Technological glitches such as weak connections and bad audio can make it difficult to communicate effectively, and 29 percent of EOIR staff reported that VTC caused meaningful delay.44 Additionally, VTC technology does not provide for the ability to transmit nonverbal cues. Such issues can impact an IJs’ assessment of an individual’s credibility and demeanor, which are significant factors in determining appropriate relief.45 Moreover, use of VTC for immigration hearings also limits the ability for attorneys to consult confidentially with their clients. No matter how high-quality or advanced the technology is that is used during a remote hearing, such a substitute is not equivalent to an in-person hearing and presents significant due process concerns.
IJ Hiring
Stated Policy Goal: In order to increase the IJ corps and reduce the amount of time to hire new
IJs, the former AG introduced a new, streamlined IJ hiring process.46
Reality: Following DOJ’s implementation of the streamlined IJ hiring process, DOJ faced allegations of politicized and discriminatory hiring47 that call into question the fundamental fairness of immigration court decisions.
On its face, the agency “achieved” its goal to quickly hire more IJs, reducing the time it takes to onboard new IJs by 74 percent and increasing the number of IJs on the bench from 338 IJs at the end of FY2017 to 414 IJs by the end of 2018.48 What these statistics do not reveal is that the new plan amended hiring processes to provide political appointees with greater influence in the final selection of IJs.49 In addition to procedural changes, DOJ also made substantive changes to IJ hiring requirements, “over-emphasizing litigation experience to the exclusion of other relevant immigration law experience.”50 Both Senate and
4
AILA Doc. No. 19021900. (Posted 2/21/19)

House Democrats requested an investigation with the DOJ Inspector General (IG) to examine allegations that DOJ has targeted candidates and withdrawn or delayed offers for IJ and BIA positions based on their perceived political or ideological views.51 These allegations are particularly troublesome given the influx in the number of IJs resigning and reports that experienced IJs are “being squeezed out of the system for political reasons.”52
Telephonic Interpreters
Stated Policy Goal: EOIR requested additional funding to support additional IJs on staff and to
improve efficiency.53
Reality: EOIR failed to budget for needed in-person interpreters54 resulting in the use of telephonic interpreters for most hearings, which raises concerns about hearing delays and potential communication issues.55
In April of 2017, an EOIR-commissioned report revealed that 31 percent of court staff reported that telephonic interpreters caused a meaningful delay in their ability to proceed with their daily responsibilities.56 With more than 85 percent of respondents in immigration court relying on use of an interpreter, EOIR’s decision to replace in-person interpreters with telephonic interpreters will undoubtedly make court room procedures less efficient.57 In addition, similar to many of the technological concerns cited with use of VTC, communication issues related to use of remote interpreters can jeopardize an immigrant’s right to a fair day in court. For example, it is impossible for telephonic interpreters to catch non-verbal cues that may determine the meaning of the speech.
III. Conclusion
The immigration court system is charged with ensuring that individuals appearing before the court receives a fair hearing and full review of their case consistent with the rule of law and fundamental due process. Instead of employing policies that propel the court toward these goals, the administration’s plan relies on policies that compromise due process. IJs responsible for adjudicating removal cases are being pressured to render decisions at a break-neck pace. By some accounts “morale has never, ever been lower” among IJs and their staff.58 Moreover, since the introduction of EOIR’s plan, the number of cases pending in the immigration courts has increased 25 percent (from 655,932 on 9/31/17 to 821,726 on 12/31/18). This number does not even account for the 35-day partial government shutdown that cancelled approximately 60,000 hearings while DHS continued carrying out enforcement actions.59 Congress must conduct rigorous oversight into the administration’s policies that have eroded the court’s ability to ensure that decisions are rendered fairly, consistent with the law and the Constitution’s guarantee of due process. But oversight is not enough. In order protect and advance America’s core values of fairness and equality, the immigration court must be restructured outside of the control of DOJ, in the form of an independent Article I court.60
900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000
0
792,738 821,726
655,932 521,416
460,021 430,095
356,246
PENDING IMMIGRATION CASES
EOIR Pending Cases
5
Pending cases equals removal, deportation, exclusion, asylum-only, and AILA Doc. No. w1it9hh0o2ld1in9g0o0nl.y. (Po
Source: Department of Justice
sted 2/21/19)

1 For more information, contact AILA Senior Policy Counsel Laura Lynch at (202) 507-7627 or llynch@aila.org.
2 *An earlier version of this policy brief, dated February 19, 2019, incorrectly stated that the memo was signed on October 17, 2017. This typo has been corrected. FOIA Response, see pg. 9.
3 On December 5, 2017, EOIR publicly issued a backgrounder for the EOIR Strategic Caseload Reduction Plan. U.S. Department of Justice Backgrounder, EOIR Strategic Caseload Reduction Plan, Dec. 5, 2017.
4 U.S. Department of Justice, EOIR Adjudication Statistics, Pending Cases, (Dec. 31, 2018). The over 820,000 cases does not account for the 35-day partial government shutdown that cancelled approximately 60,000 immigration court hearings while at the same time, DHS continued carrying out enforcement actions, Associated Press, Partial shutdown delayed 60,000 immigration court hearings, Feb. 8, 2019.
5 U.S. Department of Justice, Adjudication Statistics, Pending Cases, Dec. 31, 2018.
6 FOIA Response, see pg. 6.
7 Jason Boyd, The Hill, “8,000 new ways the Trump administration is undermining immigration court independence,” Aug. 19, 2018.
8 ABA Commission on Immigration, Reforming the Immigration System, Proposals to Promote the Independence, Fairness, Efficiency, and Professionalism in the Adjudication of Removal Cases (2010).
9 FOIA Response, see pg. 6. See also U.S. Department of Justice Backgrounder, EOIR Strategic Caseload Reduction Plan, Dec. 5, 2017.
10 FOIA Response, see pg. 6.
11 Matter of Castro-Tum, 27 I&N Dec. 271 (A.G. 2018).
12 Id.
13 NAIJ Letter to then-Attorney General Sessions, Jan. 30, 2018.
14 AILA and The American Immigration Council FOIA Response, Booz Allen Hamilton Report on Immigration Courts, Apr. 6, 2017, pg. 26, [hereinafter “Booz Allen Report”].
15 Matter of Castro-Tum, 27 I&N Dec. 271 (A.G. 2018).
16 Id.
17 ICE Provides Guidance to OPLA Attorneys on Administrative Closure Following Matter of Castro Tum, June 15, 2018.
18 Hamed Aleaziz, Buzzfeed News, “The Trump Administration is Seeking to Restart Thousands of Closed Deportation Cases,” Aug. 15, 2018.
19 Congressional Letter Requesting Information Regarding Initiative to Recalendar Administratively Closed Cases, Sept. 13, 2018.
20 FOIA Response, see pg. 5.
21 Memorandum from James McHenry, Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review on Immigration Judge Performance Metrics to All Immigration Judges, March 30, 2018.
22 FOIA Response, see pg. 5.
23 Misunderstandings about Immigration Judge “Quotas” in Testimony Before House Appropriations Committee, NAIJ, May 2, 2018.
24 FOIA Response, pg. 5. See also Memorandum from James McHenry, Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review on Immigration Judge Performance Metrics to All Immigration Judges, March 30, 2018; See also Imposing Quotas on Immigration Judges will Exacerbate the Case Backlog at Immigration Courts, NAIJ, Jan. 31, 2018. See also Misunderstandings about Immigration Judge “Quotas” in Testimony Before House Appropriations Committee, NAIJ, May 2, 2018.
25 See Memorandum from James McHenry, Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review on Immigration Judge Performance Metrics to All Immigration Judges, March 30, 2018.
26 C-SPAN, Federal Immigration Court System, Sept. 21, 2018. (“[t]his past week or so, they [EOIR] unveiled what’s called the IJ dashboard…this mechanism on your computer every morning that looks like a speedometer on a car… The goal is for you to be green but of course you see all of these reds in front of you and there is a lot of anxiety attached to that.” NAIJ President, Judge A. Ashley Tabaddor).
27 Ani Ucar, Vice News, “Leaked Report Shows the Utter Dysfunction of Baltimore’s Immigration Court,” Oct. 3, 2018.
28 AILA and the American Immigration Council Statement, DOJ Strips Immigration Courts of Independence, Apr. 3, 2018. See also NAIJ, Threat to Due Process and Judicial Independence Caused by Performance Quotas on Immigration Judges (October 2017).
29 INA §240(b)(4)(B) requires that a respondent be given a “reasonable opportunity” to examine and present evidence.
6
AILA Doc. No. 19021900. (Posted 2/21/19)

30 Association of Pro Bono Counsel (APBCo), Letter to Congress IJ Quotas, Oct. 26, 2017.
31 Ingrid Eagly and Steven Shafer, Access to Counsel in Immigration Court (2016).
32 U.S. Department of Justice Backgrounder, EOIR Strategic Caseload Reduction Plan, Dec. 5, 2017, pg. 2.
33 FOIA Response, pg. 8.
34 FOIA Response, pgs. 7-8.
35 U.S. Department of Justice, Operating Policies and Procedures Memorandum 17-01: Continuances, July 31, 2017. 36 Matter of L-A-B-R- et al., 27 I&N Dec. 405 (A.G. 2018).
37 GAO Report, 17-438, Immigration Courts, Actions Needed to Reduce Case Backlog and Address Long-Standing Management and Operational Challenges, (June 2017).
38 Sen. Mazie Hirono, Written Questions for the Record, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Apr. 18, 2018.
39 FOIA Response, pg. 3.
40 Booz Allen Report, pg. 23.
41 U.S. Department of Justice, EOIR Immigration Court Listings, Feb. 2019.
42 Katie Shepherd, American Immigration Council, The Judicial Black Sites the Government Created to Speed Up Deportations, Jan. 7, 2019.
43 AILA Comments on ACUS Immigration Removal Adjudications Report, May 3, 2012; ABA Letter to ACUS, Feb. 17, 2012.
44 Booz Allen Report, pg. 23.
45 An EOIR commissioned report suggested limiting use of VTC to procedural matters only because it is difficult for judges to analyze eye contact, nonverbal forms of communication, and body language over VTC. Booz Allen Report, pg. 23.
46 FOIA Response, pg. 3.
47 Priscilla Alvarez, The Atlantic, Jeff Sessions is Quietly Transforming the Nation’s Immigration Courts, Oct. 17, 2018.
48 U.S. Department of Justice, EOIR Adjudication Statistic, IJ Hiring, (Jan. 2019).
49 U.S. Department of Justice, EOIR Announces Largest Ever Immigration Judge Investiture, Sept. 28, 2018; Document Obtained via FOIA by Human Rights First, Memorandum for the Attorney General, Immigration Judge Hiring Process, Apr. 4, 2017.
50 Strengthening and Reforming America’s Immigration Court System, Hearing Before Subcommittee on Border Security and Immigration, of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 115th Cong. 5 (2018) (A. Ashley Tabaddor, President, NAIJ), See also Questions for the Record.
51 Senate and House Democrats Request IG Investigation of Illegal Hiring Allegations at DOJ, May 8, 2018. Problematic hiring practices are not new for this agency. Over a decade ago, the IG and the Office of Professional Responsibility revealed that then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales utilized political and ideological considerations in the hiring of IJ and BIA candidates. U.S Department of Justice IG Report, (2008).
52 Hamed Aleaziz, BuzzFeed News, Being an Immigration Judge Was Their Dream. Under Trump, It Became Untenable, Feb. 13, 2019.
53 FOIA Response, pg. 3.
54 NAIJ Letter to Senators, Government Shutdown, Jan. 9, 2019.
55 Id.
56 Booz Allen Report, pg. 25.
57 Laura Abel, Brennan Center For Justice, Language Access in Immigration Courts, (2010).
58 Hamed Aleaziz, Buzzfeed News, “The Trump Administration is Seeking to Restart Thousands of Closed Deportation Cases,” Aug. 15, 2018.
59 Associated Press, Partial shutdown delayed 60,000 immigration court hearings, Feb. 8, 2019.
60 AILA Statement, The Need for an Independent Immigration Court Grows More Urgent as DOJ Imposes Quotas on Immigration Judges, Oct. 1, 2018. See also the NAIJ letter that joins AILA, the ABA, the Federal Bar Association, the American Adjudicature Society, and numerous other organizations endorsing the concept of an Article I immigration court. NAIJ Letter, Endorses Proposal for Article I Court, Mar. 15, 2018.
7
AILA Doc. No. 19021900. (Posted 2/21/19)

Here’s the link to the audio:

https://www.aila.org/infonet/aila-press-call-on-eoir-memo-obtained-via-foia

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

Here’s “simul-coverage” from LA Times star reporter Molly O’Toole:

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-immigration-court-backlog-worsens-20190221-story.html

The Trump administration’s controversial plan to shrink the ballooning backlog of immigration cases by pushing judges to hear more cases has failed, according to the latest data, with the average wait for an immigration hearing now more than two years.

Since October 2017, when the Justice Department approved a plan aimed at reducing the backlog in immigration court, the pending caseload has grown by more than 26%, from 655,932 cases to just shy of 830,000, according to Syracuse University’s Transactional Access Records Clearinghouse, which tracks data from immigration courts.

Even that figure likely understates the backlog because it doesn’t include the impact of the 35-day government shutdown in December and January. Because the system’s roughly 400 immigration judges were furloughed during the shutdown, some 60,000 hearings were canceled. Thousands were rescheduled, adding to the already long wait times.

The administration “has not only failed to reduce the backlog, but has eroded the court’s ability to ensure due process” by pressuring judges to rule “at a breakneck pace” on whether an immigrant should be removed from the United States, the American Immigration Lawyers Assn. — a nonprofit organization of more than 15,000 immigration attorneys and law professors — said in a statement.

When the Justice Department’s Executive Office of Immigration Review, which administers immigration courts, released its plan, officials described it as a “comprehensive strategy for significantly reducing the caseload by 2020,” according to a partially redacted copy of an October 2017 memo obtained by the immigration lawyers group through a Freedom of Information Act request.

“The size of EOIR’s pending caseload will not reverse itself overnight,” the memo said, but by fully implementing the strategy, the office can “realistically expect not only a reversal of the growth of the caseload, but a significant reduction in it.”

Instead, the average wait has grown by a month from January alone, to 746 days — ironically extending the stay of thousands of migrants whom the administration might want to deport from the United States. The Justice Department declined to immediately comment on the growth of the backlog.

The number of pending immigration cases has risen dramatically in recent years, doubling from less than 300,000 in 2011 to 650,000 by December 2017, the end of Trump’s first year in office, according to the Justice Department.

The Trump administration has blamed the ballooning backlog on President Obama’s immigration policies, saying that “policy changes in recent years have slowed down the adjudication of existing cases and incentivized further illegal immigration that led to new cases.”

Administration officials have pointed to Obama’s effort to focus deportation on immigrants with serious criminal records and protecting certain immigrants known as Dreamers who were brought to the U.S. as children as examples of policies that have provided incentives for illegal border crossings.

The administration’s plan to reverse the backlog included a number of controversial steps.

One move restricted the ability of immigration judges to schedule and set priorities for their cases under a process known as “administrative closure.” That change compelled judges to reopen thousands of cases that had been deemed low priority and had been closed. Within three months of the memo, Immigration and Customs Enforcement had moved to reschedule 8,000 cases, prompting concern from lawmakers, according to the immigration lawyers association. Potentially, as many as 350,000 cases ultimately could be added back onto the court dockets.

The administration’s plan also tied immigration judges’ individual performance reviews to the number of cases they complete, calling for them to finish 700 removal cases in the next year.

In contrast to regular courts, immigration judges are not independent; they’re part of the Justice Department. Because of that, the attorney general is both the chief prosecutor in immigration cases and the ultimate boss of the judges, who are classified as government attorneys.

The National Assn. of Immigration Judges, as well as the immigration lawyers association and other groups, have long called for Congress to end what they see as a built-in conflict of interest and create an immigration court separate from the Justice Department.

“As long as we continue to allow the court to be used as a law enforcement tool,” said Ashley Tabaddor, president of the National Assn. of Immigration Judges, “you’re going to get these kinds of backlogs and inefficiencies.”

Any speedup that may have resulted from the imposition of quotas on the judges has been overtaken by the administration’s stepped-up enforcement efforts, which have pushed thousands of new cases into the system.

Stepped-up enforcement without a corresponding increase in judicial resources provides the main reason the backlog has gone up so dramatically, said Stephen Legomsky, Homeland Security’s chief counsel for immigration from 2011 to 2013.

“Immediately upon taking office, President Trump essentially advised Border Patrol agents and ICE officers that they were to begin removal proceedings against anyone they encountered that they suspected of being undocumented, without sufficiently increasing resources for immigration judges,” Legomsky said.

Under previous administrations, “the thinking was, ‘Let’s not spend our limited resources on people who are about to get legal status,’” he said, “Taking that discretion away dramatically increased the caseload.”

Some officials warned that could happen when the effort to curtail the backlog began.

“Any burst of case initiation,” by Homeland Security “could seriously compromise” the Justice Department’s “ability to address its caseload and greatly exacerbate the current state of the backlog,” the acting director of the immigration review office wrote in the October memo to Deputy Atty. Gen. Rod Rosenstein.

The quota effort could also prevent attorneys from providing representation to immigrants, according to the Assn. of Pro Bono Counsel, which represents lawyers who handle cases free of charge for the poor.

Whether immigrants have legal representation makes a huge difference in the outcome of cases: Between October 2000 and November 2018, about 82% of people in immigration court without attorneys were either ordered deported or gave up on their cases and left the country voluntarily, while only 31% of those with lawyers were deported or left.

The administration has succeeded in speeding the hiring of new immigration judges by 74%. The number of immigration judges has grown from 338 when the plan was introduced to 414 by the end of 2018.

Lawmakers have raised concerns that some of those new hires have been politically motivated. In May, House Democrats requested an investigation by the Justice Department Inspector General’s office into allegations that candidates have been chosen or rejected for perceived ideological views.

“The current administration has taken advantage of the court’s structural flaws,” the immigration lawyers association wrote, “introducing numerous policies … that dramatically reshape federal immigration law and undermine due process in immigration court proceedings.”

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

My Takeaways:

The DOJ politicos made the already bad situation immeasurably worse;
At no time did any of those supposedly “in charge” seriously consider taking measures that could have promoted Due Process and fundamental fairness in a troubled system whose sole function was to insure and protect these Constitutional requirements;
Sessions was warned about the severe adverse consequences of eliminating “administrative closure” by EOIR, but went ahead with his preconceived “White Nationalist” agenda, based on bias, not law;
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who signed off on this monstrosity, is no “hero” just because he stood up to Trump on the Mueller investigation; he’s just another “go along to get along,” like the rest of the Trump DOJ political appointees (with the possible exception of FBI Director Chris Wray);
No sitting judge, indeed no real “stakeholder,” was consulted about these “designed to fail” measures;
The placement of what purports to be a “court system” dedicated to Due Process within the Justice Department is preposterous;
Congress, which created this parody of justice, and the Article III Courts who have failed to “just say no” to all removal orders produced in this “Due Process Free Zone” must share the blame for allowing this Constitutionally untenable situation to continue;
Once again, the victims of the Trump Administration’s “malicious incompetence” are being punished while the “perpetrators” suffer few, if any, consequences.

PWS

02-21-19

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

UPDATE: Molly’s article was the “front page lead” in today’s print edition of the LA Times.

https://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/latimes/default.aspx?pubid=50435180-e58e-48b5-8e0c-236bf740270e

Gotta give the crew at DOJ/EOIR HQ credit for screwing this up so royally that it’s now off the “back pages” and into the headlines where it belongs. You couldn’t buy publicity like this!

First EOIR Director David “No News Is Good News” Milhollan must be rolling over in his grave right now. And his “General Counsel/Chief Flackie,” my friend and former BIA Appellate Judge Gerald S. “No Comment/We Don’t Track That Statistic” Hurwitz must be watching all of this with amusement and bemusement from his retirement perch. Just goes to support the “Milhollan/Hurwitz Doctrine” that “only bad things can happen once they know you exist.”

PWS

02-22-19

“SIMPLY BRILLIANT” — Retired U.S. Immigration Judge Carol King Tells Us All We Need To Know About The Deplorable State Of EOIR & Practice In The Largely “Due Process Free” Zone Of Today’s Immigration Courts In Her Keynote Address To The AILA Northwest Regional Immigration Law Conference!

KEYNOTE SPEECH

I.
KEYNOTE: AILA NORTHWEST REGIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CONFERENCE February 14, 2019
Seattle, Washington
PRACTICING IN PERILOUS TIMES
INTRODUCTION: Practicing in Perilous Times a.What does it mean to be PRACTICING IN
PERILOUS TIMES? Is this time really so
different? b.ALWAYS:
i. You have ALWAYS worked with the most vulnerable clients
ii.You have ALWAYS taken in stories of trauma, persecution and grief in the normal course of your work
iii.You have ALWAYS had an uphill battle obtaining the relief to which your clients are entitled, because you operate in a system that is broken and often oblivious to their suffering.
c.YOU PERSISTED:
i. But you PERSISTED on behalf of your
clients because you had the skills and the courage to fight those battles on a relatively consistent, if not level, playing field.
1

ii.You PERSISTED because you had for inspiration the resilience and courage and dreams of your immigrant clients
iii.You PERSISTED because, maybe not as often as you’d like, but at least occasionally, you had the satisfaction of helping someone achieve a second chance in life – a chance to start over in the country they chose as home, to work and contribute in their chosen manner, to be with their families, to enjoy a life free of persecution or torture or crushing poverty.
d.NOW
i. NOW the playing field tilts more
drastically every day and the battles are so bloody and so mean-spirited and the results so frequently demoralizing and unfair and lacking in due process, that it has become really difficult to carry on, to keep on persisting.
ii.NOW you’re not only experiencing stories of past trauma, but you are witnessing, in real time, the traumatization of your clients as this administration literally terrorizes them with its rhetoric and actions.
2

iii.NOW you see decades of hard-won development of protections for your clients swept away in a single day and with a single pen stroke.
iv.In my more than 30 years both practicing as an immigration attorney and sitting as an immigration judge, I don’t believe there has been a more difficult or perilous time to practice in this area.
1.What you are all doing at this time in history is really, really difficult
2.It takes an inordinate amount of dedication, courage and vision.
3.I am in awe of each and every one of you.
II. IMMIGRATION COURT UPDATE a.I’ve been asked to give today an
IMMIGRATION COURT UPDATE.
i. That’s a bit of a difficult task, since
you are the experts on what you’re seeing every day in court, and since I have been off the bench and somewhat “out of the inside loop” for two years, and much has occurred since then. Despite that, I’m going to venture an opinion, and that is that the Immigration Court system itself is also
3

in serious peril, as is its ability to provide due process of law to those who appear before it.
ii.I want to focus on a few issues that I think are extremely important to protecting due process in our court system.
b.ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES resulting in a Crushing caseload: The Immigration Court has been functioning under a crushing caseload and with entirely inadequate resources for as long as I worked there.
i. That caseload is now growing exponentially for a variety of reasons (the last statistic I heard was that, on average, individual Immigration Judges have a pending caseload of over 2500 cases). What are some of the reasons for this exponential growth?:
1.Priorities: This administration has absolutely refused to set any kind of meaningful priorities for prosecution of cases. The policy is to prosecute every issue in every possible case to the max. There is no recognition that limitations on resources require prosecutorial discretion.
4

2.Erosion of case management tools:
a.The current management of EOIR has eroded the case management tools that in the past allowed judges to juggle a massive caseload and prioritize the cases that were ripe for adjudication. First, administrative closure was taken away by AG Sessions, with a suggestion that such situations could be dealt with by continuances. Then, once that was in place, EOIR openly discouraged continuances, requiring judges to issue a long- form written decision justifying each granted continuance. No such decision is required to deny a continuance. In addition to eliminating essential tools for managing a massive caseload, incentivizing a particular outcome in decision-making undermines the independence of the court and due process
5

and has no place in a court
system!
3.Aftermath of Gov’t Shut Down:
a. My contacts are with the SF
Immigration Court, not Seattle, but I think some generalizations can be made: First, there was ZERO GUIDANCE from EOIR management on how to deal with the specifics of the shut-down. Thus, each court administrator decided how to deal with, for instance, filings during the shut down, and the resetting of cases.
b.In San Francisco, all mail was opened and date stamped, then set for a 10 day call up to begin the day the government reopened. They received 10,000 filings during the 5 week shutdown. None of them could be entered into the system. They all came up for call up on Feb 7, 2019.
6

Thus, the SF court, which is one of the most efficient and well-run courts, is overwhelmed still by the remnants of the shut down.
c. In addition, when the SF Court Administrator asked EOIR for a 3 day “recovery period” after the shutdown, the request was denied and they were told that all courtrooms had to be in full swing as of the morning of the first day the government reopened. ACCs did not have their files, court files had not been pulled for Master Calendar and Individual Calendar hearings. At that point 10,000 filings, including those filed before the two week filing deadline for cases scheduled that morning, were in a pile waiting to be entered into the court
7

system and were
inaccessible to the judges. d.The only support offered
from EOIR was unlimited overtime for staff, so some staff has now been consistently working 20 hours a week overtime to try to catch up on the aftermath of the shutdown.
e.As an example of the delays engendered by the shutdown, in San Francisco 67 full Master Calendars had to be cancelled. As new cases pour in and add to the backlog, all these cases have to be reset to new Master Calendars, not to mention hundreds of individual cases which must now be reset.
4.Severe shortage in resources: As always, the Immigration Court is operating under a severe shortage of resources. As an example, in San Francisco, by this summer they will have a full complement of 27
8

Judges and all courtrooms will be full, but the court is already down 30 Legal Assistants from what they should have and all Legal Assistants are carrying 2 judges’ caseloads, a nearly impossible task even in a short-term emergency situation. Because Legal Assistant hiring falls far behind even IJ hiring, by summer all the Legal Assistants will have to carry 3 judges’ caseloads.
c.LEGAL AND INDEPENDENCE ISSUES
i. I talked about incentivizing denying
continuances. But there are even more direct ways in which this administration has undermined the independence of the Immigration Court. When the Attorney General of the United States goes to a conference of Immigration Judges and specifically tells judges that entire categories of asylum cases should “generally” be denied (as AG Sessions did in the summer of 2018), this is a direct and blatant attack on the decisional independence of the Immigration Judges.
9

ii.Matter of A-B- was only one in a series of decisions in which the current Department of Justice is inappropriately using the AG Certification Process in an attempt to roll back decades of painstaking development of the law, developments which had finally brought us into closer compliance with our international obligations to protect true refugees. This tactic has gone hand in hand with vicious attacks on immigrants in the press and disregard of their true motives for coming to the United States.
iii.Add to all of this the jurisdictional issues raised by the Supreme Court in Pereira v. Sessions and the Immigration Court system is in severe peril. It seems to me extremely clear that the legal conclusion in that case compels a finding that the vast majority of Notices to Appear filed with the court during the entire time I have been involved in immigration law are invalid and incapable of conferring jurisdiction on the Immigration Court. As I’m sure you know, a panel of the 9th Circuit
10

recently held otherwise, but with very shaky reasoning. If eventually all these NTA’s are declared invalid, I have grave concerns for the impact that will have on the Immigration Court system, and even on tens of thousands of immigrants who have been granted relief by Immigration Courts over the last 40 years.
iv.The final perilous factor I want to talk about today is the pressure on judges to complete an overwhelming number of cases in a very short period of time, probably the most dangerous threat to due process of all.
1.Immigration Judges have, for the first time, been mandated to complete 700 cases per year. In the past we had “aspirational goals” to complete certain cases by a certain time, and that in and of itself, created a lot of pressure and fear among judges.
2.But now, not only have the case completion goals become mandatory, they have been tied to the Immigration Judge’s Performance Evaluations. If you
11

look at the ABA’s guidelines for evaluation of judges, you will see that completing a particular number of cases is absolutely inappropriate as a factor to evaluate judges. Judges are evaluated by their peers and party/ stakeholders on criteria such as legal reasoning ability; knowledge of the law; knowledge of rules of procedure and evidence; keeping up on current developments; Integrity and Impartiality; communication skills; professionalism and temperament; administrative capacity (including managing a docket efficiently and effectively) – while this includes promptness in deciding cases, the commentary makes clear that these are aspirational goals, that some factors affecting promptness of decisions may be outside the judges’ control and that the purpose of such an evaluation is primarily for the individual improvement of each judge and
12

should never be tied to
disciplinary action.
3.Now we have a situation in the Immigration Court in which the judges’ continued employment depends on their ability to keep up with an artificial and unrealistic case completion mandate, which requires the completion of approximately three full hearings a day, leaving complex asylum and cancellation hearings lucky to be scheduled for 90 minutes, where such hearings used to be scheduled for a full morning or afternoon, and might take even more than one such session.
4.This is something that requires vigilance by all of us. Knowing that the judges are under an incredible amount of pressure, and even sympathizing with that situation (please do!), does not relieve us of zealously representing our clients. What does that mean in this milieu? It means being super prepared. It means being super efficient in the presentation of your cases. It
13

means trying to work out stipulations with ICE counsel as to issues, admissibility of evidence, the need for cross examination (anything you can think of to make the hearing go faster for the judge), it means briefing every or almost every case and making sure all arguments are addressed in writing in case time is not given for closing arguments or opening statements. And then, after you have done the most thorough, efficient, and complete job you can at presenting your case, if the time given is not sufficient and the judge is cutting off the presentation of the case, it means standing up on the record and using the words “denial of due process”.
III. CONCLUSION:
a.What does all this mean as we struggle to
deal with the peril in which we find ourselves?
i. As a community, we must continue to advocate for a more independent
14

court, one which exists outside of any prosecutorial agency such as the DOJ.
1.For years we had mostly small incursions into decisional independence, most often when EOIR management made what they believed to be an “administrative” decision which inadvertently encroached on decisional independence
2.But, as judges, we saw the potential and feared that more intentional and direct incursions could be made under the current system. Therefore, at peril to our own jobs, we chose to advocate for an independent court under Article 1 of the United States Constitution. Since then, the Federal Bar Association, AILA and others have joined us in this call.
3.We are now seeing the types of direct and intentional attacks on the independence of the Immigration Judges that we mostly only feared before. Therefore, we must redouble our efforts to attain
15

independent status for the
Immigration Court.
ii.As individuals, as I said in the
beginning, we are facing truly perilous times, and we can’t underestimate the impact that has on our health, our ability to stay in the work for the long term, and our competence as attorneys.
1.It bears saying that, in such perilous times, it is terribly easy to feel that there is no time to rest, no time to take a break, spend time with family, engage in self- care such as meditation or exercise or dancing or surfing or whatever floats your boat and helps you renew your stamina. It’s so easy to feel that our clients are suffering so badly that we ourselves have no right or ability to rest.
2.A young lawyer said to me recently, “We start out in this work feeling like warriors; but we wind up barely hanging on.” That got me thinking what it would mean to approach our work with the heart
16

of a warrior. The characteristics of warriors are:
a.Persistence: not accepting what seems to be inevitable. We didn’t accept it when years of “settled law” seemed to preclude effective use of Particular Social Group in asylum cases, and we must not accept either when the AG “grabs” cases in order to undermine decades of patient and attentive legal development, as he did in Matter of A-B-. Likewise, we must not accept having our cases rushed beyond all semblance of due process.
b.Preparation: Warriors prepare themselves for battle – as we are doing now, and do regularly, by educating ourselves, learning from each other, strategizing and skills training. As warriors, we also prepare our cases as well as ourselves, and do so zealously and to the best of our ability.
17

c.Dedication: As warriors, we must consistently ask ourselves – does this work bring me joy? If not, you will not be able to fully dedicate yourself to it for the long term. Because we believe in the work we are doing and the people we are representing, we WANT to give of ourselves 110%. But what does that mean? As part of her preparation for battle, a warrior prepares herself by taking care of body and soul.
I propose to you that in these perilous times, self-care becomes even more essential than it ordinarily is. It HAS to figure in to the 110% that you are giving! Our brains and bodies break down if we remain consistently in fight or flight mode and that effects not only our own happiness and health, but our ability to represent our clients competently and intelligently over a long period of time. Don’t put off this
18

aspect of your role as a warrior for your clients. Please don’t wait, as I did, until you are too fundamentally exhausted to implement a self-care plan.
d.Do it now, do it for yourselves, do it for your family, do it for your current and future clients.
3.Thank you
19

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

Thank you, Carol. Proud to be your colleague in “Our Gang!”

PWS

02-15-19

EFFECTS OF TRUMP SHUTDOWN, “MALICIOUS INCOMPETENCE” CONTINUE TO ROIL U.S. IMMIGRATION COURT SYSTEM, SCREW MIGRANTS WHO FAITHFULLY SHOW UP FOR “FAKE” HEARINGS! – Trump Shut Down USG Over A Bogus “National Immigration Emergency” While Deeming Immigration Courts “Nonessential!” – Would ICE Agents Dare File “Charging Documents” Containing False Information With “Real” U.S. Courts?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/31/politics/immigration-court-fake-dates/index.html

By Catherine E. Shoichet, Angela Barajas and Priscilla Alvarez, CNN

Updated 10:15 PM ET, Thu January 31, 2019

Hundreds of people overflow onto the sidewalk in a line snaking around the block outside a U.S. immigration office with numerous courtrooms Thursday, Jan. 31, 2019, in San Francisco. (AP Photo/Eric Risberg)

(CNN)More than 1,000 immigrants showed up at courts across the United States on Thursday for hearings they’d been told were scheduled but didn’t exist, a lawyers’ group said, as the Justice Department struggles with an overloaded immigration court system and the effects of the recently ended partial government shutdown.

Immigration attorneys reported that lines wrapped around the court building in San Francisco, a line stretched for blocks to get into the court in Los Angeles and hundreds of people waited outside the court in Newark, New Jersey.

Thursday’s problems are the latest example of US immigration authorities issuing a large number of inaccurate notices ordering immigrants to appear at hearings that, it later turns out, had never been scheduled.

Lawyers first told CNN last year that they’d observed a wave of what they call “fake dates” pop up. For instance, lawyers reported examples of notices to appear issued for nonexistent dates, such as September 31, and for times of day when courts aren’t open, such as midnight.

“The immigration courts have reached a new crisis point,” said Laura Lynch, senior policy counsel for the American Immigration Lawyers Association. The group said it tracked over 1,000 people showing up in courts Thursday with inaccurate hearing notices.

In Los Angeles, immigrants who had “fake dates” were given paperwork acknowledging they’d appeared at the immigration court, according to attorney Jonathan Vallejo, who provided this redacted copy of one such form.

‘I’m afraid and nervous’

Inside a packed waiting room at the Arlington Immigration Court on Thursday, confused immigrants clutching paperwork asked lawyers for help. Some said they’d driven hours to get to court and had awakened at 3:30 a.m. to arrive on time.

“I’m left with a question mark. I’m wondering, ‘Why?'” said Bigail Alfaro, 39, who’s seeking asylum with her two children. “I’m afraid and nervous.”

RELATED: The government shutdown took its toll on the nation’s immigration courts

As she prepared to head into court for a scheduled hearing, immigration attorney Eileen Blessinger found herself fielding questions and asking court officials to stamp paperwork to provide proof that immigrants had shown up.

“What happened?” one woman asked her.

“You don’t have court, because they made a mistake,” Blessinger said.

At an immigration court in Atlanta, a crowd of around 40 people were turned away, almost one by one, by a Spanish-speaking court employee telling people with notices that their hearings had been “postponed.”

Among those showing up for court were parents with small children, some dressed only with hooded sweatshirts and covering themselves with blankets, with the temperature in Atlanta in the mid-20s.

“They told us they would send us another citation by mail,” said a man named Jose who asked to be identified only by his first name. “But who knows when? And the hard part is they don’t let us know with enough time, enough time to prepare ourselves.”

In Los Angeles, immigration attorney Jonathan Vallejo said he saw 30-40 people ushered into a room where they were told they didn’t have hearings and given forms acknowledging they’d appeared at the court.

“It’s absurd what’s going on,” he said.

RELATED: Trump admin faces two big deadlines on family separation policy

Two lawyers. One court. And their fight against the odds.

Problems were also seen in Dallas, Miami and San Diego, Lynch said.

The Executive Office for Immigration Review, the division of the Justice Department that runs the immigration courts, said the weather and government shutdown were partially to blame.

The office “was unable to proceed with hearings for some respondents who believed they had hearings scheduled,” the Justice Department said in a statement. “In some cases, the cases had been rescheduled to another date, but the lapse in appropriations prevented the immigration courts from issuing new hearing notices far enough in advance of the prior hearing date.”

An ongoing problem

President Donald Trump has repeatedly criticized the nation’s immigration system, specifically taking issue with the practice of releasing immigrants while they await their court dates. To remedy that, his administration has sought to hire more immigration judges in the hopes of unclogging the court.

But that has not happened — there are 409 immigration judges nationwide but nearly 80 vacancies — and the number of cases continues to grow.

For years, the number of pending cases has been slowly creeping up, as more are added to the docket than can be addressed at any given time. There are more than 800,000 cases pending, according to the Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse.

Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions also created a quota system that requires judges to clear at least 700 cases a year in order to receive “satisfactory” performance evaluations. Between 2011 and 2016, judges completed 678 cases a year on average.

Judge Ashley Tabaddor, the president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, described judges in Los Angeles coming back this week to boxes filled to the rim with mail that had piled up over the course of the 35-day partial government shutdown.

“What this does is it adds greater delay to the cases. We were shortchanged five or four weeks of time,” Tabaddor told CNN. “Not only were we not able to hear cases that were previously cases that were scheduled, but it’s going to take time to regroup.”

RELATED: US immigration authorities detail so-called return-to-Mexico guidance for migrants

Immigration attorneys say the instances of mistakenly scheduled hearings unfairly burden immigrants and create more pressure on a system that’s already suffering from a crushing backlog.

“Imagine the stress of facing potential deportation,” North Carolina immigration attorney Jeremy McKinney said on Twitter. “You’re told show up in court or be ordered deported in your absence. You drive hundreds of miles & wait in line only to be told the court date was not real. ‘Sorry for the minor logistical errors.’ “

A NOTICE TO APPEAR AT MIDNIGHT (p. 1)

Atlanta immigration attorney Rachel Effron Sharma says this is an example of a notice a client received, ordering the client to report to an immigration court at a time when the court was closed.

View the entire document with DocumentCloud

The US Supreme Court ruled in June that notices to appear — the charging documents that immigration authorities issue to send someone to immigration court who’s accused of being in the United States illegally — must specify the time and place of proceedings in order to be valid.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman Jennifer Elzea said officials have been working to comply with the court’s requirements for notices to appear, but the lapse in funding during the partial government shutdown had delayed those administrative efforts.

“All appropriate parties are working together to solve this issue going forward,” she said.

In its statement Thursday, the Executive Office for Immigration Review said it had issued policy guidance in December and modified its system so the Department of Homeland Security and its components can directly schedule hearings.

The agency said it “does not expect any further recurrence of this type of situation.”

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

Yup, and it happened in the “Bay Area” also:

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Confusion-erupts-as-dozens-show-up-for-fake-13579045.php

Tatiana Sanchez reports for the SF Chronicle:

One woman pulled her daughter out of school to make it to the courthouse on Montgomery Street. Another caught a ride from Fresno. A teenage girl and her ailing mother waited for hours, clutching documents that summoned the mother to Immigration Court Jan. 31.

But none of them got what they came for and expected: a hearing before a judge.

Dozens of people reported Thursday to hearings previously scheduled by the Department of Homeland Security at the federal San Francisco Immigration Court, only to find the appointments didn’t exist.

Unlimited Digital Access for 99¢

Read more articles like this by subscribing to the San Francisco Chronicle

SUBSCRIBE

Immigration attorneys described similar scenes in Chicago, Atlanta, Virginia, Miami and Texas, where long lines snaked around courthouses for hours.

Federal officials said Thursday’s problems resulted from the government shutdown delaying the process of rescheduling the hearings.

But attorneys representing immigrants called the court dates fake, and said Immigration and Customs Enforcement is sending immigrants notices to appear — charging documents instructing people accused of being in the country illegally to come to court — with court dates it knows are not real.

“Every city in every jurisdiction is doing this, obviously knowing that there really won’t be court on that date,” said Christable Lee, an immigration attorney in San Francisco. “These immigrants are standing with their kids outside with no direction. They’re afraid to stand outside on the sidewalk in front of the courthouse because there could be other immigration authorities there. It’s a really harrowing situation.”

Attorneys say the new practice stems from a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, known as Pereira vs. Sessions that requires notices to appear to include a specific date and time in order to be valid. Previously, immigration authorities could send notices with the date listed as “to be determined.”

A similar situation occurred in several cities nationwide Oct. 31 when dozens of people showed up for court hearings that didn’t exist. Since then, some have reported court dates scheduled on weekends or late at night.

In a prepared statement, ICE denied giving immigrants a fake court date, saying, “Due to the recent partial lapse in government appropriations, the administrative process to resolve this issue was delayed, resulting in an expected overflow of individuals with Notices to Appear listing immigration proceedings on January 31.”

Meanwhile, the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which oversees all immigration courts, said it was “unable to proceed” with hearings for some people who “believed they had hearings scheduled” Thursday.

“In some cases, the cases had been rescheduled to another date, but the lapse in appropriations prevented the immigration courts from issuing new hearing notices far enough in advance of the prior hearing date,” the agency said in a statement. “In other cases, EOIR did not receive the Notice to Appear (NTA) in a timely manner. Immigration proceedings do not commence until the Department of Homeland Security has filed an NTA with an immigration court.”

Attorneys with the American Immigration Lawyers Association said they’ve received more than 1,000 reports of immigrants who had notices to appear in court containing fake dates, though they said it’s extremely difficult to track.

Mothers with small children, families and confused couples clutching manila folders crowded the sidewalk in San Francisco Thursday while others filled nearby coffee shops and restaurants after being told to come back a different day. The news was particularly troubling for immigrants who traveled several hours to get to the courthouse, many relying on relatives and friends for rides.

More than a dozen people waiting outside the courthouse declined to be interviewed but told The Chronicle that staff informed them court wasn’t in session Thursday. Some people who showed up in the morning were asked to come back later in the day, though it’s unclear what happened once they returned.

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

As I’ve reported before on “Courtside,” contrary to the myths promoted by Trump, DOJ, and DHS, migrants generally appear for court when they get valid notice with real hearing dates and actually have the system explained to them (usually by an attorney); ironically, it’s often EOIR (“the lovable donkey”) that “Fails to Appear” (“FTA”) with an assist from their “partners in crime” over at ICE.

Would a “real court” let the “cops” run roughshod over them and their dockets as EOIR permits ICE to do? Would a “real President” shut down the Immigration Courts over a wall that will have NO, I repeat NO, “immediate impact” on migration while forcing tens of thousands of “ready to try removal cases” to the end of dockets that already stretch out four or more years in some locations?

Part of the problem is the continuing failure since the Clinton Administration of the DOJ to implement the statutory contempt of court authority granted to the Immigration Judges by Congress approximately two decades ago! A few contempt of court orders directed at ICE Agents and the ICE Chief Counsel who are failing to control their so-called “clients,” or perhaps at Secretary Nielsen herself, would bring these absurd, illegal, time-wasting practices that actually hurt real human beings and sow chaos in our justice system to a screeching halt!

That’s why an independent Article I Immigration Court is an essential priority in fixing our immigration system, including the procedures both for granting asylum and other relief promptly, fairly, and in accordance with due process, and issuing removal orders for those who don’t qualify. The current system does neither, for reasons largely beyond the control of the Immigration Judges (although some judges at both the trial and appellate level bear responsibility for failing to carry out in a fair and unbiased manner, consistent with due process, the generous, humanitarian statutes for the granting of asylum and implementing the legal mandates for other forms of protection from persecution and torture. That’s why a transparent, merit-based selection and reappointment system, with provision for public input is essential to an Article I system).

News from the “Journalism Carousel:” Star immigration reporter Priscilla Alvarez has moved to CNN from her prior birth over at The Atlantic. Congrats to Priscilla and to CNN!

PWS

02-01-19

‘OUR GANG” MEMBERS JOIN HUNDREDS OF OTHER DOJ “ALUMS” IN RAISING CONCERNS ABOUT WHITAKER APPOINTMENT!

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/justice-department-matthew-whitaker-attorney-general

Zoe Tillman reports for BuzzFeed News:

WASHINGTON — More than 400 former Justice Department officials and attorneys have signed a statement saying they’re “disturbed” by President Donald Trump’s appointment of Matthew Whitaker as acting attorney general.

The list of signatories includes more than 300 former career Justice Department employees who served under both Democratic and Republican administrations, according to Protect Democracy, a government watchdog group involved in organizing the effort. It also includes political appointees, mostly appointed by Democratic presidents.

“Because of our respect for our oaths of office and our personal experiences carrying out the Department’s mission, we are disturbed by the President’s appointment of Matthew Whitaker to serve as Acting Attorney General,” the statement signed by former DOJ officials and attorneys reads. “Mr. Whitaker has not been confirmed by the Senate, his qualifications to be the nation’s chief law enforcement officer have not been publicly reviewed, and he has not been fully vetted for any potential conflicts of interest.”

Protect Democracy / Via medium.com

The statement signed by 421 Justice Department alumni as of Dec. 4, 2018.

Whitaker took office Nov. 7 after Trump forced out former attorney general Jeff Sessions. Whitaker had been Sessions’ chief of staff, but was not in a Senate-confirmed position. Whitaker’s appointment is the subject of multiple legal challenges in the federal courts, as well as before the US Supreme Court; the Justice Department has defended it as lawful.

Jill Wine-Banks, a former Watergate prosecutor, said she signed the statement because of concerns not only about how Whitaker was appointed, but about whether he should step aside from any involvement in the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Whitaker has been critical of the probe in the past.

“I think there are a number of reasons not to support Whitaker and a number of reasons to think he should at least recuse himself,” said Wine-Banks, now an MSNBC contributor.

Protect Democracy spokesperson Aditi Juneja said the group first sent out the statement to former Justice Department officials Nov. 29. Roy Austin, a former senior Justice Department official in the Civil Rights Division under the Obama administration, told BuzzFeed News that the statement continued to spread via word of mouth over the past few days among department alumni.

“I don’t expect much from this administration but I think the public should know that those of us who served at the Department of Justice care deeply about the institution even though we’re no longer there, and I hope the public and Congress demand that the right thing be done,” said Austin, now an attorney in private practice in Washington, DC.

Trump has not announced a nominee for attorney general. The statement signed by former DOJ officials calls on the president to choose a nominee and go through the Senate confirmation process. One of the legal challenges to Whitaker’s appointment was filed by Democratic senators who argue that the appointment circumvented the Senate’s “advice and consent role” on nominees.

A Justice Department spokesperson did not immediately return a request for comment.

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

Not too late for other “DOJ alums” to sign on (you certainly don’t have to be a former judge or member of “Our Gang.”). See the ink at the end of the letter embedded in the above article.

AILA and other immigrants’ rights advocacy groups are also raising issues abut Whitaker’s legal authority to certify and issue binding precedent decisions in immigration cases!

PWS

12-05-18

CNN: FRAUD, WASTE, & ABUSE: DOJ & DHS Continue To Thumb Noses At Supremes & Congress, Forcing Migrants To Dutifully Appear For Bogus Immigration Court Hearings At Knowingly False Dates & Times! – It’s “Kakistocracy In Action” & Nobody Has The Backbone To Put An End To It!

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/31/us/immigration-court-fake-dates/index.html

Catherine E. Shoichet reports for CNN:

(CNN)Lines snaked around the block outside immigration courts across the United States on Wednesday. But many people standing in them later learned they had no reason to be there.

More than 100 immigrants showed up to court carrying paperwork ordering them to appear before a judge, only to find out that their court dates hadn’t actually been scheduled, according to the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). And as a result, uncharacteristically long lines were reported outside at least 10 immigration courts, the association said.

Lawyers told CNN it’s part of a troubling trend that shows how dysfunctional the system has become and how chaotic the Trump administration’s approach to immigration enforcement can be.

“From a humanitarian point of view, it’s sickening what you’re seeing happening here, because they’re toying with these individuals’ lives in many cases. … This is widespread, it’s national and it’s outrageous,” said Jeremy McKinney, AILA’s treasurer and an immigration attorney in North Carolina.

Sessions criticizes immigrants’ attorneys before immigration judges

Attorneys say the practice began after the US Supreme Court ruled in June that notices to appear — the charging documents that immigration authorities issue to send someone to immigration court who’s accused of being in the United States illegally — must specify the time and place of proceedings in order to be valid.

Since then, immigration lawyers across the country have reported that officials are increasingly issuing such notices with so-called “fake dates,” ordering immigrants to appear at hearings that, it later turns out, were never scheduled in immigration courts.

In recent months, lawyers have reported examples of notices issued for nonexistent dates, such as September 31st, and for times of day when courts aren’t open, such as midnight.

A NOTICE TO APPEAR AT MIDNIGHT (p. 1)

Atlanta immigration attorney Rachel Effron Sharma says this is an example of a notice a client received, ordering the client to report to an immigration court at a time when the court was closed.

View the entire document with DocumentCloud

US Citizenship and Immigration Services spokesman Daniel Hetlage said in a statement that initial dates on notices issued by his agency and Immigration and Customs Enforcement are “based on guidance on upcoming docket dates from local EOIR, an agency within the US Department of Justice responsible for administering the immigration courts.”

EOIR, Hetlage said, “is responsible for setting and re-setting appearances dates upon receipt of Notices to Appear filed by US Immigration and Customs Enforcements and other components of the US Department of Homeland Security.”

A spokeswoman for the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Notices issued for dates that don’t exist, times when court is closed

On Wednesday, reports of the so-called “fake date” practice were far more widespread, and attorneys reported seeing larger numbers of people affected than previously, said Laura Lynch, AILA’s senior policy counsel.

Attorneys observed long lines at courts in Baltimore, Charlotte, Atlanta, Orlando, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Dallas, Phoenix and San Diego. Immigrants with “fake dates” were also seen at courts Wednesday in Las Vegas and Denver, Lynch said, but lines there weren’t as long.

In this screengrab from a handout video provided by the American Immigration Lawyers Association, people are seen lining up outside the Atlanta Immigration Court on October 31.

“The line was around the corner,” said Jorge Gavilanes, an immigration attorney in Atlanta who witnessed the crowds gathering Wednesday. “Security was unprepared for this. The court was unprepared for this. They were scrambling to check every single one of these cases to see if these cases have been already filed with this court.”

This isn’t the first time such situations have been reported.

The Dallas Morning News documented the practice occurring in court there in September.

It may sound like a small bureaucratic glitch, Lynch said, but such mix-ups can take a significant toll on immigrants’ lives.

“Clients are driving like eight hours and taking off of work in order to appear at these hearings, only to find out that it’s not the actual correct hearing date. The impact is their jobs, it’s their life, and also just the anxiety,” she said.

Attorney: ‘People were obviously fearful’

Sometimes, lawyers say they’re able to confirm with courts beforehand that certain noticed hearing dates aren’t accurate, but then struggle to convince their clients not to show up in court anyway.

“They’re so anxious to cooperate. They don’t want any problems with ICE or with the authorities,” says Rachel Effron Sharma, an immigration attorney in Atlanta who tried to explain the situation to clients this week. “They got a letter telling them to go that day. They didn’t understand how it would be possible that there would be a date that was just made up.”

Two lawyers. One court. And their fight against the odds.

Gavilanes said he’s found himself in a similar predicament, trying to reassure clients who know that if they don’t show up for a scheduled court hearing, the consequences could be severe.

“People were obviously fearful that if they miss their hearing, they were going to get deported in their absence, and they didn’t want to take that chance,” he said. “They’d rather show up at the court and have them tell them go home instead of not showing up and worry(ing) about it.”

On Wednesday, Gavilanes said he fielded questions from numerous immigrants who were baffled by the situation.

“I don’t think people really understand why this is happening,” he said.

CNN’s Angela Barajas and Bilal Vaughn contributed to this report.

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

Thank you, Catherine, for helping to expose the corrupt administration of the Immigration Courts and DHS Enforcement under Trump, Sessions, & Nielsen!

Not only are individuals being denied due process, but taxpayer money is literally being poured down the drain when cases have to be reset by the courts, rather than being rationally and correctly set in the first place. Since the Immigration Courts have been so incompetently managed that they are virtually an “automation free zone” every mistake has to be corrected manually by already overwhelmed Court Clerks who already are struggling to keep up with all of Sessions’s other “Gonzo priorities.”

The whole process is what I call “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” or (“ADR”). While ADR certainly was practiced by both the Bush II and Obama Administrations, Sessions has taken ADR to new heights of dysfunction, irrationality, and intentional cruelty. The Government and the Immigration Courts actually exist to serve the public interest (including, of course, the interest of the people summoned before them), not to satisfy the outlier restrictionist agenda that Jeff Sessions failed to enact during his many wasted years in Congress.

With competent, professional, independent, non-political Administration, by folks who understand the system and are willing to work with the public and the lawyers, the money could be spent creating a system that would actually be fair, just, and efficient — no, not tomorrow or the next day, but certainly in the foreseeable future.

But, as long as folks like Sessions are in charge, “Good Government” has no chance whatsoever! And, that’s bad for all of us!

Many thanks to my good friend Laura Lynch over at AILA National for passing this item along.

PWS

11-01-18

JOIN AILA AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS IN MAKING OCT. 1, 2018 A “DAY OF PROTEST” AGAINST THE WHITE NATIONALIST, ANTI-DUE-PROCESS POLICIES OF JEFF SESSIONS WHICH HAVE DESTROYED JUSTICE IN THE US IMMIGRATION COURT SYSTEM!

https://www.aila.org/dueprocess

AILA Calls for Independent Immigration Courts

AILA Doc. No. 18092834 | Dated September 29, 2018 | File Size: 759 K

DOWNLOAD THE DOCUMENT

Beginning today – October 1, 2018 – Attorney General Sessions is requiring all immigration judges to meet performance-based case completion quotas, which means the judges are forced to complete a certain number of cases or face discipline. This astounding move has been called “death knell for judicial independence” by the National Association of Immigration Judges, and means judges will compelled to rush through these often life-or-death cases.

The imposition of quotas is just the latest in a series of policy changes implemented in the past year that undermine judicial independence, threaten due process, and prevent people from getting a fair day in court. Because immigration courts are housed under the Department of Justice, the very same law enforcement agency that is charged with prosecuting immigration cases in federal courts, the Attorney General has authority over both the prosecutors and judges in immigration cases. Attorney General Sessions has wielded this considerable power to not only impose quotas, but also pluck no less than six cases from the judges to decide himself, to reassign judges away from particular cases, and to implement policies that emphasize quantity over quality.

In the face of this unprecedented attack on our judiciary, more than 1,000 AILA members are submitting a letter to Attorney General Sessions asking that he support the creation of an independent, Article I court system that can ensure due process and fundamental fairness. Justice demands nothing less.

AILA Policy Brief

Resources Coming Soon

AILA Press Statement

Letter from over 1,000 AILA members calling for independent immigration courts

Talking Points

Sample Letter to the Editor

Tweetstorm

AILA will be hosting a Tweetstorm on Monday, October 1, 2018, from 1:00 – 3:00 pm (ET) to speak out against the implementation of the quotas on immigration judges.

Participate in AILA’s #ProtectDueProcess & #JudicialIndependence Tweetstorm Monday, October 1, 2018, from 1:00 – 3:00pm (ET) by:

Using the sample tweets below and accompanying graphics.

Creating your own tweets using the hashtags #ProtectDueProcess or #JudicialIndependence; or

Retweeting @AILANational, @AILAExecDir, or @GregChenAILA

SAMPLE TWEETS – DO NOT USE UNTIL MONDAY TWEETSTORM

The only benchmark for #immigration judges should be to #ProtectDueProcess. Imposing case competition quotas does just the opposite. Read @AILANational’s policy brief: http://ow.ly/zQD230lZ5uD

A judge’s decision can carry life-or-death consequences. This is why we must #ProtectDueProcess in our immigration court system. Read @HispanicCaucus’ letter to #DOJ: http://ow.ly/5VEH30lZ5xG

More than 120 #immigration law scholars and professors denounced #DOJ’s plan to impose case completion quotas to measure #immigration judges’ performance out of concern that it would undermine #JudicialIndependence in immigration courts. http://ow.ly/lKt130m0mwR

For months, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has been interfering with #JudicialIndependence and undermining #DueProcess in #immigration courts. @MotherJones explains: http://ow.ly/NSf130lZ7La

With the case completion quotas in effect, #immigration judges will need to finish cases quickly to receive satisfactory performance reviews, forcing them to choose between job security or justice. #ProtectDueProcess http://ow.ly/NSf130lZ7La via @MotherJones

Judge Ashley Tabaddor, President of the National Association of #Immigration Judges, explains why NAIJ is speaking out against recent policy changes that undermine #JudicialIndependence: “We are essentially then prosecutors in a judge’s robe.” https://lat.ms/2xGkWUm

AG Sessions went ahead and imposed case completion quotas without input from the very people they will affect: #immigration judges! That is no way to uphold #JudicialIndependence and integrity. Read more: http://ow.ly/VbSj30lZgwf
Members of the law community, including the National Association of Immigration Judges, are advocating for an #immigration court system that is independent of #DOJ, as AG Sessions undermines #JudicialIndependence. http://ow.ly/eFhQ30lZ9l9

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

STAND UP FOR DUE PROCESS — STOP JEFF SESSIONS & HIS WHITE NATIONALIST RESTRICTIONIST AGENDA!

PWS

10-01-18

MORE FROM WASHPOST ON SESSIONS’S ATTACKS ON INDEPENDENCE OF US IMMIGRATION JUDGES!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/immigration-judges-worried-trump-is-seeking-to-cut-them-out-fight-back/2018/08/09/3d7e915a-9bd7-11e8-8d5e-c6c594024954_story.html?utm_term=.6b3ca4d6ec23

Antonio Olivo reports for WashPost:

The union for the nation’s immigration judges is fighting a government decision to strip a Philadelphia judge of his authority over 87 cases, arguing that the move sidelines judicial independence as President Trump seeks to ramp up deportations.

Immigration judges work under the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review, though they have independent authority to determine whether the thousands of undocumented immigrants who come before them every year can remain in the United States through asylum or some other form of relief.

In a labor grievance filed this week, the National Association of Immigration Judges says the office undercut that authority when it removed Judge Steven A. Morley from overseeing juvenile cases that he had either continued or placed on temporary hold amid questions over whether federal prosecutors had adequately notified the subjects to appear in court.

The Justice Department said in a statement Thursday that “there is reason to believe” Morley violated federal law and department policy in those cases, but it did not offer any specifics. The statement said an investigation is ongoing.

[Judge halts deportation in progress, threatens to hold Sessions in contempt]

Trump alarmed immigration judges in June by tweeting that anyone caught at the border, presumably including those seeking asylum, should be deported without a trial.

“When somebody comes in, we must immediately, with no Judges or Court Cases, bring them back from where they came,” the president wrote.

In its grievance, the judges’ union focused on a case involving Reynaldo Castro-Tum, a Guatemalan national who arrived in 2014 as a 17-year-old unaccompanied minor.

Castro-Tum’s current whereabouts are unknown, and he had not responded to recent court summonses. Morley temporarily closed his case in 2016, ordering the Justice Department to ensure that Castro-Tum was receiving the notices. He did the same with other similar cases.

Prosecutors appealed Morley’s decision, and the case eventually came to the attention of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who chose to review it in January.

Sessions concluded that Morley was wrong to close Castro-Tum’s case and ordered it resolved within two weeks.

Amiena Khan, a New York-based immigration judge who is the union’s vice president, said the intervention further raised suspicions that the administration is looking to circumvent the judicial process and move to deport people faster amid a backlog of some 600,000 cases.

“This is another transparent way, surprisingly transparent in this instance, for the agency to come in and re-create the ideology of this whole process more towards a law enforcement ideology,” Khan said.

[Ahead of midterms, Trump hits a wall in efforts to curb illegal immigration]

The system “is based on our ability to look at the facts and adjudicate the claim before us to our best ability and then render a decision,” Khan said. “Not being told by someone else how to rule.”

The union, which represents 350 judges, argues that Morely should get his caseload back. It is asking the Justice Department to assure all immigration judges that their independent authority won’t be undermined.

Immigrant advocates say the dispute highlights a fundamental flaw in immigration courts, where the judges work under the same department that is tasked with prosecuting cases. Several legal groups have renewed a push for federal legislation to overhaul the system so judges can operate more independently, either through a different branch of the Justice Department or as a separate tribunal court.

“We’re very concerned the immigration judges are simply being turned into law enforcement officers,” said Laura Lynch, senior policy counsel for the American Immigration Lawyers Association, which launched a national campaign this month to lobby members of Congress to support such legislation.

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

When he isn’t busy praising hate groups, covering for police violence against the African-American community, disenfranchising minority voters, promoting the establishment of religion, using bogus stats to fabricate a connection between immigrants and violent crime, abusing brown-skinned children, forcing transgender kids to pee in their pants, thumbing his nose at Federal Judges and their orders, briefing his attorneys on how to mislead courts, mounting unconstitutional attacks on cities, ignoring environmental laws, dissing Dreamers, shilling for racist legislation, deconstructing our refugee, asylum, and legal immigration systems, filling court dockets with minor misdemeanants to the exclusion of felons, imposing deportation quotas, shafting brown-skinned refugee victims of domestic violence, huddling with fellow neo-Nazi Stephen Miller, blocking migrants from getting abortions, or hiding under his desk from Trump, one of Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions’s favorite pastimes is interfering with the independence of U.S. Immigration Judges while purposely jacking up the backlog in the U.S. Immigration Courts.

It remains to be seen whether our country can survive this one-man Constitutional wrecking crew and his reign of indecency and intellectual dishonesty.

PWS

08-09-18

“GANG OF 18” RETIRED IMMIGRATION JUDGES WEIGHS IN BEFORE SENATE JUDICIARY ON SESSIONS’S ABUSES OF DUE PROCESS & NEED FOR ARTICLE I COURT — NAIJ PRESIDENT JUDGE A. ASHLEY TABADDOR PRESENTS STUNNING EVIDENCE OF SESSIONS’S ALL OUT ATTACK ON JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE, PROFESSONALISM, & FAIRNESS TO THOSE APPEARING BEFORE THESE COURTS!

With the help of the amazing Laura Lynch, Senior Policy Counsel at AILA (picture above), here’s the statement filed by our (ever-growing) “Gang of 18” Retired Judges:

Statement of Retired Immigration Judges and former members of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Border Security and Immigration

Hearing on “Strengthening and Reforming America’s Immigration Court System”

April 18, 2018

This statement for the record is submitted by retired immigration judges and former members of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Drawing upon our many years of combined service, we have an intimate knowledge of the operation of the immigration courts. Immigration judges and Board members are supposed to act as neutral arbiters; however, they are considered to be employees of the nation’s chief law enforcement agency, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), rather than true judges. The DOJ is run by politically appointed law enforcement officials, making EOIR vulnerable to improper political pressures. In order to restore public confidence in the immigration court system and to insulate EOIR from political pressure, the immigration court system must be removed from the DOJ to an independent article I court structure that focuses on due process and efficient court administration.

For over a decade, the immigration courts have been severely underfunded when compared to the

budget increases that Congress has provided to immigration enforcement. EOIR has been unable to keep pace with the growing number of removal proceedings. The Trump administration has further contributed to this backlog, announcing broad new immigration enforcement priorities in January of 2017 that make almost everyone who is undocumented a priority for arrest. With the immigration court case backlog approaching 700,000 cases, we can all agree that our immigration court system is in crisis.

Instead of working to improve the immigration court system, DOJ and EOIR have issued policies that will threaten the integrity and independence of the immigration courts.

Imposing case completion quotas

On March 30th, the Director of EOIR announced that immigration judges will now be subject to case completion quotas. This unprecedented change will be effective October 1, 2018, and starting then, immigration judges will be subject to performance reviews (tied to job security and raises) that focus on meaningless numbers and disregard due process. An immigration judge should be evaluated based on the quality of her decisions, not the quantity. Moreover, quotas will likely produce hastily-made decisions and result in grave errors. Poor decisions will also directly result in more appeals to the BIA and the Courts of Appeal, and more remands, causing more delays and running contrary to the goals of the Attorney General (AG).

Curbing use of docketing management tools such as use of continuances

On July 31, 2017, the Chief Immigration Judge issued a memorandum making it more difficult for judges to grant multiple continuances. This policy along with the imposition of case completion quotas heightens concerns that cases will be rushed through the immigration court system. Continuances are necessary in a

AILA Doc. No. 18041830. (Posted 4/18/18) 2

variety of circumstances, such as when an individual is facing deportation in immigration court while awaiting a decision by the U.S. Citizenship Immigration Services (USCIS) on a pending application. Examples of such applications are “U” visas for crime victims, I-601A waivers for unlawful presence, I-130 visa petitions for family members of residents or citizens, or I-751 applications for certain individuals married to U.S. citizens. By law, immigration judges cannot make a decision on these applications; USCIS has sole jurisdiction to make those decisions. But the result of those applications may be outcome determinative in removal proceedings. To date, case law supports judges granting continuances, when it makes sense, in circumstances like these. However, under the new quota system, a judge could be influenced to deny a request for a continuance he or she otherwise would have reasonably granted, solely because of concern about completion numbers and job retention. That is not justice; it seems more like an assembly line. Circuit courts will not excuse due process violations based on immigration judges having to meet arbitrary completion goals.

The AG is taking dramatic steps to rewrite immigration law.

The AG recently utilized his authority to certify two BIA decisions to himself for review to examine a judges’ authority to utilize docket management tools including use of continuances and administrative closure. As described in our amicus brief, immigration judges have inherent powers (including the power to control their own dockets, and to administratively close cases as a means of exercising such control) delegated to them by Congress, and not the Attorney General. Such authority of judges to control their dockets has been recognized by the Supreme Court and lower federal courts. Both the issuance of continuances and administrative closure are important docket management tools that allow judges to manage high caseloads. The certification of these cases signals the AG’s intent to massively curtail judicial independence. The solution is to create an independent, Article I immigration court, allowing IJs to continue to decide cases with fairness and neutrality free from such policy-driven interference.

Additional Resources from Retired Immigration Judges and Former BIA Members

● Jeffrey S. Chase, The Need For an Independent Immigration Court, Jeffrey S. Chase Opinions/Analysis on Immigration Law, (Aug. 17, 2017), https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2017/8/17/the-need-for-an-independent-immigration-court.

● Jeffrey S. Chase, IJs, Tiered Review and Completion Quotas, Jeffrey S. Chase Opinions/Analysis on Immigration Law, (Nov. 9, 2017), https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2017/11/9/ijs-tiered-review-and-completion-quotas.

● Bruce Einhorn, Jeff Sessions wants to bribe judges to do his bidding, Washington Post, (Apr. 5, 2018), https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jeff-sessions-wants-to-bribe-judges-to-do-his-bidding/2018/04/05/fd4bdc48-390a-11e8-acd5-35eac230e514_story.html?utm_term=.758f0b92e2e6.

● John F. Gossart, Time to fix our immigration courts, The Hill, (Feb. 26, 2014), http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/199224-time-to-fix-our-immigration-courts.

● Lory Rosenberg, Much Sound and Fury: Matter of E-F-H-L-, 27 I&N Dec. 226 (A.G. 2018), ILW, (Mar. 6, 2018),http://blogs.ilw.com/entry.php?10427-Much-Sound-and-Fury-Matter-of-E-F-H-L-27-I-amp-N-Dec-226-(A-G-2018)

● Paul Wickham Schmidt, Retired Immigration Judge and Former Chairman of the BIA Responds to Implementation of Production Quotas, Immigration Courtside, (Apr. 4, 2018), http://www.aila.org/infonet/retired-immigration-judge-and-former-chairman

AILA Doc. No. 18041830. (Posted 4/18/18) 3

● Paul Wickham Schmidt, We Need An Article I United States Immigration Court — NOW — Could The Impetus Come From An Unlikely Source?, Immigration Courtside, http://immigrationcourtside.com/we-need-an-article-i-united-states-immigration-court-now/.

● Robert Vinikoor, Take it From a Former Immigration Judge: Quotas Are a Bad Idea, Minsky, McCormick & Hallagan, P.C. Blog, (Apr. 12, 2018), https://www.mmhpc.com/2018/04/take-it-from-a-former-judge-quotas-for-immigration-judges-are-a-bad-idea/.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide this statement for the record and look forward to engaging as Congress considers reforming the immigration court system.

Contact with questions or concerns: Jeffrey Chase, jeffchase99@gmail.com.

Sincerely,

Honorable Steven R. Abrams

Honorable Patricia L. Buchanan

Honorable Sarah M. Burr

Honorable Jeffrey S. Chase

Honorable George T. Chew

Honorable Bruce J. Einhorn

Honorable Cecelia M. Espenoza

Honorable Noel Ferris

Honorable John F. Gossart, Jr.

Honorable William P. Joyce

Honorable Carol King

Honorable Elizabeth A. Lamb

Honorable Margaret McManus

Honorable Lory D. Rosenberg

Honorable Susan Roy

Honorable William Van Wyke

Honorable Paul W. Schmidt

Honorable Polly A. Webber

List of Retired Immigration Judges and Former BIA Members

The Honorable Steven R. Abrams served as an Immigration Judge in New York City from 1997 to 2013 at JFK Airport, Varick Street, and 26 Federal Plaza. From 1979 to 1997, he worked for the former Immigration and Naturalization Service in various capacities, including a general attorney; district counsel; a Special U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of New York and Alaska. Presently lectures on Immigration law in Raleigh, NC.

The Honorable Patricia L. Buchanan served as an Immigration Judge in New York City from June 2015 to July 2017, having responsibility for a detained docket for more than a year and a half. From December 2003 to October 2014, she served in various roles within the Immigration Unit of the Civil Division of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, including

AILA Doc. No. 18041830. (Posted 4/18/18) 4

Assistant United States Attorney and Chief of the Immigration Unit. From 2001 to 2003 she served as a trial attorney in the Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation in Washington, DC. From 1996 to 2001, she served as a trial attorney on a detained docket with the former Immigration and Naturalization Service in the New York District. During a significant period of her time as a federal court litigator, she authored a monograph analyzing hundreds of precedent decisions on process and procedural issues (including rights and limitations to continuances) in removal proceedings and presented at numerous DOJ and DHS trainings on due process issues. Prior to joining the Department of Justice, she worked as a Temporary and Volunteer Attorney at Westchester/Putnam Legal Services from 1995 to 1996 and worked at Mid-Hudson Legal Services from 1991 to 1995.

The Honorable Sarah M. Burr served as a U.S. Immigration Judge in New York from 1994 and was appointed as Assistant Chief Immigration Judge in charge of the New York, Fishkill, Ulster, Bedford Hills and Varick Street immigration courts in 2006. She served in this capacity until January 2011, when she returned to the bench full-time until she retired in 2012. Prior to her appointment, she worked as a staff attorney for the Criminal Defense Division of the Legal Aid Society in its trial and appeals bureaus and also as the supervising attorney in its immigration unit. She currently serves on the Board of Directors of the Immigrant Justice Corps.

The Honorable Jeffrey S. Chase served as an Immigration Judge in New York City from 1995 to 2007 and was an attorney advisor and senior legal advisor at the Board from 2007 to 2017. He is presently in private practice as an independent consultant on immigration law, and is of counsel to the law firm of DiRaimondo & Masi in New York City. Prior to his appointment, he was a sole practitioner and volunteer staff attorney at Human Rights First. He also was the recipient of the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s annual pro bono award in 1994 and chaired AILA’s Asylum Reform Task Force.

Honorable George T. Chew

The Honorable Bruce J. Einhorn served as a United States Immigration Judge in Los Angeles from 1990 to 2007. He now serves as an Adjunct Professor of Law at Pepperdine University School of Law in Malibu, California, and a Visiting Professor of International, Immigration, and Refugee Law at the University of Oxford, England. He is also a contributing op-ed columnist at D.C.-based The Hill newspaper. He is a member of the Bars of Washington D.C., New York, Pennsylvania, and the Supreme Court of the United States.

The Honorable Cecelia M. Espenoza served as a Member of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”) Board of Immigration Appeals from 2000-2003 and in the Office of the General Counsel from 2003-2017 where she served as Senior Associate General Counsel, Privacy Officer, Records Officer and Senior FOIA Counsel. She is presently in private practice as an independent consultant on immigration law, and a member of the World Bank’s Access to Information Appeals Board. Prior to her EOIR appointments, she was a law professor at St. Mary’s University (1997-2000) and the University of Denver College of Law (1990-1997) where she taught Immigration Law and Crimes and supervised students in the Immigration and Criminal Law Clinics. She has published several articles on Immigration Law. She is a graduate of the University of Utah and the University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law. She was recognized as the University of Utah Law School’s Alumna of the Year in 2014

AILA Doc. No. 18041830. (Posted 4/18/18) 5

and received the Outstanding Service Award from the Colorado Chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association in 1997 and the Distinguished Lawyer in Public Service Award from the Utah State Bar in 1989-1990.

The Honorable Noel Ferris served as an Immigration Judge in New York from 1994 to 2013 and an attorney advisor to the Board from 2013 to 2016, until her retirement. Previously, she served as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York from 1985 to 1990 and as Chief of the Immigration Unit from 1987 to 1990.

The Honorable John F. Gossart, Jr. served as a U.S. Immigration Judge from 1982 until his retirement in 2013 and is the former president of the National Association of Immigration Judges. At the time of his retirement, he was the third most senior immigration judge in the United States. Judge Gossart was awarded the Attorney General Medal by then Attorney General Eric Holder. From 1975 to 1982, he served in various positions with the former Immigration Naturalization Service, including as general attorney, naturalization attorney, trial attorney, and deputy assistant commissioner for naturalization. He is also the co-author of the National Immigration Court Practice Manual, which is used by all practitioners throughout the United States in immigration court proceedings. From 1997 to 2016, Judge Gossart was an adjunct professor of law at the University of Baltimore School of Law teaching immigration law, and more recently was an adjunct professor of law at the University of Maryland School of Law also teaching immigration law. He has been a faculty member of the National Judicial College, and has guest lectured at numerous law schools, the Judicial Institute of Maryland and the former Maryland Institute for the Continuing Education of Lawyers. He is also a past board member of the Immigration Law Section of the Federal Bar Association. Judge Gossart served in the United States Army from 1967 to 1969 and is a veteran of the Vietnam War.

The Honorable William P. Joyce served as an Immigration Judge in Boston, Massachusetts. Subsequent to retiring from the bench, he has been the Managing Partner of Joyce and Associates with 1,500 active immigration cases. Prior to his appointment to the bench, he served as legal counsel to the Chief Immigration Judge. Judge Joyce also served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, and Associate General Counsel for enforcement for INS. He is a graduate of Georgetown School of Foreign Service and Georgetown Law School.

The Honorable Carol King served as an Immigration Judge from 1995 to 2017 in San Francisco and was a temporary Board member for six months between 2010 and 2011. She previously practiced immigration law for ten years, both with the Law Offices of Marc Van Der Hout and in her own private practice. She also taught immigration law for five years at Golden Gate University School of Law and is currently on the faculty of the Stanford University Law School Trial Advocacy Program. Judge King now works as a Removal Defense Strategist, advising attorneys and assisting with research and writing related to complex removal defense issues.

The Honorable Elizabeth A. Lamb was appointed to the immigration bench in 1992. Previously she served as EEO counsel to the St. Regis paper company and was of counsel to Catholic Charities in New York City for immigration matters. Before law school she served as press secretary for then Congressman Hugh L. Carey and later for commissioner Bess Myerson at the New York City Department of Consumer

AILA Doc. No. 18041830. (Posted 4/18/18) 6

Affairs. Her first job after graduation from law school was for the New York State Department of Criminal Justice Services. She retired on January 6, 2018.

The Honorable Margaret McManus was appointed as an Immigration Judge in 1991 and retired from the bench after twenty-seven years in January 2018. She received a Bachelor of Arts degree from the Catholic University of America in 1973, and a Juris Doctorate from Brooklyn Law School in 1983. Judge McManus was an attorney for Marion Ginsberg, Esquire from 1989 to 1990 in New York. She was in private practice in 1987 and 1990, also in New York. Judge McManus worked as a consultant to various nonprofit organizations on immigration matters including Catholic Charities and Volunteers of Legal Services from 1987 to 1988 in New York. She was an adjunct clinical law professor for City University of New York Law School from 1988 to 1989. Judge McManus served as a staff attorney for the Legal Aid Society, Immigration Unit, in New York, from 1983 to 1987. She is a member of the New York Bar.

The Honorable Lory D. Rosenberg served on the Board from 1995 to 2002. She then served as Director of the Defending Immigrants Partnership of the National Legal Aid & Defender Association from 2002 until 2004. Prior to her appointment, she worked with the American Immigration Law Foundation from 1991 to 1995. She was also an adjunct Immigration Professor at American University Washington College of Law from 1997 to 2004. She is the founder of IDEAS Consulting and Coaching, LLC., a consulting service for immigration lawyers, and is the author of Immigration Law and Crimes. She currently works as Senior Advisor for the Immigrant Defenders Law Group.

The Honorable Susan Roy started her legal career as a Staff Attorney at the Board of Immigration Appeals, a position she received through the Attorney General Honors Program. She served as Assistant Chief Counsel, National Security Attorney, and Senior Attorney for the DHS Office of Chief Counsel in Newark, NJ, and then became an Immigration Judge, also in Newark. Sue has been in private practice for nearly 5 years, and two years ago, opened her own immigration law firm. Sue is the NJ AILA Chapter Liaison to EOIR, is the Vice Chair of the Immigration Law Section of the NJ State Bar Association, and in 2016 was awarded the Outstanding Pro Bono Attorney of the Year by the NJ Chapter of the Federal Bar Association.

The Honorable William Van Wyke

The Honorable Paul W. Schmidt served as an Immigration Judge from 2003 to 2016 in Arlington, virginia. He previously served as Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals from 1995 to 2001, and as a Board Member from 2001 to 2003. He authored the landmark decision Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1995) extending asylum protection to victims of female genital mutilation. He served as Deputy General Counsel of the former INS from 1978 to 1987, serving as Acting General Counsel from 1986-87 and 1979-81. He was the managing partner of the Washington, D.C. office of Fragomen, Del Rey & Bernsen from 1993 to 1995, and practiced business immigration law with the Washington, D.C. office of Jones, Day, Reavis and Pogue from 1987 to 1992, where he was a partner from 1990 to 1992. He served as an adjunct professor of law at George Mason University School of Law in 1989, and at Georgetown University Law Center from 2012 to 2014 and 2017 to present. He was a founding member of the International Association of Refugee Law Judges (IARLJ), which he presently serves as Americas Vice President. He also serves on the Advisory Board of AYUDA, and assists the National Immigrant

AILA Doc. No. 18041830. (Posted 4/18/18) 7

Justice Center/Heartland Alliance on various projects; and speaks, writes and lectures at various forums throughout the country on immigration law topics. He also created the immigration law blog immigrationcourtside.com.

The Honorable Polly A. Webber served as an Immigration Judge from 1995 to 2016 in San Francisco, with details in Tacoma, Port Isabel, Boise, Houston, Atlanta, Philadelphia, and Orlando Immigration Courts. Previously, she practiced immigration law from 1980 to 1995 in her own private practice in San Jose, California, initially in partnership with the Honorable Member of Congress, Zoe Lofgren. She served as National President of AILA from 1989 to 1990 and was a national officer in AILA from 1985 to 1991. She has also taught Immigration and Nationality Law for five years at Santa Clara University School of Law. She has spoken at seminars and has published extensively in this field, and is a graduate of Hastings College of the Law (University of California), J.D., and the University of California, Berkeley, A.B., Abstract Mathematics.

AILA Doc. No. 18041830. (Posted 4/18/18

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

It was a great honor and privilege to be part of this distinguished group. To our other retired colleagues out there, we’re always more than happy to have join the group an continue the fight to “guarantee fairness and due process to all.” (Actually, the long-forgotten mission of EOIR). It also provides a great opportunity to chat online with each other and catch up on some of the amazing “post-bench” achievements of our colleagues.

And, once again, that’s to Laura Lynch without whose support, skill, and expertise, this effort could never have happened.

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

Here’s the detailed and deeply disturbing statement of Judge A. Ashley Tabaddor, of the United States Immigration Court in Los Angeles, CA, in her capacity as President of the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”). It’s impossible to read Judge Tabaddor’s heartfelt words without being totally outraged by the all-out assault on fairness to, and the human dignity of, those seeking justice from the Immigration Courts and those trying to help them present their cases; the intentional demeaning and de-professionalization of U.S. Immigration Judges struggling to provide impartial justice in a system intentionally rigged against it; the patently dishonest attempt to shift blame for the Immigration Court’s current dysfunction from the politicos who caused it to their victims; and the all out disrespect for truth, the law, ethics, our Constitution, and basic human rights and decency shown by Jeff Sessions.

Statement of

Judge A. Ashley Tabaddor, President

National Association of Immigration Judges

April 18, 2018

Before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Border Security and Immigration Subcommittee

Hearing on “Strengthening and Reforming America’s Immigration Court System”

INTRODUCTION

I am Ashley Tabaddor, President of the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), and an Immigration Judge.1 For the past twelve years I have served in the Los Angeles Immigration Court. My current pending case load is approximately 2000 cases. Chairman Cornyn, Ranking Member Durbin and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee.

1 I am speaking in my capacity as President of the NAIJ and not as employee or representative of the U.S. Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). The views expressed here do not necessarily represent the official position of the United States Department of Justice, the Attorney General, or the Executive Office for Immigration Review. The views represent my personal opinions, which were formed after extensive consultation with the membership of NAIJ.

I am pleased to represent the NAIJ, a non-partisan, non-profit, voluntary association of United States Immigration Judges. Since 1979, the NAIJ has been the recognized representative of Immigration Judges for collective bargaining purposes. Our mission is to promote the independence of Immigration Judges and enhance the professionalism, dignity, and efficiency of the Immigration Courts, which are the trial-level tribunals where removal proceedings initiated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) are conducted. We work to improve our court system through: educating the public, legal community and media; testimony at congressional oversight hearings; and advocating for the integrity and independence of the Immigration Courts and Immigration Court reform. We also seek to improve the Court system and protect the interests of our members, collectively and individually, through dynamic liaison activities with management, formal and informal grievances, and collective bargaining. In addition, we represent Immigration Judges in disciplinary proceedings, seeking to protect judges against 2

unwarranted discipline and to assure that when discipline must be imposed it is imposed in a manner that is fair and serves the public interest.

I am here today to discuss urgently needed Immigration Court Reform and the unprecedented challenges facing the Immigration Courts and Immigration Judges. Immigration Courts have faced structural deficiencies, crushing caseloads and unacceptable backlogs for many years. Many of the “solutions” that have been set forth to address these challenges have in fact exacerbated the problems and undermined the integrity of the Courts, encroached on the independent decision-making authority of the Immigration Judges, and further enlarged the backlogs. I will be focusing my discussion on the inherent structural defect of the Immigration Court system, the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) misguided “solutions” to the current court backlog, and proposed solutions to the challenges facing the court, including the only enduring solution: restructuring of the Immigration Court as an independent Article I Court.

THE FUNDAMENTAL FLAW

⦁ The Placement of a Neutral Court in a Law Enforcement Agency

The inherent conflict present in pairing the law enforcement mission of the DOJ with the mission of a court of law that mandates independence from all other external pressures, including those of law enforcement priorities, has seriously compromised the very integrity of the Immigration Court system and may well lead to the virtual implosion of this vital Court.

Immigration Judges make the life-changing decisions on whether or not non-citizens are allowed to remain in the United States. Presently, approximately 330 Immigration Judges in the United States are responsible for adjudicating almost 700,000 cases. The work is hard. The law is complicated; the labyrinth of rules and regulations require expertise in an arcane field of law. The stories people share in court are frequently traumatic and emotions are high because the stakes are so dire. The proceedings are considered “civil” cases, in contrast to “criminal” cases. Thus, people are not provided attorneys and must either pay for one, find a volunteer, or represent themselves. Last year, approximately 40 percent of the individuals who appeared in our courtrooms represented themselves, a figure that rises to 85 percent when only detained cases are considered. Further complicating the situation, only 15 percent of immigration cases are conducted in the English language. Finally, our courtrooms and systems lack modern technology and unlike federal courts, the Immigration Courts still rely on paper records.

But here’s the core of the problem: Immigration Judges wear two hats. On the one hand, we are statutorily recognized as “Immigration Judges,” wear judicial robes, and are charged with conducting ourselves consistently with canons of judicial ethics and conduct, in order to ensure our role as impartial decision-makers in the cases over which we preside. In every sense of the word, on a daily basis, when presiding over our case in our courts, we are judges: we rule on the admissibility of evidence and legal objections, make factual findings and conclusions of law, and 3

decide the fate of thousands of respondents each year. Last year, our decisions were final and unreviewed in 91% of the cases we decided.

In addition, and in contrast to our judicial role, we are considered by the DOJ to be government attorneys, fulfilling routine adjudicatory roles in a law enforcement agency. With each new administration, we are harshly reminded of that subordinate role and subjected to the vagaries of the prevailing political winds.

At first glance, this may not seem too damaging; after all, our government structure is resilient and must respond to changes demanded by the public. However, this organizational structure is the fundamental root cause of the conflicts and challenges that have plagued the Immigration Court system since its inception and now threatens to cripple it entirely because the very mission of a neutral court is to maintain balance despite political pressures.

⦁ Politicization of the Immigration Courts

Examples of where this conflict of interest has led to the infringement on the independence of the Immigration Court are numerous throughout the past decades and under administrations of both political parties. It is no secret that the DHS, whose attorneys appear before the Court, regularly engages in ex-parte communication with the DOJ. On the macro level, these communications have directly led to the use of the Immigration Court system as a political tool in furtherance of law enforcement policies.

One common use of the Courts as a political tool has been the incessant docket shuffling in furtherance of various law enforcement “priorities.” For example, during the last administration, the mandated “surge” dockets prioritized recent arrivals, such as unaccompanied minors and adults with children, over pending cases before the Court. Similarly, this administration uprooted approximately one third of all Immigration Judges in the 2017 calendar year to assign them temporarily to “border courts” to create the “optics” of a full commitment to law enforcement measures, even at the expense of delaying hundreds of cases at each home. The DOJ claimed that the border surge resulted in an additional completion of 2700 cases. This number is misleading as it does not account for the fact that detained cases at the border are always completed in higher numbers than non-detained cases over a given period. Thus, the alleged 2700 additional completions was a comparison of apples to oranges, equating proceedings completed for those with limited available relief to those whose cases by nature are more complicated and time consuming as they involve a greater percentage of applications for relief. Moreover, many questioned the veracity of the Agency’s reported numbers because so many judges who went to the border courts had no work to do and faced malfunctioning equipment, often with no internet connection, or files. Meanwhile the dockets of these Immigration Judges at their home courts were reset to several years later, not to mention the unnecessary additional 4

financial costs of these details. Such docket shuffling tactics have led to further increases in delays and to the backlog of cases before the Immigration Court system as a whole.

On the micro level, individual judges have been tasked with responding to complaints voiced by DHS to the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) management about how a particular pending case or cases are being handled, in disciplinary proceedings without the knowledge of the opposing party.

⦁ DOJ Priorities

One of the most egregious and long-standing examples of the structural flaw of the Courts’ placement in the DOJ is that Immigration Judges have never been able to exercise the congressionally mandated contempt authority statutorily authorized by Congress in 1996. This is because the DOJ has never issued implementing regulations in an effort to protect DHS attorneys (who it considers to be fellow federal law enforcement employees). However, as Congress recognized in passing contempt authority, misconduct by both DHS and private attorneys has long been one of the great hindrances to adjudicating cases efficiently and fairly. For example, it is not uncommon for cases to be continued due to private counsel’s failure to appear or be prepared for a hearing, or DHS’ failure to follow the Court’s orders, such as to conduct pre-trial conferences to narrow issues or file timely documents and briefs. Just a couple of months ago, when I confronted an attorney for his failure to appear at a previous hearing, he candidly stated that he had a conflict with a state court hearing, and fearing the state court judge’s sanction authority, chose to appear at that hearing over the immigration hearing in my court. Similarly, when I asked a DHS attorney why she had failed to engage in the Court mandated pre-trial conference or file the government’s position brief in advance of the hearing, she defiantly responded that she felt that she had too many other work obligations to prioritize the Court’s order. These examples represent just a small fraction of the problems faced by Immigration Courts, due to the failure of the DOJ, in over 20 years, to implement the Congress approved even-handed contempt authority..

Similarly, Immigration Judges are subject to regulations that provide a one-sided veto of a judge’s decision by DHS. Title 8 C.F.R. section 1003.19 provides that the DHS, who appears as a party before the Immigration Court, can effectively vacate an Immigration Judge’s bond decision through automatic stay powers that override an Immigration Judge’s decision to set or reduce bond for certain individuals.

In a separate failure to safeguard the Immigration Courts, the DOJ has consistently proven to be ineffective in the timely appointment of judges. Historically, this was due, in part, to the Court’s placement in a law enforcement agency where for years, the Court was treated as an afterthought in DOJ, receiving scraps instead of full allotments of needed resources. However, even after the 9/11 tragedy, the DOJ has still visibly struggled with filing Immigration Judge positions, many 5

of which have taken almost two years to fill. Hiring practices by the Agency have a demonstrated history of politically motivated appointment practices, as evidenced by the Office of the Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility reports exposing political concerns and nepotism that have crept into the hiring process.2 And now, the DOJ surreptitiously has made substantive changes to the qualification requirements for judges, over-emphasizing litigation experience to the exclusion of other relevant immigration law experience. This has created even more skewed appointment practices that largely have favored individuals with law enforcement experience over individuals with more varied and diverse backgrounds, such as academics and United States Citizenship and Immigration Service attorneys, who are perceived as not sufficiently law enforcement oriented.

2 An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring by Monica Goodling and Other Staff in the Office of the Attorney General, DOJ OIG and OPR, July 28, 2008; Report Regarding Investigation of Improper Hiring Practices by Senior Officials of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, DOJ OIG, November 2014.

Another example of the structural problem of placing a Court in the DOJ has been the application of federal employee performance evaluations on Immigration Judges. Many courts have performance reviews for Judges, but the overwhelming majority of these reviews follow a judicial model – a transparent, public process where performance is evaluated by input from the stakeholders (attorneys, witnesses, and court staff) based on quality and temperament, not quantity, and is not tied to discipline. However, despite strenuous objections and warnings of conflicts of interest from the NAIJ, the EOIR has chosen to use a traditional federal employee performance review system. These evaluations are not public and are conducted by a management official who is often not located in the same court and does not consider input from the public, and can result in career-ending discipline to a Judge who makes a good faith legal decision that his or her supervisor considers to be insubordinate. This is the flawed current performance evaluation model for Immigration Judges, without the added, soon to be implemented, disastrous production quotas and time-based deadlines that were recently announced by the Department, which I will discuss shortly.

⦁ EOIR’s Decision to Halt the LOP Program

Another stark example of the mismanagement of the Immigration Court due to its placement in an agency with a competing mission is the recently announced EOIR decision to halt the Legal Orientation Program (LOP), despite its proven track record of increased efficiency and enhanced fundamental fairness for pro se respondents in detention facilities. This population of respondents, who are being held in custody, are frequently in extremely remote locations, and often lack the resources or the means to secure counsel or even to properly represent themselves due to language access issues. The lack of assistance in these areas delays their proceedings, often needlessly for those who seek merely a brief legal consultation before making an informed and timely decision to accept an order of removal. Thus in cases where the respondents lack 6

viable relief, the LOP can be instrumental in helping respondents make an informed decision to accept a final order of removal, dramatically minimizing costly detention time and expense.

Competent counsel, when available, can assist the Court in efficiently adjudicating cases before it. In the absence of competent counsel, the LOP provides the necessary bridge to ensure a minimum standard of due process is quickly and efficiently provided. The LOP helps respondents better understand the nature of these proceedings and the steps they need to take to present their cases when in court, understand and complete their applications for relief, and obtain evidence in their case. Without such assistance, judges are required by regulation to spend time and resources explaining these proceedings, soliciting the necessary information for the case, and providing respondents the opportunity to obtain evidence once they become aware it is needed.

Ironically, even the DOJ website has publicly supported the LOP program, citing the positive effects on the Immigration Court process, and the fact that cases are more likely to be completed faster, resulting in fewer court hearings and less time spent in detention. However, once again without consultation with NAIJ, EOIR has made a decision seemingly ignoring the ramifications of how this will likely play out in the remote court locations, further undermining the structural integrity and the smooth functioning of the Court.

⦁ EOIR’s Recent Severe Restriction of Immigration Judge Speaking Engagements

In September 2017, the Agency issued a new memorandum almost eliminating personal capacity speaking engagements for Immigration Judges on any matters relating to the Court or immigration law.

The primary role of a court is to be a neutral and transparent arbiter, and this perception is reinforced when the court is accessible to the community it serves. Public access and understanding of what courts do is essential to build the understanding and trust needed for the judicial system to function smoothly. Judges are the face of that system and serve as role models who should be encouraged to engage with the community to inspire, educate and support civic engagements. Many of our Immigration Judges are active members of the legal and civil community who are sought out to speak in schools, universities, and bar associations as role models and mentors. They help the community better understand our Immigration Courts and their function in the community, helping to demystify the system and bring transparency about our operations to the public. In the past, the DOJ had permitted Immigration Judges to publicly speak in their personal capacity on issues related to the Court and their Immigration Judge roles, (with the use of their title and a disclaimer that they are not speaking on behalf of the Agency).

This new policy brought a 180-degree reversal on many existing programs that included participation of Immigration Judges, from the Model Hearing Program, the Stakeholder 7

Meetings, to appearing as guest lecturer at one’s Alma Mater, etc. Judges who have been engaged in the community are now being deprived of the opportunity to fulfil those roles. This ill-advised move is yet another example of the misguided instincts of a law enforcement agency, which endeavors to keep its operations opaque, leading to an absolutely wrong result for a court system where transparency is essential to build public trust and confidence. This is yet another example which underscores the structural flaw that plagues our courts.

MISGUIDED SOLUTIONS TO THE BACKLOG

⦁ IJ Production Quotas and Deadlines

Based on a completely unsupported assertion that this action will help solve the Court’s backlog, DOJ has taken an unprecedented move that violates every tenet of an independent court and judges, and has announced that it will subject all Immigration Judges to individual production quotas and time-based deadlines as a basis for their performance reviews. A negative performance review due to failure to meet quotas and deadlines may result in termination of employment. This is despite the legal duty of Immigration Judges, codified by regulation, to exercise independent judgement and discretion in each of the matters before them. The havoc this decision will wreak cannot be understated or underestimated.

To fully understand the import of this approach, one must make the critical distinction between court-wide “case completion goals” or “benchmarks” versus individual production quotas and time-based deadlines for judges. The Immigration Court system has had “case completion goals” of some sort for over two decades. These are tools used as resource allocation metrics to help assess resource needs and distribute them nationally so that case backlogs are within acceptable limits and relatively uniform across the country. In fact, when individual performance evaluations were first applied to Immigration Judges over a decade ago, the EOIR agreed to a provision that prevented any rating of the judges based on number or time based production standards, in recognition of the fact that quotas or deadlines placed on an individual Immigration Judge are inconsistent with his or her independent judicial role. The public comments at that time made clear that otherwise quantitative priorities or time frames could abrogate the party’s right to a full and fair hearing. At that time, the DOJ assured the public that case completion goals would not be used this way and that judges would maintain the discretion to set hearing calendars and prioritize cases in order to assure they had the time needed to complete the case.

This tool of court-based evaluation metrics stands in stark contrast to the individual production quotas and completion deadlines which are now being proposed by EOIR. Introduction of individual Immigration Judge production quotas is tantamount to transforming a judge into an interested party in the proceedings. It is difficult to imagine a more profound financial interest than one’s very livelihood being at stake with each and every ruling on a continuance or need for additional witness testimony which would delay a completion. Yet production quotas and time- based deadlines violate a fundamental canon of judicial ethics which requires a judge to recuse 8

herself in any matter in which she has a financial interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding.

This basic principle is so widely accepted that the NAIJ is not aware of a single state or federal court across the country that imposes the type of production quotas and deadlines on judges like those that EOIR has now announced. A numeric quota or time-based deadline pits the judge’s personal livelihood against the interests both the DHS and the respondent. Every decision will be tainted with the suspicion of either an actual or subconscious consideration by the judge of the impact his or her decision would have regarding whether or not he or she is able to fulfill a personal quota or a deadline.

In addition to putting the judges in the position of violating a judicial ethical canon, such quotas pits their personal interest against due process considerations. Recently, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals noted in a case addressing imposition of case completion goals – not quotas – that there may be situations that such goals, even though they are not tied to a judge’s performance evaluation, could so undermine decisional independence as to create a serious issue of due process.

If allowed to be implemented, these measures will take the Immigration Courts out of the American judicial model and place it squarely within the model used by autocratic and dictatorial countries, such as China, which began instituting pilot quota programs for their judges in 2016.3 NAIJ does not believe that such courts should serve as a good blueprint for EOIR or for any court in a democratic society.

3See www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2017-02/27/content_28361584_6.htm.

⦁ Unintended Consequences of Misguided Solutions

The DOJ has touted the imposition of a quota system on judges as a solution to the crushing backlogs facing the Immigration Courts. It is critical to recognize that the current backlog of cases is not due to lack of productivity of Immigration Judges; it is due, in part, to the Department’s consistent failure, spanning more than a decade to hire enough judges to keep up with the caseload. In 2006, after a comprehensive review of the Immigration Courts by Attorney General Gonzales, it was determined that a judge corps of 230 Immigration Judges was inadequate for the caseload at that time (approximately 168,853 pending cases) and should be increased to 270. Despite this finding, there were less than 235 active field Immigration Judges at the beginning of FY 2015. Even with a recent renewed emphasis on hiring, the number of Immigration Judges nationwide as of April 2018 stood at approximately 330 sitting judges, well below authorized hiring levels of 384. From 2006 to 2018, while the caseload has quadrupled (from 168,853 to 684,583 as of March 1, 2018), the number of Immigration Judges has not even doubled! Additionally, up to 40 percent of the Immigration Judge Corps are retirement eligible 9

and are exercising that right at a much higher rate than previously seen. Thus, hiring by the Agency has also failed to keep pace with the loss of judges by retirement or attrition.

Moreover, the 2017 GAO report on Actions Needed to Reduce Case Backlog and Address Long-Standing Management and Operational Changes (GAO-17-438) shows that Immigration Judge related continuances have decreased (down 2 percent) in the last ten years. GAO Report at 124. The same report shows that continuances due to “operational factors” and details of Immigration Judges were up 149% and 112%, respectively. GAO Report at 131, 133. These continuances which occurred primarily due to politically motivated changing court priorities, forced Judges to reset cases that were near completion in order to address the cases which were the priority “du jour,” and have had a tremendous deleterious effect on case completion rates. The same report shows that continuances attributed to the needs of the judge was responsible for only 11% of the continuances granted, clearly debunking the myth that Immigration Judges are significantly contributing to the backlog.

The cause of the increasing backlog is obvious: the ever-ballooning budget for immigration law enforcement which has not been accompanied by concomitant resources to the Immigration Courts. In the period that the budget for DHS saw an increase of 300 percent, the Immigration Court’s budget was only modestly increased by 70 percent. This is tantamount to increasing the lanes in a highway from one to three but failing to increase the number of exit ramps for everyone, then claiming that the exit ramps are the cause of the increased congestion and traffic. Simple common sense tells us otherwise.

Finally, the imposition of numeric quotas and time-based deadlines will have the unintended consequence of further adding to the backlog. A similar measure proposing to “streamline” the adjudications of immigration removal cases was introduced post 9/11 during the Attorney General John Ashcroft era. In the face of a ballooning backlog (which pales in comparison to the current one), the DOJ implemented streamlining measures at the Board of Immigration Appeals that significantly increased the number of case completions at the expense of reasoned decisions. This action caused a flood of appeals to the circuit courts, to a five-fold increase, from 1764 filings in 2002, when the program was announced, to 8446 in 2003 and onwards. Many of these cases were ultimately reversed or remanded all the way back to the trial court level, due to actual or perceived insufficiencies of the process or paucity of reasoning in the decisions. The “streamlining” program was quietly put to rest many years later when its failure was no longer deniable. If Immigration Judges are subjected to production quotas and time-based deadlines, the result will be the same: appeals will abound, repeating a history which was proven to be disastrous. Rather than making the overall process more efficient, this change will encourage individual and class action litigation, creating even longer adjudication times and greater backlogs. 10

Another unintended consequence if these quotas and deadlines are applied, is that judicial time and energy will be diverted to documenting performance rather than deciding cases. Immigration Judges will become bean-counting employees instead of fair and impartial judges, and their supervisors will become traffic cops monitoring whether the cases are completed at the correct speed. What a waste of skilled professional expertise! Judges’ job security will be based on whether or not they meet these unrealistic quotas and their decisions will be subjected to increased appeals based on suspicion regarding whether any actions they take, such as denying a continuance or excluding a witness, are legally sound or motivated to meet a quota. It is difficult to find a shred of practical justification in this approach.

SHORT TERM SOLUTIONS

⦁ Clarify the Definition of the Immigration Judge Position

The most pressing matter threatening the integrity and efficiency of the Immigration Court system which can quickly and easily be remedied is the DOJ’s decision to impose Immigration Judge production quotas and deadlines. If permitted to be implemented, as planned, on October 1, 2018, the Immigration Courts as we know them will cease to exist. Immigration Judges will no longer be able to serve as impartial and independent decision-makers over the life-altering cases before them.

To preserve the judicial independence of Immigration Courts Congress can:

(1) Amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify the definition of an Immigration Judge as follows:

“The term “immigration judge” means an attorney whom the Attorney General appoints as an administrative judge within the Executive Office for Immigration Review, qualified to conduct specified classes of proceedings, including a hearing under section 1229a of this title, whose position shall be deemed to be judicial in nature and whose actions shall be reviewed only under rules and standards pertaining to judicial conduct.”

This definitional change was offered by Senators Gardner and Bennet as part of their bipartisan immigration amendment earlier this year. Senator Hirono’s recent immigration amendment also included this language;

(2) Alternatively, Congress can add Immigration Judges to the short list of federal government employees whose positions are exempt from performance evaluation due to the nature of their duties, as are Administrative Law Judges (ALJs). 5 U.S.C. § 4301(2)(D). Recognizing that federal employee performance evaluations are antithetical to judicial independence, Congress exempted ALJs from performance appraisals and ratings by including them in the list of 11

occupations exempt from performance reviews. To provide that same exemption to Immigration Judges, all that would be needed is an amendment to 5 U.S.C. § 4301(2) to add a new paragraph (I) including Immigration Judges as an additional category in the list of exempt employees.

Extension of 5 U.S.C. § 4301(2)(D) to Immigration Judges is not an indication that NAIJ is opposed to performance evaluation of Immigration Judges. To the contrary, NAIJ fully supports performance evaluations that are based on judicial models, such as those recommended by the American Bar Association. These models stress judicial improvement as the primary goal, emphasizes process over outcomes, and places a high priority on maintaining judicial integrity and independence. Moreover, to the extent that any numeric metrics are included in such models, they would not and “should not be used for judicial discipline.”4 We encourage EOIR to abandon its myopic focus on numerical metrics and instead institute a judicial performance evaluation based on these models.

4https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/judicial_division/aba_blackletterguidelines_jpe.authcheckdam.pdf.

Continued enhancement of resources will be an exercise in futility and will fail to reduce the crippling backlogs plaguing the Immigration Courts if the integrity and independence of the Immigration Judge decision-making authority is not protected. Without much needed protection, the inevitable increase in individual and class action litigation and the circuit court backlash (similar to the “streamlining” era) is virtually certain to ensue.

⦁ Additional Resources

NAIJ appreciates the additional judges and staff that Congress has provided and the recent allocation of an additional 100 Immigration Judge teams in the appropriations bill. This is a welcome move in the right direction. However we would be remiss if we failed to point out that even if all the appropriated judge positions are filled promptly (which is a task the DOJ has been unable to accomplish for decades), the pressing crisis of the backlog will not be resolved. The backlog of pending cases has almost quadrupled in the last twelve years. Yet, the number of judges has not even doubled (even with the inclusion of the recently allocated 100 judges). Thus, it is not unreasonable to conclude that with the continued flood of cases being filed with the Court due to increased law enforcement action, the need to match that rate of increased resources with the Courts is a necessary condition of addressing the challenge of the backlog.

Moreover, the Courts are woefully behind the times in technology. The Courts’ computer systems and printers are outdated. The software programs are several generations behind and lag in processing speed. Also, we depend on digital audio recording to capture our hearing audio in lieu of in-person transcribers, and in many locations we function with heavy reliance on tele video equipment. Yet these technologies are no longer state of the art, causing not infrequent 12

delay and malfunctions. We have yet to arrive in the 21st century in technology at EOIR. Unlike other courts who have embraced electronic filings and records, we are still under the weight of hardcopy files, some of which can weigh up to 10 to 15 pounds per case. Increasingly adequate space for Court locations has become an issue, leaving many Courts bursting at the seams due to thousands of files, with staff having to share cubicles, and cramped, unhealthy and unsafe spaces that were never intended to be used as work space.

ENDURING SOLUTION

⦁ An Article I Immigration Court is the Clear Consensus Solution that is Urgently Needed

While it cannot be denied that the short term solutions cited above are needed immediately, Band-Aid solutions alone cannot solve the persistent problems facing our Immigration Courts. The problems compromising the integrity and proper administration of a court highlighted above underscore the need to remove the Immigration Court from the political sphere of a law enforcement agency and assure its judicial independence. Structural reform can no longer be put on the back burner. The DOJ has been provided years of opportunity to forestall the impending implosion at the Immigration Courts. Instead of finding long term solutions to our problems, DOJ’s political priorities and law enforcement instincts have led our Courts to the brink of collapse. With the latest misguided initiative to impose Immigration Judge production quotas and deadlines, DOJ has put accelerant on the fire; if these changes are implemented the integrity of the Immigration Court will be all but destroyed and paralyzing dysfunction will ensue.

Since the 1981 Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy, the idea of creating an Article I court, similar to the U.S. Tax Court, has been advanced. Such a structure solves a myriad of problems which now plague our Court: removing a politically accountable Cabinet level policy maker from the helm; separating the decision makers from the parties who appear before them; protecting judges from the cronyism of a too close association with DHS; assuring a transparent funding stream instead of items buried in the budget of a larger Agency with competing needs; and eliminating top-heavy Agency bureaucracy. In the last 35 years, a strong consensus has formed supporting this structural change. For years experts debated the wisdom of far-reaching restructuring of the Immigration Court system. Now most immigration judges and attorneys agree the long-term solution to the problem is to restructure the immigration court system. Examples of those in support include the American Bar Association, the Federal Bar Association, the National Association of Women Judges, and the American Immigration Lawyers Association. These are the recognized legal experts and representatives of the public who appear before us. Their voices deserve to be heeded.

To that end, the Federal Bar Association has prepared proposed legislation setting forth the blueprint for the creation of an “Article 1” or independent Immigration Court. This proposal will remove the Immigration Court from the purview of the DOJ to form an independent Court. The legislation would establish a “United States Immigration Court” with responsibility for functions 13

of an adjudicative nature that are currently being performed by the judges and Board members in the Executive Office for Immigration Review. The new court would consist of appellate and trial level judges. The appellate judges would be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and the immigration trial judges would be appointed by the appellate judges. The substantive law of immigration and corresponding enforcement and policy-determining responsibilities of the DHS and DOJ under the INA would be unchanged. Final decisions of the new court would be subject to review in the circuit court of appeals similar to the current model. However, in the new court, the Department of Homeland Security would be able to seek review of the court’s decisions to the same extent as the individuals against whom charges were filed. Practically, the transition to the new “United States Immigration Court” would involve minimal transitional or financial challenges as much of the physical structures and personnel would already be in place.

NAIJ has endorsed this bill5 and urges you to take immediate steps to protect judicial independence and efficient resolution of cases at the Immigration Courts by enacting legislation as described above. Failure to act will result in irreparable harm to the immigration law community as we know it. Action is needed now!

5 https://www.naij-usa.org/images/uploads/publications/NAIJ_endorses_FBA_Article_I_proposal_3-15-18.pdf

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

Here are links to the other statements submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee, all well worth a read:

Other Statements:

Law Professor Statement: Immigration Law Professors Issue Statement on Strengthening and Reforming America’s Immigration Court System
AILA National Statement: AILA Statement on Strengthening and Reforming America’s Immigration Court System Hearing

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

It’s no secret that White Nationalist and “21st Century Jim Crow” Sessions was totally unqualified to be the Attorney General of the United States. Yet, the GOP Senate put in him that position knowing full his extremist views, lack of executive qualifications, and history of racially insensitive words and actions.

The Obama Administration’s indolent, sometimes disingenuous, and often highly politicized mis-handling of the Immigration Court System also contributed to the current sad state of justice for immigrants. To paraphrase the words of one of my colleagues, the Obama Administration’s poor handling of the Immigration Courts didn’t cause Jeff Sessions and his toxic policies, but it certainly did nothing to dissuade or prevent them and in many ways set the stage for the current due process disaster.

Congress also stood by and watched this unfolding disaster in a court system they created without providing any effective assistance (except for too few additional positions too late to help) and in many cases making things worse by ramping up enforcement without thinking about the consequences for the judicial system.

We need to elect legislators pledged to due process, fairness to all including immigrants, strong effective oversight of the DOJ, investigation of Sessions’s blatant attempt to “deconstruct” the U.S. justice system (particularly as it applies to immigrants and vulnerable minorities) which should eventually lead to his removal from office, and the transfer of the U.S. Immigration Courts out of the DOJ into an independent structure where they never again can be compromised by the likes of Jeff Sessions.

Join the New Due Process Army and fight to give real meaning to the Constitutional guarantee of Due Process for all in America.

PWS

04-19-18

“FEARLESS LAWYERING” — Those With AILA Access Can Now Get This Three-Part Video Series Featuring Practice Advice From & Conversations Among Retired U.S. Immigration Judges Sarah Burr, William Joyce, Eliza Klein, & Me!

Here’s the link! Check it out!

http://www.aila.org/publications/videos/fearless-lawyering-videos/three-part-video-series-on-fearless-lawyering-with?utm_source=Recent%20Postings%20Alert&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=RP%20Daily

PWS

11-30-17

NBC 4 DC: White Supremacists Target AILA National HQ in Downtown DC!

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Men-Hang-Anti-Dreamer-Banner-Outside-Immigration-Law-Office-451009963.html

Derrick Ward reports:

“Two members of a white supremacist group hung a banner decrying the “Dreamer” movement outside the American Immigration Lawyers Association office in D.C. Saturday.

Surveillance video shows two men hanging a large banner outside the office on G Street NW in broad daylight.

“They stood in the windowsills and they put a sign up over the doorway,” said Kenneth Thomas, who witnessed the men hanging the banner.

The sign read, “We Are Your Dreamers No Amnesty Identity Evropa.”

Identity Evropa is a white supremacist group “focused on the preservation of ‘white American culture’ and promoting white European identity,” according to the Anti Defamation League.

“There was a gentleman across the street who hollered at them who said, you know, ‘Nazi, nazi, fascist’ whatever,” Thomas said.

The two men then ran away.

News4 spoke with the witness who yelled at the men by phone. He did not want to be identified but said the incident shocked and angered him.

“It’s a scary time right now. I think that they might have the expectation that they’re not going to face any consequences,” he told News4.

D.C. police are investigating the incident as a possible hate crime.

Ben Johnson, the executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said the organization is saddened but undeterred by the banner.

“It’s important work that’s, you know, the constitution commands us to do and we’re not gonna give up on doing that. We’ve got a long, proud history as a nation of immigrants and we’re proud to be part of that,” Johnson said.

“Dreamers” refers to the hundreds of thousands of young immigrants who had been given a deportation reprieve under former President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, also known as DACA.

President Trump ended the program in September and has told lawmakers his hardline immigration priorities, including the wall, must be approved if he is to go along with protecting the young immigrants from deportation.

Published 3 hours ago

Source: White Supremacist Group Hangs Anti-Dreamer Banner Outside DC Immigration Law Office – NBC4 Washington http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Men-Hang-Anti-Dreamer-Banner-Outside-Immigration-Law-Office-451009963.html#ixzz4vd7bMjh3
Follow us: @nbcwashington on Twitter | NBCWashington on Facebook”

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

Perhaps these guys were expecting Ol’ “Gonzo Apocalypto” to invite them up to the Department of Justice favor an award ceremony!

PWS

10-15-17

AP: AILA TAKES ISSUE WITH SESSIONS’S UNSUPPORTED CLAIM THAT UNACCOMPANIED MINORS ARE “WOLVES IN SHEEP CLOTHING!”

https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2017/09/21/heres-what-jeff-sessions-had-to-say-in-boston

Alanna Durkin Richer Reports for AP:

“Sessions, a Republican, said gangs are exploiting a program for unaccompanied minors found crossing the southern border by sending members over as ‘‘wolves in sheep clothing’’ and recruiting in communities.

Gregory Chen, director of government relations for the American Immigration Lawyers Association, called that assertion ‘‘truly baseless.’’ The program aids children fleeing violence in their home countries, he said.

‘‘He’s trying to inflame public opinion against this highly vulnerable population,’’ Chen said.

A few dozen protesters carrying signs with phrases such as #NotWelcome gathered outside the courthouse before Sessions’ speech to condemn his views on immigration and law enforcement.”

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

Read the full report of Sessions’s speech to law enforcement officials in Boston at the link.

Sessions is well-known for his alarmist, inflammatory rhetoric on immigration and his “fact-challenged” claims. While undoubtedly some gang members do come into the United States as so-called “unaccompanied minors,” I have seen no hard evidence on the extent of this problem.

PWS

09-21-17

PROFESSOR STEVE YALE-LOEHR’S MOVING TRIBUTE TO JUAN OSUNA: “A LIFE WELL-LIVED BUT CUT TOO SHORT!”

Juan Osuna: A Life Well-Lived But Cut Too Short

AILA Doc. No. 17082230 | Dated August 22, 2017
By Stephen Yale-Loehr*

Death felled a giant of immigration law and policy last week when Juan P. Osuna, age 54, died unexpectedly of an apparent heart attack. Juan worked for seventeen years as a senior immigration legal advisor in the Justice Department for both Democratic and Republican administrations. Juan had recently resigned as director of the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review and was contemplating the next chapter of his remarkable life when he passed away.

Juan was an immigrant from Colombia, and his career is an immigrant success story. I hired Juan in 1988 while he was a law student to summarize federal immigration decisions for Interpreter Releases, a weekly immigration newsletter. When Juan graduated he joined the Interpreter Releases staff as assistant editor. After I left DC to practice immigration law and teach at Cornell, Juan became managing editor. We both worked with the legendary Maury Roberts, former chair of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).

Juan’s government service began in 2000 as a BIA member. He rose rapidly through the ranks at the Justice Department, serving at various times as BIA board chair, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, and Associate Deputy Attorney General in charge of immigration policy and other issues. He was a frequent public speaker and testified several times before Congress about the immigration court system.

Read Steve’s full tribute at this link:

http://aila.org/about/announcements/in-memoriam/juan-osuna-a-life-well-lived-but-cut-too-short

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

PWS

08-23-17

Continue reading PROFESSOR STEVE YALE-LOEHR’S MOVING TRIBUTE TO JUAN OSUNA: “A LIFE WELL-LIVED BUT CUT TOO SHORT!”

FLASH: AILA WITHDRAWS SUPPORT FOR MORE U.S. IMMIGRATION JUDGES & EOIR FUNDING! — UNDER TRUMP/SESSIONS REGIME “increased judges will not necessarily promote due process and fairness for those appearing in proceedings!”

“From: Greg Chen [mailto:GChen@aila.org]
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2017 10:06 AM
To: AILA Interior Enforcement List
Cc: AILA Interior Enforcement List; Kate Voigt; Laura Lynch; Kerri Talbot
Subject: [interiorenforcement] AILA shifted position on IJ funding – CJS approps

Everyone,

AILA’s board just voted to change our position on the funding of immigration judges: in brief, AILA will no longer be supporting increased funding for IJs. The change in position was motivated by two principal concerns: 1) additional funding for judges will enable this administration to deport more people more rapidly; and 2) increased judges will not necessarily promote due process and fairness for those appearing in proceedings, esp under the current administration.

We will convey this to key friends on the Hill, but we haven’t decided how actively we plan to push this.

Here’s what the House FY18 CJS bill includes, according to the summary posted by House approps:

Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) – Funding for the EOIR is increased by $64.5 million, for a total of $505 million. This increase will provide for 65 additional immigration judge teams to process immigration reviews more quickly, and reduce the backlog of pending cases.

Gregory Z. Chen, Esq.
Director of Government Relations
Direct: 202-507-7615 I Cell: 202.716-5818 I Email: gchen@aila.org American Immigration Lawyers Association
Main: 202.507.7600 I Fax: 202.783.7853 I www.aila.org<http://www.aila.org/>
1331 G Street, NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20005″

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

I can understand the sentiment that brought this about. I’m not sure, however, that this isn’t an exercise in “kicking the cat.” The real problem here is lack of independence and the highly inappropriate, facially unethical, role of the DOJ, which Congress created, allowed to fester, and failed to date to fix. And the type of misguided GOP agenda behind an atrocity like H.R. 391 also doesn’t help.

Interesting that the last several Administrations have mismanaged the Immigration Courts to the point where they appear to be doing exactly the opposite of their single mission: guaranteeing fairness and due process for all!

With this particular Congress and Administration, AILA’s change in position probably won’t mean much. Only White Nationalist and restrictionist groups seem to have any influence.

Sadly, years of hard-won progress in establishing due process in the Immigration Court system have now been squandered. EOIR and the Immigration Courts have returned to the mess that they were before EOIR was created.

Bad time to be seeking justice in America! Thanks to my former Georgetown Law Refugee Law & Policy student Shaw Drake for sending me this item!

PWS

07-27-17

AILA: AG Aims to Detain Asylum Seekers, Intruding Further on Immigration Court Independence

Related posts:

A TROUBLED HOME

GUMMING UP THE WORKS

CARROT OR STICK?

JOB OFFERS RESCINDED

HIT THE ROAD, JUDGE

Related posts:

OUR TEAM:

My Takeaways:

Related posts:

Related posts:

‘I’m afraid and nervous’

An ongoing problem

Related posts:

Related posts:

Notices issued for dates that don’t exist, times when court is closed

Attorney: ‘People were obviously fearful’

Related posts:

AILA Calls for Independent Immigration Courts

Resources Coming Soon

Tweetstorm

SAMPLE TWEETS – DO NOT USE UNTIL MONDAY TWEETSTORM

STAND UP FOR DUE PROCESS — STOP JEFF SESSIONS & HIS WHITE NATIONALIST RESTRICTIONIST AGENDA!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Join the New Due Process Army and fight to give real meaning to the Constitutional guarantee of Due Process for all in America.

PWS

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: