Tag: Aimless Docket Reshuffling

🆘 SOS FROM ROUND TABLE’S 🛡 ⚔️ JUDGE SUE ROY: COMPLETE DUE ROCESS MELTDOWN @ EOIR NEWARK, AS GARLAND’S LEADERSHIP CONTINUES TO FAIL! ☠️☠️ — Garland Has Managed To Bring AILA & ICE Together In Outrage Over His Dangerous, Gross Mismanagement Of The Immigration Courts!🤯 

Hon. Susan G. Roy
Hon. Susan G. Roy
Law Office of Susan G. Roy, LLC
Princeton Junction, NJ
Member, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

My colleague Sue writes:

Hi,

 

First, can someone please share with the RT as a whole?  I can’t do it from where I am at the moment.

 

Second, yes, believe it or not, Newark EOIR is implementing a “policy” (if you can call it that, since it hasn’t been written anywhere) starting Monday, October 3, 2022, that ALL DHS and Respondents’ attorneys must appear IN PERSON for almost EVERY case, including master calendar hearings.  Their stated reason?  “Webex bandwidth issues.”  This is the Court that started Webex.  This is the Court that caused the death of at least one person (and in fact 4 people ultimately died) and the severe illness of many more, because of its court policies at the beginning of the pandemic.  And Newark EOIR’s completely unsafe and short-sighted policy just last year is what generated the lawsuit filed by AILA-NJ against EOIR.

 

The OPLA attorneys’ union and AILA-NJ have issued a JOINT press release (which is attached) after a joint letter to David Neal unfortunately did not resolve the issue. The NJ State Bar Association has also submitted a letter to Director Neal. (Also attached).

 

In fact, the Newark EOIR policy flies in the face of the DM issued by Director Neal himself regarding the use of WebEx throughout the nation’s immigration courts.

 

Some Newark IJs have already begun denying ALL WebEx motions for both DHS and Respondents’ attorneys, regardless of the reason behind the motion (such as, undergoing chemotherapy; receiving treatment for heart conditions; or having oral argument scheduled before the U.S. Court of Appeals on the same day, just to give some examples).

 

In any event, feel free to share widely and publicly. The Chair of AILA-NJ this year is Jason Camilo, who I have cc’d on this email just so he is aware.

 

Happy Friday!

 

Sue

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

Here’s the joint letter letter from AILA & ICE:

   PROSECUTORS AND ATTORNEYS

CALL FOR CONTINUATION OF VIRTUAL HEARINGS AND OPPOSE CHANGE IN POLICY IN NEWARK IMMIGRATION COURT

New Jersey – Both AILA NJ and AFGE Local 511 (ICE Professionals Union) call on the Newark Immigration Court, part of the U.S. Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), to continue to allow virtual hearings for all attorneys and immigrants, in all cases, without exception. These attorneys are opposed to the recently- announced policy of the Newark Immigration Court requiring all attorneys to either return in person to hearings beginning on October 3, 2022 or to seek waiver of in-person appearance for good cause. Public safety requires virtual hearings, especially for routine preliminary hearings that generate large groups of people in small courtrooms.

This new policy goes far beyond the policies of all other New Jersey court systems, from municipal courts, State courts, and federal courts, and puts everyone at risk—prosecutors, attorneys, court staff, immigrants, and the public at large. Federal and New Jersey State Courts are still operating almost entirely virtually, with exceptions only for criminal jury trials and some other specific proceedings. “EOIR’s new policy of making everyone return to the courtroom in person is dangerous and unjustified,” says Jason Scott Camilo, Chair of AILA NJ. Newark EOIR is not just requiring in-person appearances for contested individual hearings; it is requiring attorneys to appear in person at master calendar hearings as well, which can involve 50-60 cases per judge, per courtroom, every morning and afternoon. Thus, literally hundreds of people will once again be forced into small, unventilated courtrooms and narrow hallways every single day.

Sadly, this is not the first time Newark EOIR has tried to force prosecutors, attorneys, and the public into the courtroom during the pandemic. Numerous people contracted COVID-19 as a result of attending immigration court proceedings in March 2020. One well-respected AILA NJ member passed away as a result, and several people became seriously ill. Other federal workers at the same federal building have also succumbed to the disease. This is in addition to those who suffered and still suffer from long COVID complications.

Despite this, Newark EOIR compelled people back into courtrooms in July 2020. New Jersey immigration attorneys and the New Jersey Chapter of American Immigration Lawyers Association, (AILA NJ), sued EOIR on July 31, 2020 in Federal District Court, New Jersey,

 seeking protection from EOIR!s first attempt compelling attorneys to appear in person during the pandemic. Due to this suit, Newark EOIR committed to providing attorneys with remote videoconferencing for the duration of the pandemic and to troubleshoot and address any glitches or interruptions in its use. All Immigration Courts nationwide soon adopted internet based hearings as the default for cases.

Since August 2020, prosecutors, attorneys, and immigrants have been appearing remotely, and, according to polling conducted by AILA NJ, the vast majority of internet-based hearings are proceeding without issue. Secretary Becerra of the United States Health & Human Services recently announced the continuation of the nationwide public health emergency on July 15, 2022. More than 34,000 New Jerseyans have died from COVID-19; over 2,500 people a day are still falling ill in New Jersey alone.

Acknowledging the benefits of internet-based hearings, David L. Neal, Director of EOIR, issued guidance on August 11, 2022, indicating that “all immigration courts have the capacity to hold such hearings…,” that “internet-based hearings have proven a valuable safety measure during the pandemic, as immigration judges can conduct such hearings without requiring groups of people to congregate in a courtroom…,” and that “EOIR anticipates that, going forward, internet-based hearings will remain essential to EOIR’s operations.”

“In fact, EOIR has been holding stakeholder meetings across the country to explain the continued benefits of utilizing Webex in immigration court proceedings. Why, then, would Newark EOIR, which was the first immigration court in the nation to use the WebEx system, suddenly choose to abandon it? Logically and logistically, this makes no sense,” explained Jason Scott Camilo.

Virtual hearings provide other benefits as well. Virtual hearings allow the courts to efficiently process more cases safely. Private attorneys and pro bono organizations are able to represent immigrants more effectively, having the ability to beam into various courtrooms in different locations in a single day.

According to AFGE Local 511, virtual court appearances enable prosecutors to minimize their exposure to hundreds of people in crowded courtrooms every day, while having more time to allocate their limited resources towards resolving cases outside the courtroom in motion practice and in consultation with opposing counsel. OPLA offices are understaffed, and virtual courtrooms enable telework, which in turn permits them to better manage their out of court duties, which primarily consist of efforts to reduce the immigration court backlog. “It makes no sense to hinder government attorneys attempting to assist EOIR in resolving cases ,” said AFGE Local 511’s Executive Vice President, Ginnine Fried, who is assigned to the Newark office.

Newark EOIR’s newly-announced policy requiring attorneys to appear in person or request a waiver is in direct opposition to the resolution of the federal lawsuit, is in direct opposition to the policy of the EOIR Director and, if implemented on October 3, 2022 as planned, will imperil the

 health and safety of all who will be forced to appear in person. No other court in the state has taken such radical action. AILA NJ attorneys and AFGE Local 511 attorneys agree there is no valid public policy reason to implement this drastic change, and numerous public policy reasons to continue with virtual immigration court hearings: public safety, increased court efficiency, and uniformity. Standing united, these opposing sides are beseeching the Newark EOIR to let safety prevail and to preserve the health of those Americans working to preserve a fair and equitable Immigration system.

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

Here’s the text of a letter to Director Neal from the NJ State Bar:

September 29, 2022

Sent via email to david.neal@usdoj.gov

Director David L. Neal

Executive Office for Immigration Review U.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001

Dear Director Neal:

NEW JERSEY STATE BAR ASSOCIATION

 JERALYN L. LAWRENCE, PRESIDENT Lawrence Law LLC 776 Mountain Boulevard, Suite 202 Watchung, NJ 07069 908-645-1000 • FAX: 908-645-1001 jlawrence@lawlawfirm.com

 On behalf of the New Jersey State Bar Association, which includes immigration attorneys among its 16,000 attorney members, I write to seek reconsideration of the policy change the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) has scheduled to implement in Newark, NJ, on Oct. 3, 2022. After more than two years of successful Webex Master Calendar hearings, EOIR will again require immigration attorneys to appear in person. While vague Webex bandwidth issues have been cited as the impetus for the change, there has been no stated reason why EIOR will not default to the prior practice of holding Master Calendar hearings telephonically. To be sure, there are legitimate concerns about the ability to judge credibility or simultaneous interpretation in certain telephonic immigration hearings, but those issues are not in play here as EOIR has waived clients’ appearance in Master Calendar hearings. Reverting to the pre-pandemic, inflexible court appearance requirements is both unnecessary, in light of back-up telephonic hearing capabilities, and presents costly time and monetary burdens to attorneys and respondents.

I. EOIR HAS SUCCESSFULLY HELD WEBEX HEARINGS SINCE THE HEIGHT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC IN 2020.

EOIR Newark began Webex hearings in summer 2020 because of litigation filed by New Jersey immigration attorneys in the New Jersey chapter of Association of Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) on July 31, 2020, in the District Court of New Jersey, Newark Vicinage. That suit sought protection from EOIR Newark’s order compelling attorneys to appear in person during the pandemic. As a result of this litigation, Assistant Chief Immigration Judge David Cheng (ACIJ Cheng) of the New Jersey Immigration Court, and on behalf of EOIR Newark, committed to providing attorneys with remote videoconferencing for the duration of the pandemic. As part of the parties’ stipulation for dismissal, the parties agreed to the following:

New Jersey Law Center • One Constitution Square • New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901-1520 732-249-5000 • FAX: 732-249-2815 • EMAIL: president@njsba.com • njsba.com

WHEREAS, PM 21-03 further provides that, “[o]nce WebEx compatibility is available at an immigration court, for the duration of the declared national emergency related to COVID-19, either party may file a motion for the alien or the representative for either party to appear at a hearing by VTC through WebEx rather than in person,” see id.; and

WHEREAS, PM 21-03 further provides that motions to appear at a hearing by VTC through WebEx for any party or party attorney/representative, like motions for telephone appearances, are “subject to the discretion of the immigration judge, any applicable law and any applicable requirements of the ICPM [Immigration Court Practice Manual], a standing order, or a local operating procedure,” see PM 21-03 at p. 4.

See Stipulation for Dismissal, Docket 44, dated Feb. 16, 2021 (Docket No. 2:20-cv-09748- JMV-JBC) (emphasis added), attached hereto as Exhibit A.

In the wake of that consent order, EOIR Newark joined all other state and federal courts in New Jersey in operating virtually during the pandemic. In practice, and pursuant to ACIJ Cheng’s Standing Order dated June 19, 2020, all Master Calendar hearings were held telephonically, without the need for a motion, and all respondents’ appearances were waived if an attorney appeared on their behalf. See Standing Order dated June 19, 2020, attached hereto as Exhibit B. This Standing Order was rescinded pursuant to ACIJ Cheng’s Standing Order on Dec. 28, 2021, effective Jan. 10, 2022, at which time Master Calendar hearings changed from being held telephonically to being held via Webex. As it was before, these were without the need for a motion, and all respondents’ appearances continued to be waived if an attorney appeared on their behalf. See Standing Order dated Dec. 28, 2021, attached hereto as Exhibit C.

Even today, many court operations across New Jersey continue to be virtual. To name a few, state municipal matters are being managed remotely, except for DUIs and trials, and in Superior Court, non-consequential hearings such as preliminary appearances and status conferences continue to be held remotely.1 The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey extended its standing order on Aug. 8, 2022, regarding virtual hearings for criminal proceedings.2

Additionally, EOIR itself has acknowledged the benefits of internet-based hearings, for which Newark was a national leader in its overall success as a pilot program jurisdiction. On Aug. 11, 2022, EOIR issued Director’s Memorandum 22-07.3 That stated, “all immigration courts have the capacity to hold such hearings…,” and “internet-based hearings have proven a valuable safety measure during the pandemic, as immigration judges can conduct such hearings without requiring groups of people to congregate in a courtroom…” The memo cites the benefits of internet-based hearings, including that “Respondents and counsel appearing remotely are

1 See njcourts.gov/public/covid19_one-stop.html#court_hearings, last accessed Sept. 27, 2022.

2 See njd.uscourts.gov/sites/njd/files/CARESActSOSixthExt.ofSO2021-03.pdf, last accessed Sept. 27, 2022. 3 See justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1525691/download, last accessed Sept 27, 2022.

-2-

 

relieved from traveling to court.” Finally, the memo said that “EOIR anticipates that, going forward, internet-based hearings will remain essential to EOIR’s operations.”

II. EOIR NEWARK INTENDS TO SUSPEND STANDARD WEBEX HEARINGS ON OCT. 3, 2022, WITHOUT PROPER NOTICE TO THE BAR, INCLUDING NJSBA.

Notwithstanding the above, the EOIR seeks to disband the standard for Webex hearings without proper notice to New Jersey attorneys and their clients who will be substantially and disproportionately affected by this sudden policy shift. The NJSBA only learned of this policy through its affiliate AILA NJ members when the committee chair for AILA NJ announced the new policy to its members by email on Aug. 30, 2022. The email was supplemented on Aug. 31, 2022, and again Sept. 8, 2022. The below paragraphs, taken from our AILA NJ colleagues’ letter to EOIR leadership, contain the entirety of the new policy, which was communicated via the emails referenced above.

From the Aug. 30, 2022 Email from EOIR Committee Chair:

The standing order for Webex hearings is revoked and in person appearances required as of 10/3/22. This of course is subject to exceptions and variations as follows:

1. Webex hearings will continue for all cases heard by Judge Ranasinghe and Judge Jeannopolous

2. Judge Pierro and Judge Chen will have in person master calendars and Webex merits hearings.

3. Judges Rubin, Rastegar, Riefkohl, Finston, Wilson and Lane will have in person hearings master and merits.

4. Represented respondents’ appearances are waived for master calendars like they are now on Webex masters, but not for merits hearings. This includes cases where an attorney is already on record or making his/her first appearance. Atty shows up, the respondent does not have to appear. If you are hired at the last minute and can’t make it, the respondent has to appear.

5. This does not apply to Elizabeth hearings as the facility does not admit visitors, all remote hearings.

6. If it is Judge Shirole or Pope and the hearing notice is for Newark, (DD Case), in person at Newark. Any doubts about Shirole call Elizabeth. Pope will all be in person.

7. You can still file a motion for a Webex hearing for good cause but it MUST be filed 15 days or before. If it is not granted you have to

-3-

appear. I am told the reason for this is the Webex bandwidth is incapable of handling the level of internet traffic that has developed. The system is crashing constantly. More and more attorneys are using it with technical issues constantly. So the “good cause” issue will be a major consideration in granting or denying motions for Webex calendars.

From August 31, 2022 Email from EOIR Committee Chair:

1. DHS has to appear in person and they will be required to file motions for Webex.

2. I failed to include ACIJ Cheng and IJ Mullican among the list of judges where in person appearances are required.

From September 8, 2022 Email from EOIR Committee Chair:

ACIJ Cheng has rephrased the “good cause” language requirement for a Webex motion. He chooses to phrase it as “there has to be a reason”.

See AILA New Jersey letter dated Sept. 23, 2022, attached hereto as Exhibit D.

III. THE NEW POLICY FAILS TO PROVIDE PROPER NOTICE TO NEW JERSEY ATTORNEYS AND IT IS IN CONFLICT WITH PRINCIPLES OF EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE, DUE PROCESS AND FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS.

EOIR Newark failed to circulate a general notice to the entire bar of the policy change and thereby limited the ability of all practitioners to learn of the change in a timely fashion.

 Indeed,

 unless immigration attorneys are members of AILA NJ, which some, but not all NJSBA Immigration Law Section members are, they might still be unaware of this abrupt change in policy, which will prejudice them and their clients. To date, EOIR Newark has not published a formal standing order to officially announce it. This lack of notice will hinder equal access to the justice system for countless respondents whose attorneys are not aware of the sweeping changes

 made to the practice. As our AILA NJ colleagues adeptly stated, notice of these changes should come directly from EOIR Newark in the form of a standing order, notice to the bar, website update, or other written statement. Further, the new policy is confusing and complicated in its

 implementation.

 This new policy also denies equal access to justice because of the effect it will have on attorneys’ fees. The fees for appearing at Master Calendar hearings in person, rather than virtually, will be markedly more expensive, and needlessly so, for immigration clients. Although clients’ appearance would be waived, the time attorneys spend to appear in person will be exponentially greater than that spent at a Webex appearance. In immigration removal proceedings, where respondents have no right to court-appointed counsel, many clients will find it cost prohibitive to pay an attorney for protracted appearances at Master Calendar hearings in Newark. An additional

-4-

 consequence may be that seasoned immigration attorneys would limit the removal defense cases

 they accept that require needless Newark appearances.

Consistency in agency practices is a hallmark of due process and fundamental fairness. Respondents and attorneys should be able to rely on established policies and practices and conform their behavior accordingly. To be clear, changes should be announced with reasonable notice and ample breadth to the entire legal community. EOIR Newark’s decision to change course without prior, reasonable notice will have serious economic and practical consequences to immigration attorneys and their clients.

IV. THE NEW POLICY WILL BE UNNECESSARILY BURDENSOME AND WILL RESULT IN ADDITIONAL BACKLOGS AND INEFFICIENCIES THROUGHOUT THE IMMIGRATION COURT SYSTEM.

 The new EOIR Newark policy will burden immigration attorneys by immediately requiring them to appear in person in Newark for Master Calendar hearings while their clients’ appearances remain waived. A Master Calendar hearing in Immigration Court is the equivalent to a status conference in most other litigation-based practice areas. They are administrative, taking approximately five to 15 minutes to complete. This will place a heavy burden on immigration attorneys across New Jersey all of whom will again be required to be physically present on the 12th Floor of EOIR Newark, which is New Jersey’s sole immigration court, by 8:30 a.m. on any given weekday for a hearing that will likely last fewer than 15 minutes. This change will be a hardship for attorneys from the south, such as an attorney from Cape May who would have to travel 148 miles to Newark, as well as those from the north, such as an attorney from Montague

 who would have to travel 59 miles to Newark, all for a brief hearing.

 A silver lining of the COVID-19 pandemic has been the legal community’s embrace of technology. Attorneys and courts alike learned, adopted, and then mastered a more efficient process to effectively practice law. There is no reason to revert to antiquated, unnecessary practices. Health concerns aside, appearing for Master Calendar hearings via Webex has proven to be a much more efficient process that reallocates attorneys’ time into their files and clients’ valuable financial resources. If Webex is experiencing bandwidth issues, telephonic Master

 Calendar hearings should be the back-up policy for attorneys rather than in person Master Calendar hearings. Immigration attorneys rely on Webex hearings to manage their practices, caseloads and clients’ schedules and expectations. Immigration attorneys have relied on the belief that EOIR Newark’s Master Calendar hearings would be handled in a remote fashion and have entered into retainer agreements with clients with fee estimates that do not contemplate in- person appearances, have scheduled their calendars, and accepted other court hearing dates, upon that belief. This new policy, which is being implemented in a haphazard manner, creates numerous conflicts, requiring voluminous motion practice to correct. The new policy would upend these successfully established practices on which attorneys, their staff, and their clients

 have come to rely over the last two years.

 The new policy states that motions to appear via Webex will be entertained, but that they must enumerate a “reason for the request.” Requiring a motion requesting a virtual hearing on every Master Calendar hearing, where an attorney may have dozens in any given week, is an

-5-

 overwhelming and unnecessary burden. Additionally, the court, and its already backlogged docket, will be flooded with motions for virtual hearings. The most likely reality is that a majority of attorney motions requesting Webex appearances would be undecided by the date of the appearance. That would lead to a stressful situation each week in which immigration attorneys cannot properly plan their schedules and calendars because they do not know whether or how the immigration judge has ruled on their motion, and whether an in-person appearance will be necessary. Additionally, calling EOIR Newark to ascertain an immigration judge’s decision on a pending Webex motion is, and will continue to be, an unreliable practice strategy. Court staff are already far too busy with court administration to field dozens of additional calls

 from immigration attorneys each day relating to these issues.

 EOIR should continue to permit immigration attorneys to appear for Master Calendar hearings via Webex as standard policy, without a motion. Although EOIR Newark has cited bandwidth concerns as an impetus for the sudden return to in person hearings, it has failed to set forth any basis for not defaulting to the process of holding Master Calendar hearings telephonically nor any substantive reasoning to support the policy that an attorney’s in-person appearance at a Master Calendar hearing is vital to the judicial process. Indeed, prior to the Dec. 21, 2021, EOIR Newark standing order to conduct Master Calendar hearings by Webex, all Master Calendar hearings were handled successfully via telephone, with the respondent’s appearance waived. If bandwidth upgrades are a concern, EOIR Newark should temporarily reinstate that practice and hold Master Calendar hearings with immigration attorneys via telephone until Webex bandwidth

 issues are rectified.

Once again, the NJSBA urges this court to permit hearings for all Master Calendar hearings to be held telephonically or via Webex, without the need for a motion. When we learn and implement a better process, we should embrace that spirit of innovation and creative problem solving rather than revert to antiquated processes. We look forward to working with EOIR Newark to find solutions that allow the court to efficiently accomplish its work and best serve the litigants who appear before it.

Very truly yours,

Jeralyn L. Lawrence, Esq.

President, New Jersey State Bar Association

Cc: Hon. David Cheng, Assistant Chief Immigration Judge, EOIR Newark (sent via email to david.cheng@dhs.gov)

 -6-

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

One of my reliable sources in the DMV area says that DHS is predicting the same awful “bandwidth” mess at the newly opened “Sterling Immigration Court.” How does a judicial system open “new courts” and mass reschedule cases without checking out basics like “bandwidth capacity” in advance? Total, inexcusable incompetence!

Sadly, this is not a surprise to those of us who have been blasting Garland’s horrible failure to make the glaringly obvious (to all but him) systemic, structural, and personnel changes to restore at least a modicum of due process in his failed “court system” — America’s worst courts, as I have been saying over and over.

When are Dems in Congress finally going to provide some meaningful oversight and force Garland to answer tough questions about his “due process disgrace” @ EOIR? Senator Booker and Senator Menendez, where are you?

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

09-30-22

EYORE
“Eyore In Distress”
Poor Eyore can’t catch a break — and, neither can the prosecutors, private attorneys, and individuals subjected to Garland’s botched “management” of EOIR — “America’s Worst Courts!”

Related posts:

  1. 🏴‍☠️👎🏽🤮PARODY OF JUSTICE @ “JUSTICE” — EOIR’s ETHICAL WASTELAND EXPOSED BY FOIA: The Only “Surprise” Here Is Garland’s Failure To “Clean House” @ EOIR, Remove Unethical Lawyers @ DOJ, & Demand Accountability For Ethically Challenged DHS Attorneys!🦨
  2. ☹️HE BEAT THE GOVERNMENT TWICE IN COURT — But, After Three Years In Jail Without Being Charged With Any Crime, Omar Ameen Still Can’t Get A Bond From Garland’s Courts —  How Can A System Where The Prosecutor Makes The Rules & Picks The Judges, Mostly From The Ranks Of Former Prosecutors, Provide The “Fair & Impartial Judging” Required By Due Process?
  3. 🏴‍☠️👎🏻🤮“HOUSTON, WE’VE STILL GOT A PROBLEM!” — A HUGE AND GROWING ONE — Garland’s Failure To Restore “Justice @ Justice” Reverberates Throughout Our Nation!🆘
  4. 🗽⚖️ “COURTSIDE” IN THE NEWS: BOTH NOLAN @ THE HILL & KEVIN @ IMMIGRATIONPROF BLOG HIGHLIGHT MY BLISTERING ANALYSIS OF BIDEN’S FIRST-YEAR IMMIGRATION POLICIES! — Garland’s Monumental EOIR Fail Writ Large Among “Underreported News” Of 2021 — Mishandling Of Immigration Courts Creates Key “Enthusiasm Gap” Among Progressives Heading Into 2022 Midterms!

🤯 OUTRAGE BOILS OVER AT MERRICK GARLAND’S  “MILLERESQUE” WAR ON DUE PROCESS AT EOIR & HIS GROTESQUE MISMANAGEMENT OF IMMIGRATION COURTS! — Garland Might Be A Greater Threat To Our Democracy Than DeSantis and Abbott!

Jason Dzubow
Jason Dzubow
The Asylumist

The latest report on Garland’s accelerating disaster @ EOIR from Jason Dzubow, “The Asylumist:”

https://www.asylumist.com/2022/09/21/due-process-disaster-in-immigration-court/

Due Process Disaster in Immigration Court

It is not easy to convey the magnitude of the ongoing disaster at EOIR, the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the office that oversees our nation’s Immigration Courts. Simply stated, the agency is rescheduling and advancing hundreds–maybe thousands–of cases without notifying attorneys, checking whether we are available to attend the hearings or checking whether we have the capacity to complete the cases.

On its face, this appears to be a mere scheduling problem. But in effect, it is a vicious and unprecedented assault on immigrants, their attorneys, and due process of law.

pastedGraphic.png

“Advancing hearings with no notice and no time to prepare? Why didn’t I think of that?!”

For me at least, the problem started small. A few cases were rescheduled and advanced without anyone at the Immigration Court bothering to inquire about my availability: Your case that was scheduled for two years in the future has been advanced and is now set for two months in the future. I was angry and upset, but I did not want to let my clients down. So I set other work obligations aside. I set family time aside. I put off doctors appointments. And I completed the cases, which were approved. I hoped that these cases were anomalies and that EOIR would stop this unfair and abusive practice. But that was not to be.

Instead, EOIR has dramatically expanded its effort to reschedule cases, often without providing sufficient notice–or any notice–to get the work done for our clients. As best as we can tell, the problem is occurring in California, Colorado, Maryland, and Virginia. I myself have had about a dozen cases rescheduled and advanced (so far). These cases had been scheduled for 2023 or 2024, and suddenly, they are now set for the fall of 2022. Other attorneys have had 20, 30 or more cases advanced, including some that were double booked. One lawyer reported having seven cases scheduled for the same week and 47 cases set for one month. Another lawyer purportedly told a judge that if she had one more case scheduled within the next six months, she would commit suicide.

Here, I want to break down what is happening, so noncitizens in Immigration Court can at least have some idea about EOIR’s disruptive practices.

First, when I say that EOIR is not providing notice of the hearings, that is not entirely accurate. They are not sending us a notice or contacting us in advance. Instead, they are posting the new hearing dates on our portal. What does this mean? Each attorney has access to a portal page with a calendar. We can scroll through the calendar one month at a time. Days with hearings are highlighted, and we can click on those days to see what is scheduled. When I review my calendar, I often find new hearings that were not previously on the schedule. The only way to know whether a new hearing has been scheduled is to scroll through our portals month-by-month and compare what’s there with our existing calendar–a burdensome process that leaves plenty of room to overlook a date. Needless to say, every time I sign on to the portal, I feel a nauseous sense of dread about what I might find.

Once we discover the new date, we need to review the file, contact the client, and determine whether we can complete the case. This all takes time. If we cannot complete the case, or we do not have an attorney available on the scheduled date, we need to ask for a continuance. Of course, clients who have been waiting years for a decision usually want to keep the earlier hearing date. They do not understand why we cannot complete the work or why we are not available that day. Their perspective is perfectly reasonable, but they only have one case, where lawyers have many and we are daily being ambushed by EOIR with additional work. All this can result in conflicts between clients (who want their cases heard) and lawyers (who need time to get the work done). It also makes it difficult to serve our other clients, who must be pushed aside to accommodate the new work randomly being dumped on us.

Even if the client agrees to request a continuance, that does not solve the problem. Motions to continue can be denied. Even when they are granted, the judges tend to reset the date for only a few weeks in the future, which is often not enough time to properly complete the work. Other times, judges simply do not rule on the motion, so we are left to prepare the case, not knowing whether it will go forward or not.

Also, while we sometimes discover a new date that is a few months in the future (and so in theory, we might have time to do the work), other times, the new date is only a few weeks in the future. Since the evidence, witness list, and legal brief are due at least 15 days before the hearing, and since even a “simple” asylum case takes 20 or 30 hours to prepare, this is not nearly enough time. Worse, some cases are randomly advanced and placed on the docket after the evidence is due, and so by the time we have “notice” of the case, our evidence is already late.

Adding insult to injury, another common problem is that cases are still being cancelled at the last minute. And so we drop everything to prepare a case, only to have it postponed once all the work is done. Since this is all utterly unpredictable, it is impossible to prioritize our work or advise our clients.

Again, if this were only a few cases, attorneys could set aside other work and get the job done. But lawyers who do immigration law tend to have many cases, and we are seeing dozens and dozens of cases advanced with no notice. This is such a blatant and obvious abuse of due process that it is impossible to believe it is accidental. I might have expected this policy from the Trump Administration, which was hell-bent on restricting immigration by any means necessary. But as it turns out, President Biden’s EOIR is far worse than President Trump’s. Indeed, the current level of callousness would make even Stephen Miller blush.

The solution to these problems is so basic that it should not need to be said, but here it is anyway: EOIR should stop advancing and rescheduling cases without notice and without consideration for whether we have time to complete the work. Unless something changes, we can expect many noncitizens to be unfairly denied protection, immigration attorneys will leave the profession (or worse), and EOIR will become illegitimate. Let us hope that sanity and decency will soon return to the Immigration Courts.

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

Ever wonder why Dems struggle to govern and often lose elections they should win?  This is a pretty good example of how the Biden Administration, through cowardice, ignorance, arrogance, and failure to prioritize racial justice and immigrant justice are “shooting themselves in the foot, over and over!”

They are going into midterms where every vote counts. They need “all hands on board” in the human rights community to help bail them out of the gross failures of the White House, Garland, and Mayorkas to reestablish a fair, efficient, and properly robust system for legally admitting refugees and processing asylum claims at the borders and the interior. This, in turn, has empowered disingenuous nativists like DeSantis and Abbott to “play games with human lives.” 

But, the Biden Administration “strategy” is to do everything possible to offend and drive a wedge between them and some of their most loyal and important groups of supporters — the immigration, human rights, and racial justice communities. (Make no mistake: The ongoing disaster at Garland’s EOIR disproportionally targets individuals of color.)

Garland seems to be impervious to his self-inflicted disaster at EOIR.  I think that advocates are going to have to sue to bring his “Stephen Miller Lite” travesty of justice at EOIR to a grinding halt. Those are resources that could and should be used to help asylum seekers “orbited” around the country by DeSantis and Abbott. 

I, for one, have been saying for a long time that Garland’s unfathomably horrible performance at EOIR is a threat to our entire justice system and to the future of our nation. Sadly, every day, Garland proves me right!

The real shame: It was all so preventable with just a modicum of competence and backbone from our failing AG!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever! Merrick Garland’s deadly Clown Courts 🤡, Never!

PWS

09-21-22

Related posts:

  1. EOIR TARGETS UNACCOMPANIED KIDS FOR DEPORATION RAILROAD!
  2. PURE BS 💩 — TRUMP’S “BIG LIE” ABOUT MIGRANT APPEARANCES FOR HEARINGS BOGUS AS $3 BILL 🤮👎🏻— Replacing DHS/EOIR With Rational, Qualified, Fact-Based Governance & Real Judiciary Could Bring Appearance Rate Close To 100%!  — Two Items From ImmigrationProf Blog!
  3. HOW “AMERICA’S KILLER COURTS” PROMOTE “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” — HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: TRUMP & HIS WHITE NATIONALIST SYCOPHANTS & TOADIES TOUT LAWLESS POLICIES THAT VIOLATE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS & HELP KILL, RAPE, TORTURE THOSE RETURNED TO EL SALVADOR — Supremes & Article III Judiciary Complicit In Gross Human Rights Violations! 
  4. GROSS NATIONAL DISGRACE: “A Fucking Disaster That Is Designed to Fail”: How Trump Wrecked America’s Immigration Courts — Fernanda Echavarri Reports For Mother Jones On How Our Failed Justice System Daily Abuses The Most Vulnerable While Feckless Legislators &   Smugly Complicit Article III Judges Look On & Ignore The Human Carnage They Are Enabling — “ Two days after US immigration officials sent her to Tijuana, she was raped.”

THE GIBSON REPORT — 09-19-22 — Compiled By Elizabeth Gibson, Managing Attorney, NIJC — LITIGATION: Avalanche Of Circuit Reversals Hits Garland’s “Star Chambers!”

Elizabeth Gibson
Elizabeth Gibson
Managing Attorney
National Immigrant Justice Center
Publisher of “The Gibson Report”

pastedGraphic.png

 

Weekly Briefing

 

This briefing is designed as a quick-reference aggregation of developments in immigration law, practice, and policy that you can scan for anything you missed over the last week. The contents of the news, links, and events do not necessarily reflect the position of the National Immigrant Justice Center. If you have items that you would like considered for inclusion, please email them to egibson@heartlandalliance.org.

 

CONTENTS (jump to section)

  • ◦NEWS
  • ◦LITIGATION & AGENCY UPDATES
  • ◦RESOURCES
  • ◦EVENTS

 

NEWS

 

Mexico Officials Abused 47% of Migrants Awaiting US Asylum

Bloomberg: Nearly half of US-asylum seekers returned to Mexico under the “remain-in-Mexico” program to await a US immigration court hearing said they’d been abused by local officials, according to a Human Rights First report released Thursday. See also Biden urges Mexico to take migrants under COVID expulsion order he promised to end.

 

FY 2022 Seeing Rapid Increase in Immigration Court Completions

TRAC: Immigration Court case completions have been rapidly increasing. During the first eleven months of FY 2022. Immigration Judges have closed over 375,000 cases — a historical record. If the pace continues, closures should top more than 400,000 by the end of the fiscal year. This is nearly three times as many case closures as last year. It is also roughly 50 percent higher than the previous high in FY 2019 during the Trump administration.

 

Migrant Crisis Puts N.Y. ‘Right to Shelter’ Law to the Test

NYT: Mr. McGuire cited the city’s failure on Monday to offer beds to 60 migrants who arrived at the men’s intake facility on East 30th Street in Manhattan, where homeless men are assessed when they first enter the shelter system — the first major such lapse in over a decade.

 

Thousands of Migrants Are Arriving in El Paso. They Have Nowhere to Sleep.

Vice: Since the beginning of September, over 1,100 migrants have been arriving every day in El Paso, more than 90 percent of them from Venezuela, according to the city’s CBP authorities. The influx has completely overwhelmed the city’s immigration shelters, and since most have no U.S. sponsor—support to get a visa to stay lawfully in the U.S.—immigration authorities have to release nearly 500 migrants a day into the streets of El Paso. And about 1,000 stay there to sleep every night.

 

Migrants Flown to Martha’s Vineyard Say They Were Misled

NYT: A fleet of buses arrived at St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church in Edgartown on Friday morning to ferry about 50 migrants — many of them dazed and a bit confused, but happy to be in the United States at last — to Joint Base Cape Cod, a temporary shelter. See also Texas sends another busload of migrants to Kamala Harris’s home; POLITICO Playbook: Breaking down DeSantis’ migrant stunt; DeSantis Flying Migrants to Martha’s Vineyard Is Part of a 60-Year-Old Segregationist Playbook.

 

The majority of Americans think migrants are ‘invading’ the U.S. Meanwhile, suffering at the border continues.

America: A majority of Americans—52 percent—now believe the nation is experiencing an “invasion” on the southern border, and 49 percent say that migrants are responsible for an uptick in U.S. drug overdoses because they are transporting fentanyl and other drugs.

 

Immigrants Keep Getting Lied To By Human Smugglers On Platforms Like Facebook, WhatsApp, and TikTok

BuzzFeed: The Tech Transparency Project found that human smugglers advertise their services on Facebook Marketplace and in local buy-sell groups, with third-party ads for bona fide businesses embedded within the posts that allow Facebook to make money every time a potential immigrant looks for smuggling services on the platform. Some of the listings even featured an ad for a scholarship run by Meta.

 

‘Never sleeps, never even blinks’: the hi-tech Anduril towers spreading along the US border

Guardian: Funded by Trump supporter Peter Thiel, the autonomous surveillance towers can detect a human from 2.8km away.

 

LITIGATION & AGENCY UPDATES

 

EOIR Final Rule on Limited Representation of Pro Se Individuals

AILA: EOIR final rule on limited representation of pro se individuals, which permits practitioners to provide document assistance to pro se individuals by entering a limited appearance through new Forms EOIR-60 or EOIR-61. The rule is effective 11/14/22.

 

CA2 on Evidence: Santiaguez v. Garland

LexisNexis: In denying his petition for CAT relief, the agency acknowledged that Santiaguez is an indigenous gay man and LGBT activist and that there is widespread violence against members of the LGBT community throughout Mexico. Nonetheless, the agency concluded that Santiaguez failed to satisfy his burden for CAT relief because he did not establish a likelihood that Mexican authorities would either torture him directly or acquiesce to his torture by private actors. In reaching this conclusion, the agency erred in several respects.

 

2nd Circ. Says Mexican Father Was Wrongly Denied Witnesses

Law360: The Second Circuit on Thursday revived a Mexico native’s bid to cancel his deportation on grounds that his children would experience extreme hardship without him, saying he should have been allowed live witness testimony to support his case.

 

3rd Circ. Finds Judge Stymied Asylum Seeker’s Right To Atty

Law360: The Third Circuit on Thursday in a precedential opinion resurrected a Dominican man’s request for asylum, finding that the lower courts interfered with his right to an attorney by denying a request to reschedule a hearing so that the lawyer he retained just 24 hours before would be better prepared.

 

CA4 On Corroboration: Garcia Rogel V. Garland

LexisNexis: One of those circumstances requiring review by a three member panel is when the IJ’s decision “is not in conformity with the law or with applicable precedents.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(6)(iii). Petitioner’s appeal of the IJ’s decision therefore should have been adjudicated by a three member panel of the BIA. … In conclusion, we grant the petition for review so that the IJ may reconsider the police report in light of In re Arreguin de Rodriguez, 21 I. & N. Dec. 38 (B.I.A. 1995).

 

6th Circ. Says BIA Ruling Has Its Hands Tied In Asylum Case

Law360: A split Sixth Circuit appellate panel has denied the asylum bid of a Salvadoran couple fleeing the gang MS-13, saying the U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals did not err when it found the couple had not shown the Salvadoran authorities were incapable of protecting them from the gang.

 

Split 9th Circ. Revives Indian Man’s Asylum Bid

Law360: The Board of Immigration Appeals did not go through with an analysis that would have shown an Indian man was persecuted for his political affiliation, a split Ninth Circuit panel ruled Wednesday in reviving the man’s asylum bid.

 

9th Circuit Revives Mexican Man’s Bid To Avoid Deportation

Law360: The Ninth Circuit on Friday held that a Mexican man who was tortured and harassed in his home country should get another shot at avoiding deportation, ruling that the Board of Immigration Appeals erred in how it went about overturning an immigration judge’s decision in the man’s favor.

 

CA9 on Standard of Review: Chavez-Escamilla v. Garland

LexisNexis: The BIA failed to correctly apply the clearly erroneous standard. While the BIA indicated disagreement with the IJ’s findings, it did not explain why the IJ’s decision was illogical, implausible, or without support. … Clear error review requires the BIA to “explain how these alleged errors showed lack of logic, plausibility, or support in the record on the part of the IJ.”

 

11th Circ. Says Private Dispute Doesn’t Support Asylum Bid

Law360: The Eleventh Circuit on Tuesday denied a petition from a Honduran man seeking asylum over claims that narcotics traffickers targeted his family, saying the dispute with the traffickers stemmed from a private “vendetta,” making him ineligible for asylum to avoid persecution.

 

Notice of Potential Class Membership, Al Otro Lado v. Mayorkas (PDF, 212.97 KB)

USCIS: This notice is intended to provide information for individuals who (1) may be an AOL PI Class Member; (2) had the “third-country transit rule” applied to their immigration case; (3) were ordered removed from the U.S. under an “expedited removal order”; and (4) currently reside in the United States.

 

Notice Of Appeal From A Decision Of An Immigration Judge – Comments Requested

EOIR: As part of EOIR’s “Access EOIR” initiative, the agency is seeking to revise its Form EOIR-26, Notice of Appeal from a Decision of an Immigration Judge, to include a section for unrepresented respondents to consent to have their case be considered for inclusion in the BIA Pro Bono Project.

 

USCIS 30-Day Notice and Request for Comments on New Version of e-Request Tool

AILA: USCIS 30-day notice and request for comments on a new version of USCIS’s e-Request Tool. Comments are due 10/17/22. (87 FR 56968, 9/16/22)

 

RESOURCES

 

 

EVENTS

 

 

To sign up for additional NIJC newsletters, visit:  https://immigrantjustice.org/subscribe.

 

You now can change your email settings or search the archives using the Google Group. If you are receiving this briefing from a third party, you can visit the Google Group and request to be added. If you receive an error, make sure you click request access.

 

Elizabeth Gibson (Pronouns: she/her/ella)

Managing Attorney for Capacity Building and Mentorship

National Immigrant Justice Center

A HEARTLAND ALLIANCE Program

224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 600, Chicago, IL 60604
T: (312) 660-1688| F: (312) 660-1688| E: egibson@heartlandalliance.org

www.immigrantjustice.org | Facebook | Twitter

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

Avalanche
Merrick Garland ignores the existential threat from the avalanche of dangerous and defective decisions by his Trump holdover BIA. But, the rest of us see exactly what’s happening.
PHOTO: Creative Commons

I count no fewer than seven Circuit rejections of wrong-headed BIA decisions in Elizabeth’s report this week. The legal incompetence of EOIR under Garland is astounding! 

Disturbingly, several reversals involve outrageous denials of routine continuances. Garland runs a system where cases languish for years, sometimes decades, because of poor judicial decisions and inept docket management by EOIR. Yet, some IJ’s and the BIA are “programmed” to deny well-justified continuances in clear violation of Due Process. What a disgrace!

Garland has failed miserably to bring enough well-qualified judges and competent administrators into his dysfunctional Immigration Courts. Yet, he wanders around America giving clueless speeches about the wonders of the American justice system and the greatness of immigrants!

Meanwhile, a nationwide rebellion among practitioners is brewing against Garland’s latest round of mindless, due-process-denying “Aimless Docket Reshuffling.” It’s going to take more than a few cosmetic “regional stakeholder meetings” to get things back on track at EOIR. Everyone except Garland and his lieutenants knows that!

And, the continuing meltdown at EOIR helps “fuel” disgraceful stunts by nativist racists like DeSantis and Abbott.

🇺🇸 DUE PROCESS FOREVER!

PWS

09-18-22

Related posts:

  1. ⚖️THE GIBSON REPORT — 09-96-22 — Compiled By Elizabeth Gibson, Managing Attorney, NIJC — CAIR Seeks Examples Of “IJs using [boilerplate] and engaging in little/no actual legal analysis in a particular case.” — NIJC Looking For “PD Stories” — Many Helpful Practice Advisories & Alerts!
  2. 🧑🏽‍⚖️⚖️🗽🇺🇸WHO’S JUDGE IS IT ANYWAY? — The Crisis Of Independence In Our Immigration Courts! — Coming April 7, 2021! — Sponsored By The HNBA! — Don’t Miss It!
  3. ⚖️THE GIBSON REPORT — 07-11-22 —  Compiled By Elizabeth Gibson, Esquire, Managing Attorney, NIJC — Glimpses Of Some Failing Righty Federal Judges & An Administration That Lacks A Bold Plan For Improving Immigration, Human Rights, & Racial Justice, Particularly @ EOIR!
  4. 🆘🤮IS 11TH CIR. GROWING WEARY OF GARLAND’S SCOFFLAW BIA? —Two Trips To The Circuit, & The BIA Still Violates Own Regulations, Ignores Precedent, Spouts Gibberish While OIL’s Defense Of This Nonsense & Malfeasance By EOIR Raises Serious Ethical Questions! — THAMOTAR v. U.S. ATT’Y GEN. — Garland’s Dysfunctional & Systematically Unjust Courts Undermine OUR Democracy☠️ — Demand An IMMEDIATE End To The Scofflaw Nonsense🤡 🧹 At OUR Justice Department! 🏴‍☠️

🤯 ASTOUNDING HEIGHTS OF HYPOCRISY! — Garland Praises Rule Of Law, Equal Justice, & Immigrants While Running Biased, Unconstitutional, Dysfunctional, Backlogged Immigration “Courts” That Trample All Three! — There’s Not Much That’s “Fair” Or “Equal” In Garland’s “Star Chambers!”

Star Chamber Justice
A.G. Merrick Garlands gratitude to America for accepting his family doesn’t extend to those suffering injustice in his wholly owned “Immigration Courts” — still churning our “Trump-era” restrictionist nonsense and “managed” in a way that promotes maximum dysfunction and inefficiency!

https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-merrick-b-garland-administers-oath-allegiance-and-delivers

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland Administers the Oath of Allegiance and Delivers Congratulatory Remarks at Ellis Island Ceremony in Celebration of Constitution Week and Citizenship Day

New York, NY ~ Saturday, September 17, 2022

Remarks as Delivered

It is my great honor to welcome you as the newest citizens of the United States of America. Congratulations!  Please be seated.

Just now, each of you took an oath of allegiance to the United States. In so doing, you took your place alongside generations who came before you, many through this very building, seeking protection, freedom, and opportunity.

This country – your country – wholeheartedly welcomes you.

I know that you have made sacrifices in order to be here today. You should be proud of all you have accomplished. I am proud of you.

You have made the decision to become Americans not only at an important time in our country’s history, but on an important day.

It was 235 years ago on this day, September 17, 1787, that 39 delegates to the Constitutional Convention representing 12 states signed their names to the Constitution of the United States.

Like you, those who signed the Constitution were relatively new Americans. In fact, America had only existed for 11 years at that point.

Like you, those Americans had great hopes for their own future – and for the future of their new country.

In the preamble of the Constitution, those Americans enumerated those hopes: to form a more perfect union; establish justice; ensure domestic tranquility; provide for the common defense; promote the general welfare …

And importantly – in their words – “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

Like them, each of you has now made a commitment not only to this nation and your fellow Americans, but to the generations of Americans who will come after you.

In that commitment, you have given your posterity – and the posterity of all of us – a precious gift.

I know how valuable that gift is because it is the same one my grandparents gave my family and me.

I come from a family of immigrants who fled religious persecution early in the 20th Century and sought refuge here in the United States. Some of my family entered right here, at Ellis Island.

My grandmother was one of five children born in what is now Belarus. Three made it to the United States, including my grandmother who came through the Port of Baltimore.

Two did not make it. Those two were killed in the Holocaust.

If not for America, there is little doubt that the same would have happened to my grandmother.

But this country took her in. And under the protection of our laws, she was able to live without fear of persecution.

I am also married to the daughter of an immigrant who came through the Port of New York in 1938.

Shortly after Hitler’s army entered Austria that year, my wife’s mother escaped to the United States. Under the protection of our laws, she too, was able to live without fear of persecution.

That protection is what distinguishes America from so many other countries. The protection of law – the Rule of Law – is the foundation of our system of government.

The Rule of Law means that the same laws apply to all of us, regardless of whether we are this country’s newest citizens or whether our [families] have been here for generations.

The Rule of Law means that the law treats each of us alike: there is not one rule for friends, another for foes; one rule for the powerful, another for the powerless; a rule for the rich, another for the poor; or different rules, depending upon one’s race or ethnicity or country of origin.

The Rule of Law means that we are all protected in the exercise of our civil rights; in our freedom to worship and think as we please; and in the peaceful expression of our opinions, our beliefs, and our ideas.

Of course, we still have work to do to make a more perfect union. Although the Rule of Law has always been our guiding light, we have not always been faithful to it.

The Rule of Law is not assured. It is fragile. It demands constant effort and vigilance.

The responsibility to ensure the Rule of Law is and has been the duty of every generation in our country’s history. It is now your duty as well. And it is one that is especially urgent today at a time of intense polarization in America.

The United States is no stranger to what our Founders called the risk of faction. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison wrote about it in the Federalist Papers. George Washington warned against it in his Farewell Address.

Overcoming the current polarization in our public life is, and will continue to be, a difficult task.

But we cannot overcome it by ignoring it. We must address the fractures in our society with honesty, with humility, and with respect for the Rule of Law.

This demands that we tolerate peaceful disagreement with one another on issues of politics and policy. It demands that we listen to each other, even when we disagree. And it demands that we reject violence and threats of violence that endanger each other and endanger our democracy.

We must not allow the fractures between us to fracture our democracy.

We are all in this together. We are all Americans.

On this historic day and in this historic place, let us make a promise that each of us will protect each other and our democracy.

That we will honor and defend our Constitution.

That we will recognize and respect the dignity of our fellow Americans.

That we will uphold the Rule of Law and seek to make real the promise of equal justice under law.

That we will do what is right, even if that means doing what is difficult.

And that we will do these things not only for ourselves, but for the generations of Americans who will come after us.

I have often thought about what members of my family felt as they came through buildings like this. And I have often thought about what their decisions meant for my own life.

My family story is what motivated me to choose a career in public service. I wanted to repay my country for taking my family in when they had nowhere else to go. I wanted to repay the debt my family owes this country for our very lives.

My family members who immigrated here have now long since passed. I regret that I cannot express to them how grateful I am for the gift they gave me in choosing to come to this country.

So let me thank each of you.

Thank you for choosing America as your home. Thank you for the courage, dedication and work that has brought you here.

Thank you for all you will do to help our country live up to its highest ideals.

Thank you on behalf of a nation that is fortunate to call you as its citizens.

And thank you upon on behalf of the generations of Americans who will come after you. Thank you.

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

The man lives in a “reality-free bubble” on the 5th Floor of DOJ. He must also “tune out” the many Circuit Court decisions lambasting the BIA’s sloppy decisions, anti-due-process “culture,” and wrong anti-immigrant legal rulings issued in his name. He seems incapable of understanding how the unfathomable mess he presides over at EOIR affects the health and welfare of those practicing before it!

I’m curious as to how denying access to counsel, denying reasonable continuances, failing to follow precedent, using improper “one judge” review, intentionally misconstruing “notice” statutes, and applying legally incorrect standards, all subjects of recent Circuit “blowbacks,” fit into Garland’s view of equal justice for immigrants in America. How does “Aimless Docket Reshuffling on steroids” fit in with his concept of due process and professional court administration?

Know a man not by his words, but by his deeds. In Garland’s case, it’s an ugly picture.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

09-29-22

Related posts:

  1. 🧑🏽‍⚖️⚖️🗽🇺🇸WHO’S JUDGE IS IT ANYWAY? — The Crisis Of Independence In Our Immigration Courts! — Coming April 7, 2021! — Sponsored By The HNBA! — Don’t Miss It!
  2. ⚖️🗽SATURDAY MINI-ESSAY: ONE TINY STEP FOR MANKIND: But It’s Going To Take Much More Than Finally Replacing A Few Stunningly Unqualified Judges To Save EOIR!
  3. 🏴‍☠️👎🏻🤮“HOUSTON, WE’VE STILL GOT A PROBLEM!” — A HUGE AND GROWING ONE — Garland’s Failure To Restore “Justice @ Justice” Reverberates Throughout Our Nation!🆘
  4. 🆘🤮IS 11TH CIR. GROWING WEARY OF GARLAND’S SCOFFLAW BIA? —Two Trips To The Circuit, & The BIA Still Violates Own Regulations, Ignores Precedent, Spouts Gibberish While OIL’s Defense Of This Nonsense & Malfeasance By EOIR Raises Serious Ethical Questions! — THAMOTAR v. U.S. ATT’Y GEN. — Garland’s Dysfunctional & Systematically Unjust Courts Undermine OUR Democracy☠️ — Demand An IMMEDIATE End To The Scofflaw Nonsense🤡 🧹 At OUR Justice Department! 🏴‍☠️

🤯🥵☠️TEFLON MERRICK? — AS CIRCUITS CONTINUE TO RIP GARLAND EOIR’S SYSTEMIC DENIALS OF DUE PROCESS, HIS GROSS MISMANAGEMENT OF EOIR IS CREATING SUICIDAL THOUGHTS AMONG THOSE TRYING TO “PRACTICE” BEFORE HIS EVER-DETERIORATING, DEADLY, “CLOWN SHOW” 🤡MASQUERADING AS A “COURT”

Alfred E. Neumann
Was Merrick Garland AWOL during required training on legal and judicial ethics? Judging from how he runs “America’s worst court system” — where due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices go to die — we have to assume that that he thinks he has “risen above” the need to comply with ethical requirements!
PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons

I can’t even keep up with the ludicrously bad EOIR decisions being “outed” by the Circuits and, worse yet, mindlessly (and probably unethically) defended by the DOJ’s OIL. Here’s just one afternoon’s “haul:” https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/211163.U.pdf (4th Cir., failure to follow precedent, improper one-judge appellate decision); https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/d0d1a22c-4e59-4b4d-9439-92e57e7339ec/2/doc/20-3476_opn.pdf#xml=https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/d0d1a22c-4e59-4b4d-9439-92e57e7339ec/2/hilite/ (2d Cir., improper denial of continuance, “Round Table” case); https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/212259p.pdf (denying fair access to counsel, denial of continuance).

These are very graphic examples of Garland’s inexcusable failure to end the “haste makes waste, anything goes culture” @ EOIR — encouraged by Sessions and Barr but completely unaddressed by Garland! And, I guarantee this is just “the tip of the iceberg.” For every one of these outrageous errors caught by a Circuit, dozens are probably wrongfully denied relief and illegally ordered deported in Garland’s dysfunctional, due process denying, deportation assembly line!

But, beyond that, Garland’s failure to “clean house” at EOIR and hire qualified, expert, professional leaders, judges, and administrators is an ongoing national disgrace — one that is eating away the foundations of our justice system.

Here’s a “real life snapshot” from my “Morning Mailbox:”

I got 15 individual hearing notices in two days for October 2022. Right now the firm has 47 [Individual Hearings] in October for 4 attorneys to handle. A lot of the hearings we never even got notice for, we just randomly have been checking the portal and that’s how we are finding out. Once we do find out we are always about a month or less away from the hearing date. We are going to try to file motions to continue but who really knows what they are going to do about it. Also, I had an [Individual Hearing] with Judge _________ the other day, and he said that Respondents’ attorneys are having a hard time. He said he had a master that he had to schedule for an [Individual Hearing], and the Respondent’s counsel told him if he scheduled her Individual Hearing within the next 6 months she was going to commit suicide. He seemed really concerned for the attorneys. Hopefully this calms down, because the hearings are piling on and quite honestly no one has the manpower to do all of the [Individual Hearings] in especially such short notice.

This is insane, inexcusable, and totally uncalled for! Aimless Docket Reshuffling gone wild! 

In what real “court” system is a judge “required” to schedule a hearing that he knows is beyond the ability of the lawyer to handle at the appointed time. That’s an ethical violation! Who is behind this mess? If the “buck stops at the top,” why isn’t Garland under under investigation for “operating a system” that clearly violates judicial and professional ethics?

Q: What happens when comedy 🎭morphs into tragedy☠️?

A: Merrick Garland’s EOIR

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

09-16-22

 

Related posts:

  1. ⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️CAMILLE J.  MACKLER @ JUST SECURITY “GETS IT!” — How Come Judge Garland & The Biden Administration Don’t? — “If we want to re-build a better, stronger immigration system, we need to start with immigration courts.” — Get Involved! Get Angry! Say No To Institutionalized Racism, Misogyny, & Dehumanization (“Dred Scottification”) @ EOIR! Force Judge Garland To Pay Attention! Demand Change, Now!
  2. ⚖️🗽🇺🇸🦸‍♂️ NDPA SUPERLITIGATOR RAED GONZALEZ DRUBS GARLAND AGAIN! — “Who else could persuade CA5 to agree with CA9, and get an award of costs,” asks Dan Kowalski of LexisNexis Immigration Community? — When will the unconscionable failure of immigrant justice at Garland’s Department of “Justice” finally end? When our nation’s democracy goes down in flames?🔥 ♨️
  3. 🆘🤮IS 11TH CIR. GROWING WEARY OF GARLAND’S SCOFFLAW BIA? —Two Trips To The Circuit, & The BIA Still Violates Own Regulations, Ignores Precedent, Spouts Gibberish While OIL’s Defense Of This Nonsense & Malfeasance By EOIR Raises Serious Ethical Questions! — THAMOTAR v. U.S. ATT’Y GEN. — Garland’s Dysfunctional & Systematically Unjust Courts Undermine OUR Democracy☠️ — Demand An IMMEDIATE End To The Scofflaw Nonsense🤡 🧹 At OUR Justice Department! 🏴‍☠️
  4. 🏴‍☠️👎🏽🤮 AIMLESS DOCKET RESHUFFLING (“ADR”) ON STEROIDS! — EOIR Dysfunction Shows What Happens When “Captive Court System” Kowtows To Political Handlers Rather Than Serving The Public! — Jason Dzubow, The Asylumist, Reports!

⚖️THE GIBSON REPORT — 09-96-22 — Compiled By Elizabeth Gibson, Managing Attorney, NIJC — CAIR Seeks Examples Of “IJs using [boilerplate] and engaging in little/no actual legal analysis in a particular case.” — NIJC Looking For “PD Stories” — Many Helpful Practice Advisories & Alerts!

Elizabeth Gibson
Elizabeth Gibson
Managing Attorney
National Immigrant Justice Center
Publisher of “The Gibson Report”

pastedGraphic.png

 

Weekly Briefing

 

This briefing is designed as a quick-reference aggregation of developments in immigration law, practice, and policy that you can scan for anything you missed over the last week. The contents of the news, links, and events do not necessarily reflect the position of the National Immigrant Justice Center. If you have items that you would like considered for inclusion, please email them to egibson@heartlandalliance.org.

 

CONTENTS (jump to section)

  • ◦NEWS
  • ◦LITIGATION & AGENCY UPDATES
  • ◦RESOURCES
  • ◦EVENTS

 

NEWS

 

Biden Administration Has Admitted One Million Migrants to Await Hearings

NYT: Under a pandemic-driven public health rule, migrants have been turned away at the U.S. border 1.7 million times since Mr. Biden took office, a figure that includes some people who have attempted to cross multiple times. But the United States has allowed others to stay temporarily for a range of reasons, including because Mexico or their own countries will not take them back. Nearly 300,000 of those who have been allowed in — including many heads of families — have been outfitted with tracking devices so that Immigration and Customs Enforcement can keep tabs on their whereabouts while they await their day in court. See also ‘Tale of two borders’: Mexicans not seen at busy crossings.

 

‘Human crisis’: Chicago seeks help as Texas buses over migrants

AlJazeera: Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot recently told reporters that about 125 migrants have arrived in the city on board buses from Texas, including 50 people who arrived on Sunday alone, most of them families. See also Texas spends more than $12 million to bus migrants to Washington, DC, and New York; Chicago welcomes immigrants bused out of Texas with open arms.

 

No longer young, ‘dreamers’ uneasily watch a legal challenge

WaPo: The oldest recipients were in their early 30s when DACA began and are in their early 40s today. At the same time, fewer people turning 16 can meet a requirement to have been in the United States continuously since June 2007.

 

Dozens of migrant children reported missing in Houston, raising alarms

Reuters: The agency found that since late last year, 57 unaccompanied migrant kids had been reported missing in Houston, the HHS official, and two additional sources familiar with the situation, said. Included in the count were nine kids who ran away from HHS shelters in the Houston area, the official said.

 

Venezuela’s refugee crisis similar to Ukraine’s in scale, but not aid

WaPo:   The exodus from Venezuela has grown to the point that its refugee numbers are now close to those displaced by the conflict in Ukraine — but the European crisis has drawn disproportionately more financial support, according to an advocacy group. See also Ecuador begins regularization process for thousands of Venezuelan migrants.

 

California may be 1st to ban solo confinement for immigrants

CA: California would be the first U.S. state to ban solitary confinement in private civil detention centers used for immigrants who are under threat of deportation, under a bill that advanced Tuesday.

 

Feds Say Biz Lined Pockets With Migrant Kids’ Shelter Funds

Law 360: Federal prosecutors accused a Texas contractor of misappropriating hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of funding from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that was intended to be used for housing unaccompanied migrant children.

 

Afghan Resettlement Efforts Will Now Prioritize US Family Ties

Law 360: The Biden administration will focus on bringing over Afghans who have U.S. families in the next stage of its effort to relocate those fearing for their lives under the Taliban’s rule, a State Department spokesperson said Thursday.

 

LITIGATION & AGENCY UPDATES

 

American Samoa Gov’t Argues Against Birthright Citizenship

Law 360: The American Samoa government told the U.S. Supreme Court Monday that imposing birthright citizenship on American Samoans would deprive them of the right to decide their status, going against American Samoa-born individuals who earlier appealed to the high court.

 

1st Circ. Calls Removal Statute ‘Hard-Hearted’ In Affirming BIA

Law 360: The First Circuit was bound Wednesday to stand by an immigration appeals board decision that ordered a Guatemalan man removed from the country despite the hardship it would cause his children, saying the call was in line with the “hard-hearted” and “stringent statutory requirement.”

 

1st Circ. Says Fuzzy Memory Of Assault Doesn’t Bar Asylum

Law 360: The Board of Immigration Appeals was wrong when it refused to consider a psychological report explaining why an El Salvadoran teen seeking asylum had trouble remembering the details of sexual assaults that occurred when she was a child, a split First Circuit has ruled.

 

CA3 On Credibility, CAT: Njoka V. Garland (unpub)

LexisNexis: [U]nder the law of this circuit, an adverse credibility finding is “not determinative” of a claim for CAT protection…The Board was thus obliged to also consider Njoka’s independent evidence in the context of his claim for CAT protection.

 

CA9 On INTERPOL Red Notice, CAT: Gonzalez-Castillo V. Garland

LexisNexis: This court has long interpreted “serious reasons to believe,” the standard set by the statute for the serious nonpolitical crime bar, as equivalent to probable cause. In this case, the INTERPOL Red Notice cannot, by itself, establish probable cause.

 

Another CA5 Pereira / Niz-Chavez Remand: Parada V. Garland – Now Published!

LexisNexis: [T]he BIA’s decision to deny Parada’s motion to reopen was based on a legally erroneous interpretation of the statutes governing Notices to Appear and the stop-time rule. The Supreme Court has since reinforced the holding of Pereira and held—again— that to trigger the stop-time rule, a Notice to Appear must come in the form of “a single document containing all the information an individual needs to know about his removal hearing.”

 

CA9: BIA Must Consider New Evidence For Immigration Credibility

Law 360: The Ninth Circuit revived a Sikh man’s second attempt at obtaining asylum in the United States, finding that the Board of Immigration Appeals should have considered new information he presented in his later bid about the dangers of living as a Sikh in India.

 

9th Circ. Rules Ariz. Drug Convictions Trigger Deportations

Law 360: A Ninth Circuit panel on Monday ruled that Arizona’s drug possession laws can support federal immigration removal orders despite banning a broader list of substances than the federal drug schedule because the Grand Canyon State requires juries to determine the specific drug type involved in each conviction.

 

Calif. Judge Imposes New Rules For Migrant Youth Placement

Law 360: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement must notify young detained migrants and their counsel when it decides against releasing them to their parents or relatives and provide reasons for withholding release, a California federal judge has ordered.

 

ICE Inks $4.8M Deal With Migrant Teens In Detention Litigation

Law 360: U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement has agreed to pay $4.8 million to resolve a class action claiming the government routinely failed to consider safer options before transferring teens to adult detention facilities after they turned 18, according to a proposed settlement filed Thursday in D.C. federal court.

 

Judge Recommends Immigrant Class Cert. In NY Detainer Suit

Law 360: Immigrants suing New York’s Suffolk County and its sheriff’s office over their practice of holding people past their release date by request of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement have won over a federal judge, who recommended their proposed class be certified.

 

Iranian Diversity Visa Applicants Say They Were Skipped Over

Law 360: Two California chapters of a national Muslim civil liberties group and 159 Iranian diversity visa applicants have sued the Biden administration in federal court, claiming they have been “skipped over” and “unreasonably delayed” in the processing of their applications “for no explicable reason.”

 

USCIS Extends and Expands Employment Authorization for Individuals Covered by DED for Liberia

USCIS: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today published a Federal Register notice for the extension and expansion of eligibility for Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) for Liberians and explaining how eligible Liberians may apply for Employment Authorization Documents (EADs).

 

USCIS Resumes Cuban Family Reunification Parole Program Operations

USCIS: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is resuming operations under the Cuban Family Reunification Parole (CFRP) program, beginning with pending CFRP program applications.

 

USCIS Updates Guidance Related to Religious Workers

USCIS: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is issuing policy guidance in the USCIS Policy Manual to reorganize and expand on existing guidance related to special immigrant and nonimmigrant religious workers.

 

EOIR to Open Sterling Immigration Court

EOIR: The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) today announced it will open a new immigration court in Sterling, Virginia, on Oct. 3, 2022. The Sterling Immigration Court will include 19 immigration judges. It will be the second immigration court to open in the National Capital Region this calendar year.

 

Call for Examples: IJ Use of Boilerplate

CAIR: Peter Alfredson from CAIR Coalition’s Immigration Impact Lab is seeking examples of problems related to how IJs are using boilerplate addenda/statements of law in oral decisions. Please contact him at peter@caircoalition.org with any specific issues you’ve experienced with the addenda, including, but not limited to: IJs referring to the addenda but never actually providing them; addenda misrepresenting the law in a prejudicial way; and IJs using the addenda and engaging in little/no actual legal analysis in a particular case.

 

Call for Examples: PD stories (US v Texas)

NIJC: If you have examples of prosecutorial discretion you are willing to share (anonymously to your client if you wish), please fill out this form: Amicus Stories. Also: if you are a nonprofit and would be interested in signing on as an amici, please fill out this form: Joining Amici. In particular, we are thinking of cases that fit into the following categories: Grants or Denials under the Mayorkas Memo of PD for the purpose of seeking some non-EOIR benefit, such as: Eligibility for U visa, Eligibility for adjustment of status, Eligibility for SIJS. Grants or Denials under the Mayorkas Memo of PD based on particular humanitarian or unique considerations: Military service (self or family), Undercover or confidential informant situation, Family separation. DACA / DREAMers, MPP, Old convictions / rehabilitation. Stories (even if they predate the Mayorkas Memo) involving: Circumstances where individuals who would have been subject to 236(c) were not placed in removal proceedings, and the person was able to pursue relief with USCIS because no proceedings were ever initiated. Circumstances where individuals who could have been subject to reinstatement of a prior removal order did not have that order reinstated and were able to do things like pursue a U or T visa before USCIS, without being detained or placed in removal proceedings.

 

RESOURCES

 

 

EVENTS

 

 

To sign up for additional NIJC newsletters, visit:  https://immigrantjustice.org/subscribe.

 

You now can change your email settings or search the archives using the Google Group. If you are receiving this briefing from a third party, you can visit the Google Group and request to be added.

 

Elizabeth Gibson (Pronouns: she/her/ella)

Managing Attorney for Capacity Building and Mentorship

National Immigrant Justice Center

A HEARTLAND ALLIANCE Program

224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 600, Chicago, IL 60604
T: (312) 660-1688| F: (312) 660-1688| E: egibson@heartlandalliance.org

www.immigrantjustice.org | Facebook | Twitter

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

Thanks, Elizabeth!

Lack of analysis, prejudged cases, overt anti-immigrant bias, and absence of “applied” immigration, human rights, and due process expertise is an endemic problem at EOIR. Using canned law (some of it flat out wrong or at least questionable) in “addenda” appears to be another “built to fail,” due process denying, haste make waste “gimmick.”

Lousy analysis and basic mistakes appear in Federal Court rebukes of EOIR highlighted here, on LexisNexis, on ImmigrationProf  blog, and other resources on an almost daily basis. And, we by no means are able to catalogue all of the abject failures being cranked out by Garland’s EOIR — many of which would embarrass an L-1! Why not get 1) better judges, 2) a better BIA, and 3) better training?

Garland has been “nibbling around the edges,” at best. A few enlightened appointments of well-qualified “practical scholars” to newly created judgeships in a failed system of some 600 judges nationwide with a fatally flawed “Trump holdover” appellate body, the BIA, won’t cut it.

EOIR needs new, exceptionally well-qualified, dynamic, due process oriented expert leadership and a new BIA that will begin solving the problems rather than aggravating them and shuffling them on to the Circuits. Hopefully, the CAIR effort will lead to “dialing up the pressure” on Garland and his lieutenants to “get their collective heads out of the clouds and kick some tail at what (despite the efforts of Article III right wing hacks like Judge Aileen “Loose” Cannon to claim the title) remains “America’s worst court system” — where due process, fundamental fairness, legal scholarship, and best practices “go to die.” 🪦

I don’t dispute that America’s judicial system is failing from top to bottom. But, unlike the  Article IIIIs, where there are long-term structural issues with constitutional roots that make “quick fixes” impossible, EOIR is “wholly owned and operated” by the Executive. 

Systemic institutional reforms like replacement or reassignment of unqualified judicial and administrative personnel could, and should, have been a top priority for the Biden Administration. But, instead the tone deaf “it’s only immigration not a real priority” approach by Garland has allowed life-threatening legal malfeasance at EOIR to fester, spread, and undermine confidence in the ability of our democracy to survive.

News flash for Garland: EOIR is where the “rubber meets the road” for American justice. You continue to ignore and downplay the need for bold decisive corrective action at your own peril — and our nation’s!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

09-07-22

Related posts:

  1. 🧑🏽‍⚖️⚖️🗽🇺🇸WHO’S JUDGE IS IT ANYWAY? — The Crisis Of Independence In Our Immigration Courts! — Coming April 7, 2021! — Sponsored By The HNBA! — Don’t Miss It!
  2. ⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️CAMILLE J.  MACKLER @ JUST SECURITY “GETS IT!” — How Come Judge Garland & The Biden Administration Don’t? — “If we want to re-build a better, stronger immigration system, we need to start with immigration courts.” — Get Involved! Get Angry! Say No To Institutionalized Racism, Misogyny, & Dehumanization (“Dred Scottification”) @ EOIR! Force Judge Garland To Pay Attention! Demand Change, Now!
  3. 🆘🤮IS 11TH CIR. GROWING WEARY OF GARLAND’S SCOFFLAW BIA? —Two Trips To The Circuit, & The BIA Still Violates Own Regulations, Ignores Precedent, Spouts Gibberish While OIL’s Defense Of This Nonsense & Malfeasance By EOIR Raises Serious Ethical Questions! — THAMOTAR v. U.S. ATT’Y GEN. — Garland’s Dysfunctional & Systematically Unjust Courts Undermine OUR Democracy☠️ — Demand An IMMEDIATE End To The Scofflaw Nonsense🤡 🧹 At OUR Justice Department! 🏴‍☠️
  4. ⚖️🤯🤮GARLAND’S OHIO JUDICIAL MELTDOWN — “High-Asylum-Denying” Immigration Judges Appointed By Barr & Sessions Remain On Garland’s Bench In Cleveland Despite Referring To Migrants As “Illegals” & “Pretty Virgins!” — EOIR Disciplinary System Remains As Opaque As Ever Under Garland!🏴‍☠️ Yulin Cheng Reports @ Columbus Dispatch!

⚖️🗽🇺🇸🦸‍♂️ NDPA SUPERLITIGATOR RAED GONZALEZ DRUBS GARLAND AGAIN! — “Who else could persuade CA5 to agree with CA9, and get an award of costs,” asks Dan Kowalski of LexisNexis Immigration Community? — When will the unconscionable failure of immigrant justice at Garland’s Department of “Justice” finally end? When our nation’s democracy goes down in flames?🔥 ♨️

Dan Kowalski
Dan Kowalski
Online Editor of the LexisNexis Immigration Law Community (ILC)
Raed Gonzalez ESQ
Raed Gonzalez ESQUIRE
Chairman, Gonzalez Olivieri LLP
Houston, TX
PHOTO: best lawyers.com

From Dan:

Another CA5 Pereira / Niz-Chavez Remand: Parada v. Garland (unpub.)

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/19/19-60425.0.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/another-ca5-pereira-niz-chavez-remand-parada-v-garland#

“[T]he BIA’s decision to deny Parada’s motion to reopen was based on a legally erroneous interpretation of the statutes governing Notices to Appear and the stop-time rule. The Supreme Court has since reinforced the holding of Pereira and held—again— that to trigger the stop-time rule, a Notice to Appear must come in the form of “a single document containing all the information an individual needs to know about his removal hearing.” Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474, 1478, 1486 (2021). That did not occur in this case, as the Notices to Appear served on Parada and her daughter did not contain the time or date for their removal proceedings. Thus, because “[a] putative notice to appear that fails to designate the specific time or place of the noncitizen’s removal proceedings is not a ‘notice to appear under section 1229(a),’ and so does not trigger the stop-time rule,” Pereira, 138 S. Ct. at 2113–14 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1)(A)), the deficient Notices to Appear received by the Paradas did not stop the clock for the Paradas. …  [O]ne of two keys must fit before the stop-time rule can be unlocked: service of a valid Notice to Appear or commission of an enumerated offense. The latter has not occurred here as no one has asserted that either of the Paradas has committed such an offense. And we have already concluded that the former has not occurred because the Notices to Appear served on the Paradas lacked the time and date of their hearing. Thus, the stop-time-rule box remained locked, the Paradas’ clock never stopped, and they accrued the necessary 10 years to satisfy the physical-presence requirement for cancellation of removal. In so concluding, we agree with the Ninth Circuit [emphasis added] which also held that “[b]y its terms . . . the stop-time rule applies to only the two circumstances set out in the statute, and a final order of removal satisfies neither.” Quebrado Cantor, 17 F.4th at 871. … To return to the analogy above, when Congress provided the two exceptions to the physical-presence requirement, it created all the keys that would fit. It did not additionally create a skeleton key that could fit when convenient. To conclude otherwise “would turn this principle on its head, using the existence of two exceptions to authorize a third very specific exception.” Quebrado Cantor, 17 F.4th at 874. Instead, “the ‘proper inference’ is that Congress considered which events ought to ‘stop the clock’ on a nonpermanent resident’s period of continuous physical presence and settled, in its legislative judgment, on only two.” Id. (quoting Johnson, 529 U.S. at 58). Lacking either here, the BIA committed a legal error in concluding otherwise and finding that the Paradas did not satisfy the physical-presence requirement to be eligible for cancellation of removal. For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is GRANTED and the case is REMANDED to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. … IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent pay to petitioners the costs on appeal [emphasis added] to be taxed by the Clerk of this Court.”

[Yet another victory for Superlitigator Raed Gonzalez!  Who else could persuade CA5 to agree with CA9, and get an award of costs?]

Daniel M. Kowalski

Editor-in-Chief

Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

cell/text/Signal (512) 826-0323

@dkbib on Twitter

dan@cenizo.com

Free Daily Blog: www.bibdaily.com

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

Male Superhero
Due Process Superheroes like Houston’s Raed Gonzalez are standing up for the rights of EVERYONE in America!
PHOTO: Creative Commons

Kudos to Raed for “taking it to” America’s worst “courts” in America’s most “immigrant-unfriendly” Circuit! 

Tons of “rotten tomatoes” to Garland for his horrible mismanagement of EOIR, OIL, and the legal aspects of immigration policy at DOJ!

Rotten Tomatoes
Rotten Tomatoes
Garland & his lieutenants deserve appropriate recognition for failing to bring long-overdue reforms to America’s most dysfunctional “parody of a court system” — EOIR!
PHOTO: Creative Commmons

Immigration expert Professor Richard Boswell of UC Hastings College of Law asks: “Can someone explain why the government has been so obstinate on these cases?  I like the fee award but I doubt that it has much impact on their behavior.”

Professor Richard Boswell
Professor Richard Boswell
UC Hastings Law
PHOTO: LinkedIn
Professor Boswell asks the right question. So far, “Team Garland” has no answers!

I wish I knew, my friend, I wish I knew! There is no rational excuse for Garland’s abject failure to: put EOIR and OIL under progressive expert leadership committed to human rights and due process; replace the many weak “Trump holdover appointees” at the BIA with expert real, professionally competent judges; weed out more of the “deadwood” on the immigration bench; bring in qualified experts as EOIR Judges who could potentially create an existential improvement in the composition, performance, and procedures of the entire Federal Judiciary that would go even beyond the essential task of saving the lives of migrants; and finally make Constitutional Due Process and equal justice for all real at the “retail level” of our American Justice system!

If our democracy fails — certainly an unhappy possibility at this point in time — future historians will undoubtedly dissect the major responsibility stemming from Garland’s inexplicably weak, disconnected, and inept performance in ignoring the dangerous dysfunction in our Immigration Courts and Immigration Judiciary. 

The scurrilous attack on our democracy by far-right demagogues started with racist lies about immigrants, continued with the weaponizing of the Immigration Courts, and evolved with the compromising of the Article III Judiciary! But, it certainly hasn’t ended there!

Getting rid of the leftovers of the “Trump Kakistocracy” at DOJ and EOIR should be one of the top priorities of the Biden Administration’s “campaign to save American democracy!” Why isn’t it?

The unconscionable failure of Garland’s chief lieutenants, Lisa Monaco, Vanita Gupta, Kristen Clarke, and Elizabeth Prelogar — all of whom supposedly have some experience and expertise in constitutional law, human rights, civil rights, racial justice, and legal administration (talk about a shambles at EOIR!) — to get the job done for immigrant justice at DOJ also deserves to go “under the microscope” of critical examination. 

How do they glibly go about their highly paid jobs daily while migrants suffer and die and their attorneys are forced to waste time and struggle against the absurdist disaster at EOIR? Can any of these “out of touch” bureaucrats and politicos even imagine what it’s like to be practicing at today’s legally incompetent, insanely mal-administered, intentionally anti-due-process, overtly user unfriendly EOIR?

By the grace of God, I’m not practicing before the Immigration Courts these days! But, after recent conversations with a number of top practitioners who are being traumatized, having their precious time wasted, and seeing their clients’ lives threatened by EOIR’s stunning ongoing incompetence and dysfunction, I don’t understand what gives high-level political appointees and smug bureaucrats the idea that they are entitled to be “above the fray” of the godawful dysfunction, downright stupidity, and human trauma at EOIR for which they are fully accountable!

One practitioner opened their so-called “EOIR Portal” to show me how they were being mindlessly “double and triple booked,” sometimes in different locations, even as we spoke. Cases set for 2024 were “accelerated” — for no obvious reason — to October 2022 without advance notice to or consultation with the attorney — a clear violation of due process! Asylum cases that would require a minimum of three hours for a fair hearing were being “shoehorned” into two-hour slots, again without consulting the parties!

Long a backwater of failed technology, the “powers that be” at EOIR and DOJ are misusing the limited, somewhat improved technology they now possess to make things worse: harassing practitioners, discouraging representation, and further undermining due process with haste makes waste “Aimless Docket Reshuffling.” Because of EOIR’s gross mismanagement, more Immigration Judges are actually producing more backlog, issuing more wrong decisions, and generating more unnecessary non-dispositive time-wasting motions. It’s an abuse of power and public funding on a massive, mind-boggling scale that undermines our entire justice system!

It seems that the “malicious incompetence” of the Trump DOJ has been exchanged for “just plain incompetence and intransigence” at Garland’s DOJ. Is this “change we should embrace?” Hell no!

Let’s hope that the real superheroes like Raed Gonzalez, folks working in the trenches of our failed justice system, can bail the rest of us out and inspire others to use all legal and political means at our disposal to rise up against Garland’s intransigence on immigration, human rights,  and racial justice at DOJ! 

I agree with President Biden that the extreme, insurrectionist far-right is the greatest threat to American democracy at this moment. But, it is by no means the ONLY one! It’s time for everyone committed to our nation’s future as a constitutional democracy to look closely at the deadly EOIR farce that threatens humanity, undermines the rule of law in America, and squanders tax dollars and demand positive change! Now!

It’s not rocket science, 🚀 even if it is inexplicably “over Garland’s head!”

Alfred E. Neumann
Has Alfred E. Neumann been “reborn” as Judge/AG Merrick Garland? “Not my friends or relatives whose lives as being destroyed by my ‘Kangaroo Courts.’ Just ‘the others’ and their immigration lawyers, so who cares, why worry about professionalism, ethics, and due process in Immigration Court?”
PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

09-03-22

Related posts:

  1. ⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️”MEDLEY OF INJUSTICE” — CIRCUITS CONTINUE TO LOWER HAMMER 🔨 ON BIA: Anti-Asylum Misogyny; Illegal & Incredibly Stupid “Policies;” “Perplexing” Lack Of Legal Knowledge Highlighted In Latest Batch Of Reversals! — “Attempted rape by a gang of men, in broad daylight on a public street, is especially terrorizing because it powerfully demonstrates the perpetrator’s domination, control over the victim and imperviousness to the law. Requiring evidence of additional harms both minimizes the gravity of the sexual assault and demeans the victim.”
  2. 🆘🤮IS 11TH CIR. GROWING WEARY OF GARLAND’S SCOFFLAW BIA? —Two Trips To The Circuit, & The BIA Still Violates Own Regulations, Ignores Precedent, Spouts Gibberish While OIL’s Defense Of This Nonsense & Malfeasance By EOIR Raises Serious Ethical Questions! — THAMOTAR v. U.S. ATT’Y GEN. — Garland’s Dysfunctional & Systematically Unjust Courts Undermine OUR Democracy☠️ — Demand An IMMEDIATE End To The Scofflaw Nonsense🤡 🧹 At OUR Justice Department! 🏴‍☠️
  3. ⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️JUDICIAL REVIEW — C.A. 2 — Brace Of Bad BIA Bobbles On Basics Brings “Culture Of Denial” Into Focus — Justice Will Continue To Be Illusive @ EOIR 👎🏽 Until Garland Steps Up & Replaces His Fatally Flawed BIA With Real Judges Who Are Progressive Practical Scholars In Immigration, Due Process, Human Rights, With A Firm Commitment To Bringing Racial & Gender Equity To Now-Disgraced Immigration Courts!🤮
  4. ⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️COURTS OF APPEALS CONTINUE TO THROW ROTTEN TOMATOES 🍅 @ BIA’S ANTI-ASYLUM BIAS — Basic Analytical, Legal Errors Continue From Weaponized, Non-Expert “Star Chamber” ☠️ Posing As ”Tribunal!” — Judge Garland Must Fix This Inexcusable, Unnecessary, Systemic Failure Now! — Justice For Persons Of Color & Migrants Can’t “Wait For Godot!”

🏴‍☠️“ANY REASON TO DENY”🤮 — GARLAND BIA’S BIASED, ANTI-ASYLUM JURISPRUDENCE CONTINUES TO GARNER PUSHBACK FROM ARTICLE III’s — Dem AG Needs To Pay Attention To Assault On Democracy, Rule Of Law Taking Place In HIS Dysfunctional “Courts!” — Garland Reportedly Plans More Backlog-Building, Due-Process-Denying “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”)!

Lady Injustice
“Lady Injustice” has found a home at Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR!
Public Realm

Here are about a week’s worth of reports from Dan Kowalski at LexisNexis Immigration Community on the continuing disintegration of justice in “Garland’s Courts:”

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca3-on-credibility-cat-njoka-v-garland

CA3 on Credibility, CAT: Njoka v. Garland

Njoka v. Garland (unpub.)

“[W]e conclude that the Board erred in affirming the IJ’s denial of CAT protection. The Board’s sole justification for that affirmance was the adverse credibility finding. The Board suggested that, under Fifth Circuit precedent, an adverse credibility finding defeats a claim for CAT protection. See Ghotra v. Whitaker, 912 F.3d 284, 289 (5th Cir. 2019). But under the law of this circuit, an adverse credibility finding is “not determinative” of a claim for CAT protection.1 Ibarra Chevez v. Garland, 31 F.4th 279, 288 (4th Cir. 2022); see Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 371 (4th Cir. 2004) (“Because there is no subjective component for granting relief under the CAT, the adverse credibility determination on which the IJ relied to deny [the petitioner’s] asylum claim would not necessarily defeat her CAT claim.”). The Board was thus obliged to also consider Njoka’s independent evidence in the context of his claim for CAT protection.2 See Camara, 378 F.3d at 371-72. Because the Board did not fulfill that duty, we will grant the petition for review in part and remand for the Board to do so.”

[Hats off to Rajan O. Dhungana!]

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

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca9-on-interpol-red-notice-cat-gonzalez-castillo-v-garland

CA9 on INTERPOL Red Notice, CAT: Gonzalez-Castillo v. Garland

Gonzalez-Castillo v. Garland

“Petitioner Oscar Gonzalez-Castillo was found to be ineligible for withholding of removal by an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) because there were “serious reasons to believe that [he] committed a serious nonpolitical crime” in his home country of El Salvador. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(iii). The government only presented one piece of evidence supporting application of the serious nonpolitical crime bar, however. It was an INTERPOL Red Notice, described at greater length below. The Red Notice accused Gonzalez-Castillo of committing “strikes” on behalf of the gang MS13, allegedly committed on a date when Gonzalez-Castillo was in the United States rather than in El Salvador, based on the date of entry found by the IJ. We conclude that substantial evidence does not support the IJ’s finding, affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), that Gonzalez-Castillo is ineligible for withholding of removal based on the serious nonpolitical crime bar. This court has long interpreted “serious reasons to believe,” the standard set by the statute for the serious nonpolitical crime bar, as equivalent to probable cause. In this case, the INTERPOL Red Notice cannot, by itself, establish probable cause. The allocation of the burden of proof in immigration proceedings does not change this outcome. We accordingly grant Gonzalez-Castillo’s petition for review in part and remand to the agency to consider whether Gonzalez-Castillo is eligible for withholding of removal. We also grant the petition as to his claim under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), because the record reflects that the agency failed to consider all of Gonzalez-Castillo’s testimony and statements about the harms he suffered in El Salvador at the hands of state actors, so we remand for more complete consideration of the CAT claim. We are not persuaded, however, by arguments in the petition for review challenging the evaluation of evidence that was discussed or by the argument that that the IJ failed sufficiently to develop the record. We dismiss the petition in part as to his claim for asylum, because the arguments Gonzalez-Castillo raises on appeal with respect to the one-year bar for asylum relief were not exhausted before the BIA.”

[Hats off to Amalia Wille (argued) and Judah Lakin, Attorneys; Nicole Conrad and Joya Manjur, Certified Law Students; University of California, Berkeley School of Law, Berkeley, California; for Petitioner, and John P. Elwood, Kaitlin Konkel, and Sean A. Mirski, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae Fair Trials Americas!]

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

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca9-on-credibility-changed-conditions-sikhs-in-india—singh-v-garland

CA9 on Credibility, Changed Conditions (Sikhs in India) – Singh v. Garland

Singh v. Garland

“We have held that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) may rely on a prior adverse credibility determination to deny a motion to reopen if that earlier finding factually undercuts the petitioner’s new argument. Greenwood v. Garland, 36 F.4th 1232, 1234 (9th Cir. 2022). But that does not mean the BIA can deny a motion to reopen just because that motion touches upon the same claim or subject matter as the previous adverse credibility finding. Here, Rupinder Singh submitted new evidence about religious persecution independent of the prior adverse finding. The BIA thus erred in holding that the earlier adverse credibility finding barred Singh’s motion to reopen. The BIA also erroneously concluded that Singh failed to show that the conditions for Sikhs in India changed qualitatively since his last hearing. Clear evidence shows the contrary. We thus grant the petition and remand.”

[Hats off to Garish Sarin!]

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

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca1-on-abuse-of-discretion-rivera-medrano-v-garland

CA1 on Abuse of Discretion: Rivera-Medrano v. Garland

Rivera-Medrano v. Garland

“Karen Elizabeth Rivera-Medrano, a citizen and native of El Salvador, has petitioned for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial of her request for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)–1208.18, and denying her motion to remand this case to the immigration judge (“IJ”) based on newly obtained evidence. We conclude that the BIA abused its discretion in denying her motion to remand. Accordingly, we grant the petition for review, vacate, and remand for further proceedings. … The BIA’s oversight is particularly significant here, where the credibility determination rested considerably on minor inconsistencies in what the IJ concluded was an otherwise credible presentation.”

[Hats off to SangYeob Kim, Gilles Bissonnette and Henry Klementowicz!]

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

President Biden is correct that Trump and his MAGA GOP are the biggest threat to American democracy. But, “Dred Scottification,” systemic denial of due process, and racial injustice still running rampant in Immigration “Courts” under a Democratic Administration is right up there as an existential threat!

Additionally, I’ve been getting reports this week from practitioners in various locations that EOIR is embarking on yet another mindless, ill-informed round of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” — guaranteed to increase backlogs, decrease effective representation, and spew out more unprofessional and unjust results. 

Once more, this inane initiative appears to have been undertaken with neither advance input from, nor sufficient notice to, those most affected — respondents and their attorneys! Same old, same old! This must stop!

Enough, already! Why aren’t all the “movers and shakers” of American law lined up in front of Garland’s Office demanding that he end the assault on our Constitution, common sense, good government, and human decency that unfolds every day in the disgracefully dysfunctional parody of a “court” system that is his sole responsibility!

The bar and NGO communities have to fight Garland’s assault on due process and good government with every available tool!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

00-02-22

Related posts:

  1. ⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️”MEDLEY OF INJUSTICE” — CIRCUITS CONTINUE TO LOWER HAMMER 🔨 ON BIA: Anti-Asylum Misogyny; Illegal & Incredibly Stupid “Policies;” “Perplexing” Lack Of Legal Knowledge Highlighted In Latest Batch Of Reversals! — “Attempted rape by a gang of men, in broad daylight on a public street, is especially terrorizing because it powerfully demonstrates the perpetrator’s domination, control over the victim and imperviousness to the law. Requiring evidence of additional harms both minimizes the gravity of the sexual assault and demeans the victim.”
  2. ⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️COURTS OF APPEALS CONTINUE TO THROW ROTTEN TOMATOES 🍅 @ BIA’S ANTI-ASYLUM BIAS — Basic Analytical, Legal Errors Continue From Weaponized, Non-Expert “Star Chamber” ☠️ Posing As ”Tribunal!” — Judge Garland Must Fix This Inexcusable, Unnecessary, Systemic Failure Now! — Justice For Persons Of Color & Migrants Can’t “Wait For Godot!”
  3. ⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️JUDICIAL REVIEW — C.A. 2 — Brace Of Bad BIA Bobbles On Basics Brings “Culture Of Denial” Into Focus — Justice Will Continue To Be Illusive @ EOIR 👎🏽 Until Garland Steps Up & Replaces His Fatally Flawed BIA With Real Judges Who Are Progressive Practical Scholars In Immigration, Due Process, Human Rights, With A Firm Commitment To Bringing Racial & Gender Equity To Now-Disgraced Immigration Courts!🤮
  4. ☠️🤮 “TEFLON MERRICK” — GROTESQUE DUE PROCESS MELTDOWN @ GARLAND’S EOIR CONTINUES UNABATED, WHILE AG AVOIDS ACCOUNTABILITY — 3RD CIR. CASTIGATES GARLAND’S BIASED & INCOMPETENT “STAR CHAMBERS” — “It is more akin to the argument of an advocate than the impartial analysis of a quasi-judicial agency.”

DOJ’s IMITATION OF DHS “SERVICE CENTERS” IN VA MIGHT OFFER LITIGANTS A CHANCE AT BETTER LAW!  😎 — Hon. Jeffrey Chase Points Out How DOJ’s Efforts To “Dumb Down” 😩 Immigration Courts & Replace Judicial Decision-Making With “Rote Adjudication” Could Unintentionally Give Individuals A Better Due Process Option!

Jeffrey S. Chase
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase
Jeffrey S. Chase Blog
Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2022/8/16/the-4th-circuit-on-jurisdiction

Blog Archive Press and Interviews Calendar Contact

The 4th Circuit on Jurisdiction

On June 30, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a decision that might not have received the attention it deserved.  The end result of the court’s published decision in Herrera-Alcala v. Garland was to affirm an Immigration Judge’s denial of asylum based on a lack of credibility.1

But before reaching the merits, the court addressed a jurisdictional issue, and that is where our interest lies.  At his removal proceeding, the petitioner was detained at a Louisiana correctional facility, which placed him physically within the territory of the Fifth Circuit.  For some reason, the Administrative Control Court (which is where the administrative record for the case was created and maintained, and where documents were filed by the parties) having jurisdiction over that Louisiana correctional facility was in Fort Snelling, Minnesota, which is physically located within the Eighth Circuit’s jurisdiction.

However, the immigration judge who conducted the hearing remotely by video and rendered the decision was sitting at the Immigration Adjudication Center in Falls Church, Virginia, which is within the geographic jurisdiction of the Fourth Circuit.  So after the BIA dismissed the petitioner’s appeal, his counsel sought review with the Fourth Circuit.  The Department of Justice moved to change venue to the Fifth Circuit, arguing that the petitioner’s location was determinative. And an amicus brief filed by an immigrants’ rights group took the position that venue properly belonged in the Eighth Circuit, where the control court was located.

The Fourth Circuit resolved the question of jurisdiction using the language of the relevant statute.  Since 8 U.S.C. section 1252(b)(2) states that the “petition for review shall be filed with the court of appeals for the judicial circuit in which the immigration judge completed the proceedings,” the court interpreted that to mean it is the location of the judge that determines jurisdiction.  And as the judge in this case was in Virginia, it found proper jurisdiction to be with the Fourth Circuit.

The decision yields an immediate benefit, as there are presently nineteen Immigration Judges sitting in the two Immigration Adjudication Centers that are located within the Fourth Circuit’s jurisdiction (in Falls Church and Richmond, VA).  Based on the Fourth Circuit’s ruling, any of the thousands of noncitizens whose cases were heard by one of these Virginia-based judges now have the option of seeking judicial review in the Fourth Circuit.

The impact of this becomes apparent when we look at the BIA’s precedent decision in Matter of L-E-A-.2  In that case, the Board held that the respondent’s family constituted a valid particular social group for asylum purposes, but then denied asylum by finding that a nexus had not been established between that family membership and the feared persecution.  In fact, the decision created an unreasonably high standard for nexus in a commonly occurring type of asylum claim.   But the decision contains a footnote recognizing that the Fourth Circuit holds a significantly different view of nexus in such cases, adding that L-E-A- did “not arise in the Fourth Circuit.”3

Although the Board doesn’t go as far as saying so, applying Fourth Circuit case law to the facts of L-E-A-  would have resulted in a grant of asylum.  As I discussed in far greater depth in this blog post in December, the Fourth Circuit has repeatedly reversed the Board on nexus, citing the latter’s error of focusing on why the persecutor targeted the group in question, instead of asking why they targeted the asylum applicant themself.  For example, if the group in question is a family, it doesn’t matter if the persecutor is targeting that family for an unprotected reason such as money, revenge, or self-preservation.  Per the Fourth Circuit, if the asylum seeker themself wouldn’t be targeted if not for their membership in that family, then nexus has been established, regardless of the reason the family is at risk in the first place.4

In addition to its more favorable take on nexus, the Fourth Circuit is also among the handful of circuits to consider verbal death threats to constitute persecution.5  This is  important, because one who has been threatened in those circuits has thus established past persecution, causing burdens of proof regarding future fear and internal relocation to then shift to the government to rebut, and further opening the possibility for humanitarian grants of asylum even where the government meets its burden of rebuttal.6

The Fourth Circuit has also imposed on Immigration Judges a strong obligation under international law to fully develop the record in hearings involving asylum claims, particularly (but not exclusively) where the respondent is pro se, and considers an IJ’s failure to meet this obligation to be “presumptively prejudicial.”7   Any attorney who is representing on appeal an asylum applicant who appeared pro se below where the IJ had been sitting in Virginia might want to review the record to see if the duties imposed by the Fourth Circuit to develop the record, which includes a “broad and robust duty to help pro se asylum seekers articulate their particular social groups,” was satisfied.8

In spite of the above-listed benefits, advocates have identified a potential downside to the ruling in Herrera-Alcala should the Fourth Circuit’s view on jurisdiction be adopted nationwide.  To illustrate this concern, I’ll use a hypothetical example arising in a circuit such as the Fourth with a body of case law favorable to asylum applicants.  Let’s imagine that after briefing and documenting the claim in line with that circuit’s law, the presiding judge in Baltimore is out sick on the day of the merits hearing.  A deserving asylum seeker could have a likely grant of asylum upended if a judge stationed in a jurisdiction with far less favorable case law is enlisted to hear the case by video under EOIR’s “No Dark Courtrooms” policy.9  While the intent behind substituting in a remote judge might be an innocent one, the impact on the asylum seeker of unexpectedly having to overcome a much tougher standard for nexus or a narrower definition of persecution could be devastating, as the Matter of L-E-A- example illustrated.

The Fourth Circuit’s view is presently limited to the Fourth Circuit.  But should it come to be the universal rule, while whether a particular circuit will accept jurisdiction over a petition for review is beyond EOIR’s control, the agency may itself still choose which circuit’s case law its own Immigration Judges should apply in individual cases before the Immigration Courts.  EOIR would do well to look to the example of USCIS, which advises its asylum officers conducting credible fear interviews that where there is disagreement among the circuits as to the proper interpretation of a legal issue, “generally the interpretation most favorable to the applicant is used when determining whether the applicant meets the credible fear standard.”10

I mentioned above the Fourth Circuit’s recognition of the duty of Immigration Judges to ensure that the record is fully developed in asylum claims.  Scholars credit that obligation to the legal requirement on nations to implement treaties in good faith.  For example, in discussing the adjudicator’s duty to develop the record in asylum cases, two leading international refugee law scholars explain the duty to implement treaties in good faith as holding states “not simply to ensuring the benefits of the Convention are withhold from persons who are not refugees, but equally to doing whatever is within their ability to ensure recognition of genuine refugees.”11

But shouldn’t that same obligation apply to not only developing the evidence of record, but also to deciding which law to apply when, as in Herrera-Alcala, there is more than one option?  If there is an obligation on our government to do everything in its ability to ensure recognition of genuine refugees, then isn’t that obligation breached where an individual sitting in a geographic area in which the law deems her deserving of asylum is then denied protection because the judge being beamed into that courtroom is sitting in a place with less enlightened precedent?

Copyright Jeffrey S. Chase 2022.  All rights reserved.

Notes:

  1. Herrera-Alcala v. Garland, Nos. 20-1770, 20-2338, ___ F.4th ___ (4th Cir. June 30, 2022).
  2. Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2017).
  3. Id at 46, n.3.
  4. Perez Vasquez v. Garland, 4 F.4th 213, 222 (4th Cir. 2021).
  5. See Sorto-Guzman v. Garland, No. 20-1762, ___ F.4th ___ (4th Cir. Aug. 3, 2022) (restating the court’s repeated holding that “the ‘threat of death’ qualifies as persecution.”); Bedoya v. Barr, 981 F.3d 240, 246 (4th Cir. 2020) (emphasizing that “under our precedent, as we have repeatedly explained, a threat of death qualifies as past persecution”).
  6. 8 C.F.R. §§1208.13(b)(1), 1208.13(b)(3)(ii), and 1208.13(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Matter of D-I-M-, 24 I&N Dec. 448 (BIA 2008); Matter of L-S-, 25 I&N Dec. 705 (BIA 2012).
  7. Arevalo Quintero v. Garland, 998 F.3d 612, 642 (4th Cir. 2021) (italics in original).
  8. Id. at 633.
  9. March 29, 2019 Memo of EOIR Director, “No Dark Courtrooms,” OOD PM 19-11.
  10. USCIS Asylum Division Officer Training Course, Credible Fear of Persecution and Torture Determinations (Feb. 13, 2017), at 17.
  11. James C. Hathaway and Michelle Foster, The Law of Refugee Status (2d Ed.), Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014, at 119.

AUGUST 16, 2022

PREVIOUS

Can Keathley Be Applied More Broadly?

NEXT

Correcting Course?

ARCHIVE

Blog | Archive | Press and Interviews | Calendar | Contact

Sign up with your email address to receive news and updates.

SIGN UP

We respect your privacy.

<img src=”https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/593d84191e5b6ca18cb547ee/1576527959952-C9MO449EII0SH3V1X9M7/Screen+Shot+2019-12-16+at+3.24.24+PM.png” alt=”Screen Shot 2019-12-16 at 3.24.24 PM.png” />

pastedGraphic.png

 

Jeffrey S. Chase is an immigration lawyer in New York City.  Jeffrey is a formerImmigration Judge and Senior Legal Advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals.He is the founder of the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, which was awarded AILA’s 2019 Advocacy Award.Jeffrey is also a past recipient of AILA’s Pro Bono Award.He sits on the Board of Directors of the Association of Deportation Defense Attorneys, and Central American Legal Assistance.

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

At the “Legacy INS,” the acronym for what were then called “Remote Adjudication Centers” was “The RACK” — with good reason! Once upon a time, EOIR went out of the way to emphasize the differences with, and independence from, INS —  it ran “courts” not “adjudication centers,” and it was comprised of “judges” NOT “adjudicators.”

Indeed, I can remember a past (in person) IJ National Conference where a senior DOJ official received a rather chilly reception for referring to the IJs in the room as “highly paid immigration examiners who worked for the AG.”

But, times change, and passage of time does not always bring progress. In many important ways EOIR is going backwards. Over the years, particularly 2017-2021, it probably has become more “politicized, compromised, weaponized, and subservient to immigration enforcement” than it was when it operated within the “Legacy INS.” Now, its bloated hierarchical bureaucracy, unmanageable backlogs, lousy public service, and emphasis on “productivity” and carrying out DOJ policies, looks more and more like DHS — the successor to the agency from which it declared “independence” back in 1983. What an unforgivable mess!

Star Chamber Justice
The “RACK” “processes” another “adjudication.”

Here’s a recent post with my “take” on Herrera-Alcala. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2022/07/02/⚖%EF%B8%8Fvenue-venue-whos-got-the-venue-the-4th-circuit-herrera-alcala-v-garland/

As a “vet” of thousands of Televideo Hearings during my 13+ years on the bench at Arlington, I can definitively say that they are inferior to in person hearings, for many reasons. But, sometimes bureaucratic attempts to “depersonalize” justice, cut corners, and achieve bureaucratic goals produce unanticipated outcomes!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-28-22

Related posts:

  1. 🏴‍☠️👎🏽🤮 AIMLESS DOCKET RESHUFFLING (“ADR”) ON STEROIDS! — EOIR Dysfunction Shows What Happens When “Captive Court System” Kowtows To Political Handlers Rather Than Serving The Public! — Jason Dzubow, The Asylumist, Reports!
  2. 🛡⚔️THE ROUND TABLE RIDES AGAIN! — INJECTING A DOSE OF REALITY INTO 1ST CIR. LITIGATION — No, “Briefing Completed” Doesn’t Mean That A BIA Decision Is Imminent — With An 80K+ Appellate Backlog, No Leadership, No Coherent Plan, Many Appellate Judges “Programmed To View Only Removals With Urgency,” & “Priorities” That Change On Political Whim, It’s A Grave Mistake To View EOIR “Through The Lens Of A ‘Normal’ Court System!”  🤯
  3. 🏴‍☠️👎🏻🤮“HOUSTON, WE’VE STILL GOT A PROBLEM!” — A HUGE AND GROWING ONE — Garland’s Failure To Restore “Justice @ Justice” Reverberates Throughout Our Nation!🆘
  4. ☹️HE BEAT THE GOVERNMENT TWICE IN COURT — But, After Three Years In Jail Without Being Charged With Any Crime, Omar Ameen Still Can’t Get A Bond From Garland’s Courts —  How Can A System Where The Prosecutor Makes The Rules & Picks The Judges, Mostly From The Ranks Of Former Prosecutors, Provide The “Fair & Impartial Judging” Required By Due Process?

🤯HASTE MAKES WASTE — DEFENDING IT’S WORSE: IJ’s Due Process Errors During 4-Min. Hearing 11 Years Ago Touch Off 4 Years Of Litigation Ending In Another Crushing Rebuke Of Garland’s DOJ By 4th Cir! — As Judge Wayne Iskra said, “This system is broken!”

U.S. v. Fernandez-Sanchez, 4th Cir., 08-25-22, published

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/204061.P.pdf

WYNN, Circuit Judge:

Bonifacio Fernandez Sanchez, a Mexican citizen who migrated to the United States

illegally as a minor in 2006, was deported in 2011 following a four-minute removal hearing. During that hearing, the immigration judge neglected to advise Fernandez Sanchez about his eligibility for voluntary departure or inform him of his right to appeal. Then, in his written summary order, the immigration judge indicated that Fernandez Sanchez had waived his right to appeal—even though this was never discussed during the hearing.

In the years since, Fernandez Sanchez has returned to the United States and been deported multiple times. Upon discovering him in the country once again in 2018, the Government opted to arrest and charge him with illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Fernandez Sanchez moved to dismiss his indictment, arguing that the 2011 deportation order underlying his § 1326 charge was invalid.

The district court agreed, finding that the immigration judge’s failure to advise Fernandez Sanchez regarding his eligibility for voluntary departure rendered his 2011 removal fundamentally unfair. However, while this appeal was pending, we effectively rejected the district court’s reasoning in United States v. Herrera-Pagoada, 14 F.4th 311 (4th Cir. 2021). Fernandez Sanchez nevertheless maintains that the district court’s decision must be affirmed on an alternative basis: that the immigration judge’s denial of his right to appeal also prejudiced him. We agree, and therefore affirm the dismissal of Fernandez Sanchez’s indictment.

. . . .

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

To me, it sounds like the 4th Circuit having “buyer’s remorse” about their questionable decision in United States v. Herrera-Pagoada, There, the court found that an IJ’s erroneous failure to advise a respondent of the availability of pre-hearing voluntary departure (“VD”)  was not a constitutional violation because there was no constitutional right to be advised of potential relief from deportation, even though a DOJ regulation required it! Huh?

But, here the court finds that the IJ’s improper failure to advise of the availability of prehearing VD combined with his failure to advise of appeal rights WAS a due process violation. Why? Because, if properly advised, the individual probably would have appealed, been successful, received a remand from the BIA, and then received VD from the IJ, thus avoiding deportation. Huh? 

The problem here is that as currently staffed and operated by the Executive, EOIR is one “walking, talking violation of due process.” If Congress won’t solve the problem by enacting a long overdue Article I Immigration Court, then the Article IIIs need to “take the bull by the horns!” 

They should place this entire, festering conflict of interest, and hotbed of substandard quasi-judicial performance OUT of the control of the nation’s Chief Prosecutor, the AG. Until Congress acts to establish a constitutionally compliant system, EOIR should be placed under the supervision of an independent, expert “Special Master” qualified to fairly administer one of the nation’s most important, yet totally dysfunctional and highly unfair, court systems!

Interestingly, much of the court’s reasoning is based on the premise that on appeal the BIA would have corrected the IJ’s clear errors. But, as those who follow Federal immigration litigation are aware, the BIA’s “assembly line” appellate review, sensitivity to due process, and willingness to apply precedent favoring the respondent are often as slipshod and driven by undue haste as this 4-minute IJ hearing. 

Ironically, the IJ who mishandled this case is generally regarded as one of the “best in the business” — experienced, knowledgeable, fair, and sensitive to the rights of individuals coming before him. So, while this screw-up might be an aberration for this particular IJ, it’s clearly not a systemic rarity. 

In the haste makes waste, hopelessly backlogged, “anything goes” “world of EOIR” goofs like this are likely happening every hour of every day that the Immigration Courts are in session. But, since many folks are unrepresented or underrepresented, some mistakes are simply buried or deported.

Indeed, I had my share of 4-minute (or less) “hearings” during 13 years on the bench. Inevitably, I made some mistakes — some were caught, some inevitably weren’t. Hopefully, I learned from the ones brought to my attention. With “Master Calendars” often consisting of upwards of 50 cases in a 3-hour “slot” in a courtroom overflowing with humanity — and the need to provide stressed out interpreters court clerks, counsel, and me with suitable “breaks” — you can do the math!

Once I did a 100 case Televideo Master in Ohio where 1) I had no files; 2) the ICE ACC who had been detailed to the hearing location had no files; and 3) the interpreter spoke a language other than the one of the majority of the respondents on the calendar. Afterwards, I told the then Chief IJ that I had spent the day in “Clown Court!’” 🤡 He was not amused.

To quote my friend and former colleague retired Judge Wayne Iskra: “This system is broken!”  “Numbers,” “final orders,” “expediency,” and “productivity” to satisfy bureaucratic enforcement goals or to support Government myths about immigrants drive the EOIR system. Due process, fundamental fairness, compliance with the statute and regulations, and meaningful analysis are not this dysfunctional system’s focus. But, they must be!

Clearly, “dedicated dockets,” regulatory time frames, form orders, remote “Adjudication Centers,” and other “designed to fail” gimmicks tried under Garland are NOT going to solve the chronic quality-control and due process problems plaguing EOIR!

In other words, EOIR as currently constituted and “operated” is a “due process sham!” The 4th Circuit and other Article IIIs need to “dig deeper” into the glaring constitutional and professional quality problems plaguing Garland’s broken Immigration Courts! If neither he nor Congress will solve the problems, somebody must!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-26-22

Related posts:

  1. ⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️👨🏻‍⚖️🗽COURT REFORM: GW IMMIGRATION CLINIC STUDENTS WEIGH IN ON ARTICLE I — Emphasize Critical Due Process Need To Entirely Remove AG From Decision-Making Process!
  2. 🏴‍☠️👎🏻🤮“HOUSTON, WE’VE STILL GOT A PROBLEM!” — A HUGE AND GROWING ONE — Garland’s Failure To Restore “Justice @ Justice” Reverberates Throughout Our Nation!🆘
  3. ☹️HE BEAT THE GOVERNMENT TWICE IN COURT — But, After Three Years In Jail Without Being Charged With Any Crime, Omar Ameen Still Can’t Get A Bond From Garland’s Courts —  How Can A System Where The Prosecutor Makes The Rules & Picks The Judges, Mostly From The Ranks Of Former Prosecutors, Provide The “Fair & Impartial Judging” Required By Due Process?
  4. ⚖️🗽SATURDAY MINI-ESSAY: ONE TINY STEP FOR MANKIND: But It’s Going To Take Much More Than Finally Replacing A Few Stunningly Unqualified Judges To Save EOIR!

😰IMMIGRATION 101: SUMMER GRADES POSTED: GARLAND, BIA, & OIL GET “F’s” FROM 1ST (FRENTESCU TEST) & 3RD (CATEGORICAL TEST) CIRS! — Meanwhile, NDPA Litigators Get “A+’s”

Dunce Cap
With lives on the line, the BIA’s performance leaves something to be desired.
PHOTO: Creative Commons

From Dor v. Garland, 1st Cir.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/20-1694P-01A.pdf

Given our familiarity with the record at this point, we are prompted to note that it is not at all apparent to us how an application of the Frentescu factors to Dor’s case would lead to a particularly-serious-crime determination. For instance, consider again the June 1 incident — the BIA relied on a police officer’s assessment that Dor had a “large amount” of marijuana on him, but this on-the-scene appraisal by an officer is largely irrelevant to an immigration-law-driven determination that a crime is particularly serious pursuant to the guiding statutes, especially when the actual amount (25 grams, a small amount) is available. See Matter of Castro Rodriguez, 25 I. & N. at 703; Moncrieffe, 569 U.S. at 194 n.7. Consider, too, that while the BIA identified the type of sentence imposed as a Frentescu factor but never mentioned (or weighed) Dor’s sentences, we observe that

– 23 –

Dor received lenient sentences with respect to both offenses (a two-year probation and a one-year suspended sentence that never went into effect since Dor completed a violation-free probation period).

As to Dor’s involvement in trafficking as part of the calculus here, based on the amount in question, and again on the face of this record, this characterization seems ambitious. The May 20 offense officers observed Dor sell “20 bucks[‘ worth]” of marijuana to another individual; the June 1 incident revealed Dor had in his possession a digital scale, a large amount of U.S. currency, and 25 grams of marijuana.

Bottom line: The BIA’s particularly-serious-crime conclusion is devoid of any actual application of the Frentescu factors, and even if we considered it a solid application of the law to Dor’s case, we still do not have a sufficiently rational explanation of the BIA’s particularly-serious-crime conclusion as to Dor’s minor marijuana offenses, and a rational explanation is necessary to ensure Dor was appropriately precluded from obtaining the humanitarian relief he seeks.

DEAN’S LIST: A+‘s go to :

Edward Crane, with whom Philip L. Torrey, Crimmigration Clinic, Harvard Law School, Shaiba Rather, Lena Melillo, and Katie Quigley, Law Student Advocates, Crimmigration Clinic, Harvard Law School, were on brief, for petitioner.

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

From Vurimindi v. AG, 3rd Cir.

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/191848p.pdf

In sum, the Government has identified no evidence that supports divisibility. The statute, the case law, and the available state court documents all support the opposite conclusion.11 Because Pennsylvania’s stalking statute is indivisible as to intent, we apply the categorical approach. And under the categorical approach, Section 2709.1(a)(1), which sweeps more broadly than its generic counterpart in the INA, is not a categorical match. Vurimindi’s offense of conviction therefore does not qualify as a removable offense.

DEAN’S LIST: A+‘s go to DLA Piper’s:

Courtney Gilligan Saleski

https://www.dlapiper.com/en/us/people/s/saleski-courtney-gilligan/

Courtney Gilligan Saleski
Courtney Gilligan Saleski
Partner
DLA Piper

and

Rachel A.H. Horton

https://www.dlapiper.com/en/us/people/h/horton-rachel/

Rachel A.H. Horton
Rachel A.H. Horton
Associate
DLA Piper

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

Interestingly, the BIA’s defective decision in Dor involved improper reliance on police reports. This comes just as a new NIJC report shows how improper reliance by EOIR on police reports means that “racism and inequities in the criminal legal system and policing carry over into the immigration system.” https://default.salsalabs.org/T59538212-844f-4d6d-ade1-0428b5eef400/e9c83407-de3b-4bcf-a318-704cbcd599a2. 

The Dor case also presents a familiarly outrageous characteristic of American immigration policy — still going strong in the era of Biden, Harris, and Garland — “Dred Scottification” — that is systemic injustice — directed at Black Haitian refugees. Indeed, Dor is lucky to be in the “system” at all — no matter how biased and poorly functioning. Following in the footsteps of the overtly racist and xenophobic Trump Administration, under Biden more than 25,000 potential Haitian refugees have been arbitrarily returned under Title 42 with no process at all — not even the “veneer of due process” provided by EOIR! See https://www.wola.org/2022/05/weekly-u-s-mexico-border-update-title-42-ruling-family-self-separations-more-drownings-haiti-expulsion-flights/.

The cases described above have been pending for three and six years, respectively. EOIR presents the worst of both worlds: lengthy delays and backlogs without due process and careful expert consideration of the issues involved. Injustice at a high cost, in more ways than one!

After trips to three levels of our broken immigration justice system, countless hours of legal time, and untold trauma and uncertainty for the individuals subjected to this dysfunctional system, these cases remain far from final resolutions. Now they go back into Garland’s incredible nearly two million case backlog!

Sometimes, the BIA uses this as an opportunity to invent a new “bogus theory of denial.” Other times, the files get lost or reassigned. In other words, they are subject to EOIR’s “specialty:” “Aimless Docket Reshuffling!”

Garland doesn’t lose any sleep over it because: 1) not his life on hold, 2) not his time and money being wasted, and 3) he isn’t paying attention! This is unacceptable public service! Plain and simple! And, there appear to be few, if any, real consequences for anybody except the individuals whose lives and futures are at stake and their (often pro bono) lawyers!

How completely “out of touch” is Garland? He has put bogus, “Mickey Mouse” time limits on new asylum adjudications. Doing incompetent and biased adjudications faster isn’t going to solve the problem. It will actually make backlogs worse and more importantly, increase the number of defective asylum denials — already at beyond unacceptable levels.

You can’t fix a broken system by making it “pedal faster!” Why, after all  these years, Garland doesn’t understand that “fundamental rule of Goverment bureaucracy” is totally beyond me!

The obvious solution: Put emphasis on getting these cases right at the first instance. That means “canning” the “anti-immigrant default and assembly line process” and getting expert IJs willing to rule in favor of individuals where appropriate and a revamped BIA of expert judges willing to issue precedents favorable to individuals and insure that IJs properly follow them. It also means a BIA who will follow precedent even where it doesn’t produce a “DHS Enforcement-friendly result.”  

Additionally, “lose” OIL’s often-dilatory or quasi-frivolous arguments designed to cover up EOIR failures and block justice! (HINT: The Assistant AG, Civil, one of the key sub-cabinet positions at DOJ, and OIL’s “boss,” remains unfilled approaching the halfway point of the Biden Administration.) This system is broken from top to bottom, including the litigation “strategy” that attempts to shield unfair and legally incorrect EOIR decisions from critical substantive review by Article III judges independent from the Executive. 

Yes, Garland recently has “pruned” some of the deadwood at EOIR and brought in a few widely-respected expert “real judges.” That’s some progress.

But, he’s barely scratched the surface of the anti-immigrant culture, “haste makes waste” atmosphere, and shoddy decision making at EOIR and the poorly conceived litigation strategies at OIL! In particular, the dysfunctional DOJ immigration bureaucracy glaringly lacks inspired progressive due-process-committed, human-rights-focused, racial-justice-sensitive leadership willing to stand up for individual rights against Government overreach and abuses!

Of course, the “real” solution is to get the Immigration Courts out of DOJ and into an independent Article I structure. But, unfortunately, that isn’t going to happen tomorrow.

In the meantime, there is plenty that Garland could be doing to improve due process and professionalism and to “pave the way” for the eventual transition to Article I. The more dysfunctional Garland makes his system the more difficult and rocky that transition will be.

Garland isn’t getting the job done! Everyone who cares about the future of our nation and the rule of law should be asking why and demanding better from Garland and his “asleep at the switch” lieutenants!

High-powered lawyers like Courtney Saleski, National Co-Chair of DLA’s White Collar Practice, who successfully litigated Vurimindi in the 3rd Circuit have some “juice.”  They need to team up with the ABA, FBA, AILA, ACLU, Human Rights First, NIJC, the NAACP, Catholic Conference, HIAS, and other human rights and civil rights groups and “camp on Garland’s doorstep” until he “pulls the plug” on his dysfunctional, unprofessional EOIR and brings in due-process-focused competence! How many resources and human lives can our nation afford to waste on Garland’s EOIR disgrace?

Alfred E. Neumann

Individuals whose lives are subject to systemic injustice and their hard-working, often pro bono, attorneys might “dissent” from Garland’s dilatory approach to long overdue due process reforms and key personnel changes in his stunningly  dysfunctional Immigration Courts!
PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-24-22

Related posts:

  1. ⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️”MEDLEY OF INJUSTICE” — CIRCUITS CONTINUE TO LOWER HAMMER 🔨 ON BIA: Anti-Asylum Misogyny; Illegal & Incredibly Stupid “Policies;” “Perplexing” Lack Of Legal Knowledge Highlighted In Latest Batch Of Reversals! — “Attempted rape by a gang of men, in broad daylight on a public street, is especially terrorizing because it powerfully demonstrates the perpetrator’s domination, control over the victim and imperviousness to the law. Requiring evidence of additional harms both minimizes the gravity of the sexual assault and demeans the victim.”
  2. 🆘🤮IS 11TH CIR. GROWING WEARY OF GARLAND’S SCOFFLAW BIA? —Two Trips To The Circuit, & The BIA Still Violates Own Regulations, Ignores Precedent, Spouts Gibberish While OIL’s Defense Of This Nonsense & Malfeasance By EOIR Raises Serious Ethical Questions! — THAMOTAR v. U.S. ATT’Y GEN. — Garland’s Dysfunctional & Systematically Unjust Courts Undermine OUR Democracy☠️ — Demand An IMMEDIATE End To The Scofflaw Nonsense🤡 🧹 At OUR Justice Department! 🏴‍☠️
  3. ⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️👨🏻‍⚖️🗽COURT REFORM: GW IMMIGRATION CLINIC STUDENTS WEIGH IN ON ARTICLE I — Emphasize Critical Due Process Need To Entirely Remove AG From Decision-Making Process!
  4. 🏴‍☠️☠️⚰️🆘NO JUSTICE @ JUSTICE! — OUTRAGE OF PROGRESSIVE EXPERTS CONTINUES TO GROW AS GARLAND FAILS TO VACATE SESSIONS/BARR RACIST, MISOGYNIST, ANTI-IMMIGRANT, UNETHICAL, BIASED PRECEDENTS — “Garland’s Star Chambers” Careen Further Out Of Control As AG Dithers While Lives Of Vulnerable Refugee Women Hang in Balance & Pro Bono Advocates Are Forced To Exhaust Resources Fighting Trump DOJ’s Misdeeds That Biden Has Failed To Fix, Despite Promises — “Unforced Errors,” Lack Of Competent Progressive Leadership Continue To Plague Flawed Immigration Agenda @ Justice, Offend Dem Supporters! — Expert Professors Karen Musalo & Stephen Legomsky Call For Immediate Vacating Of Repulsive Matter of A-B- Abomination Before More Lives Of Women Of Color Are Lost!

🇺🇸⚖️🗽AN AMERICAN LEGAL HERO LEAVES BEHIND LEGACY OF COURAGE, SCHOLARSHIP, INNOVATION, COMPASSION: A HEARTFELT TRIBUTE TO HON. WILLIAM VAN WYKE BY HON. “SIR JEFFREY” CHASE!

Judge William Van Wyke
Judge William Van Wyke (D – Aug. 14, 2022)
U.S. Immigration Judge (Ret.)
Member Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
“A True Due Process Visionary”
PHOTO: the world.com

 

 

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2022/8/22/william-van-wyke-2

William Van Wyke

On August 14, the immigration law community lost a true giant. William Van Wyke, a former Immigration Judge, advocate, and scholar unexpectedly passed away.

How does one capture William’s essence? I’m going to attempt to do so through his own words (in bold), taken from both public sources and emails he wrote to his former Immigration Judge colleagues in conversations after his retirement from the bench.

“The fearful and crude ideas get put into practice by reflex; compassionate and thoughtful ones wait around until everyone agrees with them. – William” – April 1, 2021 email.

My first real impression of William came from reading his 1992 article “A New Perspective on ‘Well-Founded Fear,” which appeared in AILA’s conference handbook that year.1 In very simple, easy to understand language, WIlliam turned the existing method of asylum adjudication on its head, using an easy to apply concept that correctly brought the process in line with international law. It was absolutely brilliant. Thirty years later, we are still waiting around for the government agencies overseeing asylum adjudication to agree with it.

Prior to authoring that article, WIlliam had spent nine years pioneering the representation of Central American refugees before the Immigration Courts in Washington and Baltimore, beginning this work when the 1980 Refugee Act was still new.

“’We have a law that was intended to be generous, that, when it is well understood, would cover many cases — many, many more cases — than those that are granted,’ Van Wyke says.” –  Quote in Eyder Peralta, “Why A Single Question Decides The Fates Of Central American Migrants,” NPR, Feb. 25, 2016.

In one 1990 case in which his clients were denied asylum, William succeeded in persuading the Immigration Judge to rule that those clients could not be deported to their native El Salvador as long as the civil war continued there. William achieved this result by arguing customary international law, and analogizing a refugee’s flight from war to the customary practice of allowing a ship in distress the right to enter a port without authorization. The Washington Post quoted an immigration law authority who called the decision “one of the most impressive victories ever in an immigration court.” The decision was the subject of a law review article the following year.3

“My own experience is that people with anti-immigrant sentiments, whether in INS, DHS, EOIR or anywhere else, have always cringed at the idea of an IJ giving an unrepresented person sufficient information to make genuinely informed decisions… I remember a talk by Janet Reno at one of our conferences 20 years ago when she mentioned ‘compassion’ 12 times — I counted them. But try to actually be compassionate in specific cases in a legally appropriate and consequential way and you’re accused of overstepping judicial bounds. Didn’t I know that compassion is supposed to be a decoration, not something that actually helps the people before us?”  – Email, Sept. 18, 2019

William’s appointment as an Immigration Judge in March, 1995 sent a message of hope to the immigration law community. On the bench, William maintained his methodical, detail-oriented approach.  Early in his career on the bench, William reported that the INS trial attorneys had given him the nickname “the Van Wyck Expressway,” a reference to the similarly named NYC roadway that most know from traveling to or from JFK Airport. When William pointed out to one of those INS attorneys that his courtroom actually moved quite slowly, the attorney responded: “So does the Van Wyck Expressway.”

While we were both on the bench, I heard that William had developed a highly unique seating plan for his courtroom, and asked him about it one day. He showed it to me, explaining in detail his deeply thought out reasoning for the placement of every chair in the room. I don’t remember the specifics so many years later, but it was a perfect example of the strong sense of responsibility WIlliam felt towards all who set foot in his courtroom.

That sense of responsibility became even more heightened when WIlliam transferred from the court in New York to what he used to call “plain old York,” meaning the detained immigration court in York, Pennsylvania, located inside of the York County Prison.4

In one case he heard there, a non-citizen sat in jail awaiting approval of a green card petition filed by his U.S. citizen wife that could have saved him from deportation. But approval of visa petitions is not something an immigration judge can do; that power lies with the same government agency that was seeking the non-citizen’s deportation (at the time, that was INS; it is now DHS). After continuing the case multiple times to allow for a decision on the visa petition, WIlliam was repeatedly informed by INS’s attorney that no action had been taken.  The INS attorney further refused to inquire as to when a decision might be expected, and insisted that rather than wait, the non-citizen should be ordered deported.

Although at the time such action required the consent of both parties, WIlliam took the bold step of administratively closing the case over the government’s objection, writing a detailed decision explaining the necessity of doing so under the facts presented.

Remarkably, rather than appeal William’s denial to the Board of Immigration Appeals, the INS attorney privately and most improperly contacted the Chief Immigration Judge by phone, who in turn improperly reopened the matter and placed it back on for hearing.

In a decision that should be required reading for all EOIR management, WIlliam fired back at both INS and his own higher-ups, stating that it would be a “manifest injustice” to deport the respondent “simply because INS has not performed its Congressionally-mandated adjudication in a timely fashion.”

Detailing the extensive efforts he had undertaken to get INS to adjudicate the visa petition, WIlliam further noted that “[t]he asymmetry of ordering one party, but asking, begging, pleading and cajoling the other party hearing after hearing without effect, can only diminish the court as an authoritative and independent arbiter in the public’s eyes.”

WIlliam took the INS and the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge to task for their unethical ex parte communication, and the latter’s unauthorized action in response to such conversation:

The Chief Immigration Judge is an administrative and policy officer without appellate or other legal authority to overrule the immigration judge’s procedural decisions in the case, see 8 CFR 3.9, 3.1(b), and ethical rules require the Chief Immigration Judge as well as immigration judges to refrain from taking action in a specific case following an ex parte communication about the case by one of the parties.

William further noted that his “decision to close the case temporarily was not a mere administrative one subject to OCIJ’s general direction, but a legal decision made as an integral part of the adjudicatory process in an individual case.” William cautioned that the private communication, which denied opposing counsel the right to be heard, protected INS from having to defend its position in an appeal to the BIA, thus giving

a procedural and tactical advantage to the INS by demonstrating to respondent, rightly or wrongly, that an INS call to the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge may be enough to undo what the immigration judge does in open court, while encouraging the INS to continue to seek results from the OCIJ privately that it might not be able to get from the BIA publicly.

William concluded:

Unable to establish or enforce the standards of conduct that this judge believes must apply, he will recuse himself from further consideration of the case. In the court’s view, only the OCIJ, which went beyond mere administrative action to direct a particular course of action in this case, is in a position to cure the appearance of impropriety its intervention has produced. The court will therefore refer this case back to the Chief Immigration Judge for whatever action he may deem fit and appropriate.

The extraordinary nature of the matter was reported in an article in the New York Times.5

In retirement, William was a member of our Round Table that filed an amicus brief in an important case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Velasco-Lopez v. Decker.  The case challenged the practice of requiring a detained non-citizen to themself prove that they would not pose a flight risk or danger to the community in order to warrant their release from detention. In its precedent decision, the circuit court agreed that such burden should be borne by the government, and not the detainee.

I share here part of William’s response to the decision

In this decision, the important starting point is that due process applies to every person in their relation to the power of government. This principle humanizes immigrant “others” and shows that when Big Government (i.e. the kind that wields power in favor of the already rich and already powerful) treads on anyone, everyone’s rights are in jeopardy. The principles relevant in bond decisions –– having ties to our communities and not being a danger to others –– are strong values that most of us honor and share, whether recent immigrants or earlier-generation immigrants, and should make all of us resist limitations on our freedom by the coercive power of jailing people.

I don’t know if they still staple those little yellow cards with red print onto files of jailed immigrants that used to say, “RUSH: detained at government expense.”  Years ago when I was at York I wrote to… EOIR General Counsel, to ask if we couldn’t change those cards to be more humane, to say, “RUSH: person deprived of liberty,” or at least more neutral: “person deprived of liberty at government expense.” A change, of course, was “unnecessary” because everyone already knew the immigrants’ hardship, even if our boss’s reminder focused only on the government’s. Maybe they’ll change the cards now to remind adjudicators: “Rush: this person should not be deprived of freedom unless the government quickly decides he/she lacks any community ties AND is dangerous.” I won’t hold my breath, though.

I will conclude by saying that just recently, I set about researching a narrow legal issue that I would imagine most Immigration Judges would resolve in a few pages at most. I came across a decision that William had written on the topic shortly before his retirement from the bench that was exactly what I was looking for. It was 39 pages single spaced, and of course, absolutely brilliant.

On behalf of your fellow judges, and of all who have appeared in Immigration Court, thank you, William, for being you, for never lowering your standards. You restored the hope of so many in the power of law to make a positive difference in people’s lives, and so often showed that there was a way forward when we thought there was none. You are already greatly missed.

Notes:

  1. William Van Wyke, “A New Perspective on Well-Founded Fear,” 1992-93 Immigration & Nationality Handbook(AILA, 1992) at 497.
  2. Carlos Sanchez, “Lawyer’s Persistence Helps Reshape Immigration Law,” Washington Post, March 31, 1991.
  3. Cookson, II, Charles W. “In Re Santos: Extending the Right of Non-Return to Refugees of Civil Wars.” American University International Law Review 7, no. 1 (1991): 145-171.
  4. The York Immigration Court was closed on July 31, 2021.
  5. Eric Schmitt, “Two Judges Do Battle in an Immigration Case,” NYT, June 21, 2001.
  6. 978 F.3d 842 (2d Cir. 2020). The author recognized the outstanding representation in this matter by the petitioner’s counsel, Julie Dona (who argued the case) and Aadhithi Padmanabhan of the Legal Aid Society, and to Souvik Saha of Wilmer Hale for his remarkable assistance in drafting our amicus brief.

AUGUST 22, 2022

NEXT

Can Keathley Be Applied More Broadly?

ARCHIVE

Blog | Archive | Press and Interviews | Calendar | Contact

Sign up with your email address to receive news and updates.

SIGN UP

We respect your privacy.

<img src=”https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/593d84191e5b6ca18cb547ee/1576527959952-C9MO449EII0SH3V1X9M7/Screen+Shot+2019-12-16+at+3.24.24+PM.png” alt=”Screen Shot 2019-12-16 at 3.24.24 PM.png” />

pastedGraphic.png

Jeffrey S. Chase is an immigration lawyer in New York City.  Jeffrey is a former Immigration Judge and Senior Legal Advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals.He is the founder of the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, which was awarded AILA’s 2019 Advocacy Award.Jeffrey is also a past recipient of AILA’s Pro Bono Award.He sits on the Board of Directors of the Association of Deportation Defense Attorneys, and Central American Legal Assistance.

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

My first real impression of William came from reading his 1992 article “A New Perspective on ‘Well-Founded Fear,” which appeared in AILA’s conference handbook that year.1 In very simple, easy to understand language, WIlliam turned the existing method of asylum adjudication on its head, using an easy to apply concept that correctly brought the process in line with international law. It was absolutely brilliant. Thirty years later, we are still waiting around for the government agencies overseeing asylum adjudication to agree with it.

. . . .

William spent those years trying to persuade the government of the proper application of the new law.  However, INS and the newly created EOIR remained largely mired in the Cold War-influenced view of asylum that preceded the 1980 changes. And under that Cold War approach, Central Americans fleeing pro-U.S. regimes had nearly no chance to obtain asylum

A 1991 Washington Post article documented how this institutional resistance only caused William to be more persistent and creative in his legal approach.2

Kind of says it all about the entrenched, continuing, institutional resistance at EOIR to correct, generous, fair, practical interpretations of asylum law and other immigration and human rights laws! That’s what helps generate uncontrollable backlogs and brings our entire justice system into disrepute! Worst of all, it threatens the lives of those denied justice by its legal misinterpretations and mis-applications of the law!

What does it say about an institution that no longer touts or actively pursues its noble one-time-vision of “through teamwork and innovation, be the world’s best administrative tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all?” Ironically, William’s life and achievements embody that now-defunct “EOIR vision.” But, nobody in “management” actually acknowledged that during his often-difficult tenure there.

Encouragingly, a number of Garland’s recent judicial appointments are distinguished, expert, widely respected “practical scholars” in the “Van Wyke mold.” Unfortunately, it’s going to take immediate and dramatic changes in moribund, uninspired EOIR leadership and in the “any reason to deny” BIA to overcome the “Cold War mentality,” anti-immigrant bias, assembly line procedures, “institutionalized go along to get alongism,” and unacceptably poor performance of EOIR. Right now, it’s still drag on our entire justice system that puts the future of our nation at risk!

No wonder we already miss William, his outspoken courage, and his wisdom so much. There is a void in our justice system right now where fierce due-process-focused, creative, humane, practical scholars should be leading the way in our institutions of justice! 

It’s up to the “new generation” of the NDPA to break down the walls of official resistance by Garland and other short-sighted bureaucrats and politicos who lack the vision to make racial justice, immigrant justice, and equal justice for all realities rather than disingenuous unfulfilled rhetoric! Guys, your lives and those of your descendants might depend on it! So, dial up the pressure on the intransigents, many of them in the Biden Administration you helped to elect and who expect your support and votes again this Fall!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-24-22

Related posts:

  1. 🛡⚔️👍🏼“SIR JEFFREY” CHASE — Garland’s Immigration “Judges” Pull The Ol’ “Bait & Switch” — They Only Are “Judges” When “OIL” Is Trying To Convince Ethically & Legally Challenged Article III Courts To “Defer” To EOIR Decisions — Otherwise, They Are Expected To Act Like DOJ ”Grundoons” Mindlessly Carrying Out The Executive’s Agenda Cloaked In Quasi-Judicial Disguise!
  2. 🆘🤮IS 11TH CIR. GROWING WEARY OF GARLAND’S SCOFFLAW BIA? —Two Trips To The Circuit, & The BIA Still Violates Own Regulations, Ignores Precedent, Spouts Gibberish While OIL’s Defense Of This Nonsense & Malfeasance By EOIR Raises Serious Ethical Questions! — THAMOTAR v. U.S. ATT’Y GEN. — Garland’s Dysfunctional & Systematically Unjust Courts Undermine OUR Democracy☠️ — Demand An IMMEDIATE End To The Scofflaw Nonsense🤡 🧹 At OUR Justice Department! 🏴‍☠️
  3. ⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️”MEDLEY OF INJUSTICE” — CIRCUITS CONTINUE TO LOWER HAMMER 🔨 ON BIA: Anti-Asylum Misogyny; Illegal & Incredibly Stupid “Policies;” “Perplexing” Lack Of Legal Knowledge Highlighted In Latest Batch Of Reversals! — “Attempted rape by a gang of men, in broad daylight on a public street, is especially terrorizing because it powerfully demonstrates the perpetrator’s domination, control over the victim and imperviousness to the law. Requiring evidence of additional harms both minimizes the gravity of the sexual assault and demeans the victim.”
  4. ‘SIR JEFFREY” CHASE: Garland’s “First Steps” To Eradicate Misogyny & Anti-Asylum Bias @ EOIR Are Totally Insufficient Without Progressive Personnel Changes — Regulations Will Only Be Effective If Drafted By Progressive Human Rights Experts Of Which There Currently Are NONE @ DOJ Save For Some Immigration Judges In The Field Whose Expertise, Intellectual Integrity, & Moral Courage Has Been Ignored By Team Garland! — There Will Be No Gender, Racial, Or Immigrant Justice @ Justice As Long As Garland Mindlessly Lets “Miller’s Club Denial” Operate @ BIA! — Progressives Must Turn Up The Heat On Garland To Reform & Remake EOIR With Qualified Expert Judges & Dynamic, Independent, Progressive Leaders!

🤯 AS EOIR SINKS INTO THE SEA OF CHAOS & INJUSTICE, GARLAND’S SOLUTION: MORE UNNEEDED BUREAUCRACY!

Hole in the head
This is how much EOIR and its long-suffering stakeholders need a “Chief of the Immigration Law Division” at EOIR!
PHOTO: EOI Teacher @ Twitter

https://www.justice.gov/legal-careers/job/supervisory-attorney-advisor-chief-immigration-law-division

Duties include but are not limited to the following:

  • Plan and direct general legal activities of the Agency with the objective of assuring that all actions taken are in accordance with law and regulation with special emphasis on assuring that actions taken conform to the basic principles of law.
  • Provide interpretation of immigration provisions, laws, and regulations to all segments of the agency.
  • Propose the development of policies and procedures in response to legal cases or problems that have the effect of substantially broadening or restricting the activities of the agency.
  • Advise the Director/Deputy and staff on the legal implications of proposed and newly enacted laws, regulations and policies that will have an impact on the operation of the agency and keeps abreast of current decisions of the courts.
  • Direct professional legal staff in the development, documentation, and operation of both internal processes and administrative/technical controls.
  • Supervise staff in the formulation and direction of proactive, time-sensitive services and/or guidance to EOIR components, unique needs of senior management and responsiveness to the Department and other government or regulatory agencies.

Qualifications:

In order to qualify for the position, you must meet the following minimum qualifications:

  • Education: Applicants must possess an LL.B. or a J.D. degree. (Provide the month and year in which you obtained your degree and the name of the College or University from which it was conferred/awarded.)

AND

  • Licensure: Applicants must be an active member of the bar, duly licensed and authorized to practice law as an attorney under the laws of any state, territory of the U.S., or the District of Columbia. (Provide the month and year in which you obtained your first license and the State from which it was issued.)

AND

Required Experience:

For GS-15: Applicants must have four (4) full years (48 months) of post J.D. or LL.B professional legal experience. Qualifying professional legal experience includes: Direct professional legal staff in the development, documentation, and operation of both internal processes and administrative/technical controls; Advise Senior Management and staff on the legal implications of proposed and newly enacted laws, regulations and policies that will have an impact on the operation of the agency and keeps abreast of current decisions of the courts; and Plan and direct general legal activities of the Agency with the objective of assuring that all actions taken are in accordance with law and regulation with special emphasis on assuring that actions taken conform to the basic principles of law.

(Your resume must CLEARLY demonstrate this experience)

Preferred Experience:

The ideal candidate will have experience with the following:

  • Providing technical and administrative supervision over attorneys and professional staff within an organization.
  • Planning and assigning work to subordinate attorneys based on priorities and difficulty of the assignment.
  • Providing input and advice to Senior Officials on policy decisions.
  • Coordinating with other government offices and/or agencies on legal matters.

NOTE: Qualifying experience is calculated only after receipt of J.D. or LL.B.

IN DESCRIBING YOUR EXPERIENCE, PLEASE BE CLEAR AND SPECIFIC. WE MAY NOT MAKE ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING YOUR EXPERIENCE.

Salary:

($148,484 – $176,300 per year.

Travel:

Occasional travel

Application Process:

To Apply for this position, please click the below link to access and apply to the vacancy announcement via USA Jobs USAJOBS – Job Announcement . Please read the announcement thoroughly. You Must Submit a complete application package by 11:59PM (EST) on 9/02/2022, the closing date of the announcement.

Applicants should familiarize themselves and comply with the relevant rules of professional conduct regarding any possible conflicts of interest in connection with their applications. In particular, please notify this Office if you currently represent clients or adjudicate matters in which this Office is involved and/or you have a family member who is representing clients or adjudicating matters in which this Office is involved so that we can evaluate any potential conflict of interest or disqualification issue that may need to be addressed under those circumstances.

Application Deadline:

Tuesday, September 6, 2022

Relocation Expenses:

Not authorized

Number of Positions:

1

Updated August 23, 2022

*         *         *

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

The ship is rudderless and sinking! Many of the sailors are inept or think they are working for a different Navy! The solution: More Lt. Commanders on deck, each doing someone else’s job and giving random orders, to add to the confusion and disorder!

Let me be clear: EOIR and its long-suffering “customers” and “stakeholders” need this superfluous position like a hole in the head! Perhaps less! This looks like “EOIR imitating the DHS bureaucracy” that it is supposed to be treating as a “party,” not a “role model!”

The “Office of Policy” — totally unnecessary and inconsistent with the mission of a quasi-judicial court system — is a serious boondoggle created by the last Administration. Eliminating it and redeploying its wasted resources into competent, expert quasi-judicial decision making should have been “Day One Stuff” for Garland. But it wasn’t!

EOIR needs better, expert judges, who know immigration and human rights laws, and are unswervingly committed to due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices! It also needs a “lean team” of well qualified judicial administrators to recruit, hire, train, and support judges and court staff!

Incredibly, most of this PD sounds like it’s right out of the PDs for BIA Chair, BIA Member, CIJ, Director, Deputy Director, or General Counsel. Get folks who can do those jobs and eliminate the Office of Policy and the other “non-operational bureaucratic fat” in Falls Church!

Does the Supreme Court have a “U.S. Law Division?” How about the D.C. Circuit where Garland once served? What on earth is Garland doing with this wasteful nonsense!

For Pete’s sake, the BIA IS the “Immigration Law Division!” If, as I maintain, most of the current Appellate Judges are not capable of performing those functions competently and in accordance with due process and fundamental fairness, then get better judges in there! Now!

Sure, it’s not the “popular solution” within the self-perpetuating bureaucracy. But, it’s the right one!

Stop the unnecessary proliferation of inept bureaucrats at EOIR! “Hey, hey, Ho, ho, the EOIR Clown Show has got to go!” Throwing more “ringmasters” into this circus is NOT the answer!

EOIR Clown Show Must Go T-Shirt
“EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept

DOJ and Director Neal should be hauled before an Oversight Committee to justify their continuing bureaucratic nonsense in the face of abject “mission failure!” Not going to happen. But, it should! Honestly!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-24-22

Related posts:

  1. ⚖️FINALLY, HOUSE TO EXAMINE GARLAND’S DYSFUNCTIONAL, MISMANAGED, LEADERLESS IMMIGRATION “COURTS” & NEED FOR DUE-PROCESS-FOCUSED REFORMS! — Tal Kopan Reports For SF Chron!
  2. ⚖️🤯🤮GARLAND’S OHIO JUDICIAL MELTDOWN — “High-Asylum-Denying” Immigration Judges Appointed By Barr & Sessions Remain On Garland’s Bench In Cleveland Despite Referring To Migrants As “Illegals” & “Pretty Virgins!” — EOIR Disciplinary System Remains As Opaque As Ever Under Garland!🏴‍☠️ Yulin Cheng Reports @ Columbus Dispatch!
  3. ⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️👨🏻‍⚖️🗽COURT REFORM: GW IMMIGRATION CLINIC STUDENTS WEIGH IN ON ARTICLE I — Emphasize Critical Due Process Need To Entirely Remove AG From Decision-Making Process!
  4. 🆘🤮IS 11TH CIR. GROWING WEARY OF GARLAND’S SCOFFLAW BIA? —Two Trips To The Circuit, & The BIA Still Violates Own Regulations, Ignores Precedent, Spouts Gibberish While OIL’s Defense Of This Nonsense & Malfeasance By EOIR Raises Serious Ethical Questions! — THAMOTAR v. U.S. ATT’Y GEN. — Garland’s Dysfunctional & Systematically Unjust Courts Undermine OUR Democracy☠️ — Demand An IMMEDIATE End To The Scofflaw Nonsense🤡 🧹 At OUR Justice Department! 🏴‍☠️

💨 FROM THE ROCKIES & THE HIGH PLAINS, THE WINDS OF TRUTH BLOW AWAY THE BS & SHOW HOW GARLAND’S BIA & THEIR SCOFFLAW INTERPRETATIONS HAVE BUILT BACKLOGS — “This petition for review represents the latest chapter in the Government’s ongoing efforts to dig itself out of a hole it placed itself in,” says 10th Cir. in Estrada-Corona v. Garland!

Kangaroos
It’s easy guys, we just do what DHS Enforcement and our political bosses want and we can keep hopping around forever! Backlogs! Ha, the bigger the bigger they get, the more “secure” our jobs!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/
Creative Commons License

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

CA10 Stop-Time Victory: Estrada-Cardona v. Garland

Estrada-Cardona v. Garland

“The Attorney General may allow otherwise-removable aliens to remain in the country if, among other things, they have accrued 10 years of continuous physical presence in the United States. We call this form of discretionary relief “cancellation of removal.” Under the statutory “stop-time rule,” the period of continuous physical presence ends (A) when the alien is served with a notice to appear, or (B) when the alien has committed certain criminal offenses. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1). Nothing more, nothing less. In the latest installment of “What Triggers the Stop-Time Rule?” the Government asks us to hold that the issuance of a final order of removal is a third, extra-statutory event sufficient to stop the clock. The plain language of the statute supports no such conclusion. Declining to read ambiguity into a statute where none exists, we hold a final order of removal does not stop the accrual of continuous physical presence. … This petition for review represents the latest chapter in the Government’s ongoing efforts to dig itself out of a hole it placed itself in. … After years of statutory short-circuiting, the Government finds itself in the uncomfortable position of being wrong. … Because Congress unambiguously replaced the final-order rule with the stop-time rule, the BIA’s application of the final-order rule was legal error. Petitioner continued to accrue continuous physical presence after the immigration judge issued the order to voluntarily depart. … [W]e hold that because the BIA seems to have considered change-in-the-law equitable tolling arguments before, the BIA abused its discretion in this case by failing to “announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted.” … We cannot discern why the BIA found no extraordinary circumstance which would warrant equitable tolling, so the BIA abused its discretion. …  On remand, the Government is free to argue that Petitioner should not be granted sua sponte reopening or equitable tolling. This opinion is expressly limited to two conclusions. First, the BIA’s application of the final-order rule was legal error. Second, the BIA’s explanations for denying sua sponte reopening and equitable tolling constituted, as a procedural matter, an abuse of discretion. For the reasons stated herein, we GRANT the petition for review and REMAND to the BIA for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.”

[Hats way off to Jennifer M. Smith and Mark Barr!]

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

“For years, if not decades, the Government sent aliens “notices to appear” which failed to include all the information required by § 1229(a)—like the “time and place at which the proceedings will be held.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1)(G)(i). For countless aliens, the only obstacle to being eligible for cancellation of removal was the Government’s position that a time-and-place-to-be-set notice to appear still triggers the stop-time rule. In Pereira, the Supreme Court rejected the Government’s atextual interpretation and held a “putative notice to appear that fails to designate the specific time or place of the [alien]’s removal proceedings is not a ‘notice to appear under section 1229(a),’ and so does not trigger the stop-time rule.” 138 S. Ct. at 2113–14. In one fell swoop, the Supreme Court cleared the way for many aliens, like Petitioner, to seek cancellation of removal.

But the Government quickly erected a new hurdle.”

The BIA could and should have prevented this debacle by insisting from the git go that the statute (“the law”) be followed by DHS and EOIR. Instead, at the behest of DHS, and perhaps to prevent tens of thousands of long-term residents who had received statutorily defective notices from seeking relief, the BIA misinterpreted the statute time after time. 

The real stupidity here is that the requirement the BIA was pretzeling itself to avoid was hardly “rocket science” or burdensome: Serve a notice containing the actual date, time, and place of the hearing! One might ask what purpose is served by a so-called “Notice to Appear” that doesn’t notify the individual of where and when to appear?

Moreover, when the BIA started issuing their incorrect precedents, DHS and EOIR had a then-existing system — called “interactive scheduling” — that would have complied with the statute. The problem was that the “powers that be” at DOJ, EOIR, and DHS consciously decided NOT to use that system. 

The apparent reason was the belief that complying with the law might have interfered with DHS arbitrarily filling the Immigration Courts with large “numbers” of cases to meet various enforcement “priorities” set from “on high.” Rather than doing its job, the BIA chose time and again to “go along to get along” with this nonsense!

Over and over, EOIR lets bogus DHS or Administration “enforcement priorities” or “improperly using the legal system as a deterrent” subvert due process, fundamental fairness, best interpretations, and practical solutions!

And, although Biden and Harris campaigned on a platform of bringing the rule of law and rationality back to immigration, the absurdity and illegality continues under Garland. He even sent OIL in to waste the time of the Article IIIs by mounting essentially frivolous defenses to the BIA’s malfeasance. 

Perhaps worst of all, in addition to being denied timely justice, individuals and their lawyers dealing with Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR often are falsely blamed for causing the backlogs that are the primary result of DHS/EOIR incompetence and political meddling by unqualified bureaucrats. The latter don’t understand what really happens in Immigration Court and how to properly, fairly, and efficiently administer such a large and important court system.

The backlogs will continue to grow and the US justice system will crater because of bad immigration decisions generating skyrocketing litigation. Garland must replace the BIA with real expert appellate judges committed to fair, humane, and reasonable interpretations of immigration and human rights laws — without regard to whether those correct interpretations will be “career enhancing” or “career preserving.” In other words, judges who put justice before personal or institutional “survival.” Competent, expert, independent-minded judicial administrators with the guts to keep DOJ and DHS bureaucratic meddlers “at arm’s length” are also required.

Folks who could do the job are out here. But, that’s the problem! They belong in the key judicial judicial and administrative positions at EOIR where they can put any end to the due-process denying, backlog building dysfunction.

EOIR Clown Show Must Go T-Shirt
“EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept

Everyone committed to the future of American justice should be asking themselves why Garland hasn’t recruited and hired the right “Team Due Process” for EOIR! American justice can’t afford more of Garland’s inept, “go along to get along,” “afraid to say no to DHS enforcement” BIA and the rest of the EOIR “Deadly Clown Show” largely left over from past, failed Administrations!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-20-21

Related posts:

  1. ⚠️FIFTH CIRCUIT REMAND IS JUST FIRST OF MANY THAT WILL RESULT FROM BIA’S TOTALLY AVOIDABLE NIZ-CHAVEZ SCREW-UP! — Garland’s Backlog Likely To Mushroom Until He Cleans House @ EOIR! — “Culture of Denial” At BIA Crippling American Justice! — Garland Needs Qualified Judges & Professional Court Administrators @ EOIR, To Replace The “Continuing Clown Show!”🤡
  2. 🏴‍☠️👎🏽🤮 AIMLESS DOCKET RESHUFFLING (“ADR”) ON STEROIDS! — EOIR Dysfunction Shows What Happens When “Captive Court System” Kowtows To Political Handlers Rather Than Serving The Public! — Jason Dzubow, The Asylumist, Reports!
  3. 🆘🤮IS 11TH CIR. GROWING WEARY OF GARLAND’S SCOFFLAW BIA? —Two Trips To The Circuit, & The BIA Still Violates Own Regulations, Ignores Precedent, Spouts Gibberish While OIL’s Defense Of This Nonsense & Malfeasance By EOIR Raises Serious Ethical Questions! — THAMOTAR v. U.S. ATT’Y GEN. — Garland’s Dysfunctional & Systematically Unjust Courts Undermine OUR Democracy☠️ — Demand An IMMEDIATE End To The Scofflaw Nonsense🤡 🧹 At OUR Justice Department! 🏴‍☠️
  4. 🤮 INDEFENSIBLE: 7th Cir. Schools BIA On Briefing Schedules, Own Regs, Fabricated “Facts” — Oluwajana v. Garland

⚖️👨🏻‍⚖️🎩 FREE JUDGE BURMAN! — Sudden, Mysterious Disappearance Of Revered U.S. Immigration Judge Lawrence O. “Larry” Burman From Arlington Bench Surprises, Saddens Local Bar!  

Judge Lawrence O. Burman
Hon. Lawrence O. Burman
U.S. Immigration Judge
Arlington, VA
Pictured addressing conference at CIS
PHOTO: YouTube

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

Courtside Exclusive

July 30, 2022

Reliable sources tell Courtside that highly-respected U.S. Immigration Judge Lawrence O. “Larry” Burman has been suspended with pay from hearing cases at the Arlington Immigration Court. Reportedly, for the past three months, the distinguished veteran jurist has been “banned” from chambers and relegated to deciding motions from home electronically.

The genesis of the suspension allegedly is a complaint of sexual harassment in court filed by the ICE Office of Chief Counsel in Arlington. A source close to Burman says that he told them he has not received any detailed notice of exactly what he has been accused of, nor has he been given any timeline or details about the alleged investigation. 

EOIR is notorious for placing judges and others accused of wrongdoing on “administrative leave with full pay” — sometimes for years spanning several Administrations. Meanwhile, they conduct glacially slow “investigations” and dither over what, if any, formal discipline to impose.

Within the bureaucracy, “never-ending investigations” are sometimes used as a device to “persuade” employees out of favor with “management” to retire or resign. In reality, Courtside is unaware of any full-time trained investigative staff assigned to EOIR.

Significantly, DOJ policies do not appear to require suspension of the employee from public duties in a case such as this. “Danger to the personnel” or “disruptive presence” are the primary considerations. See HR ORDER DOJ1200.

Those who know and have worked with Judge Burman would find it absurd to believe that either of these situations apply to him. Indeed, one source interviewed for this article suggested, perhaps tongue in cheek, that “a propensity toward giving respondents a fair hearing” might help explain ICE’s and EOIR’s enthusiasm for having Judge Burman “off the bench.”

Recently, Courtside described Judge Burman and one of his Arlington colleagues as the “gold standard” for fair, expert Immigration Judges. See https://wp.me/p8eeJm-7Ko. From that standpoint, the sudden suspension appears particularly unusual.

The action caught members of the private immigration bar in the DMV area by surprise. One attorney confirmed having merits cases recently scheduled before Judge Burman “orbited” several years out on the docket for no given reason except that Judge Burman was “out” and therefore unable to hear the cases. “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and “churning” of cases is an endemic problem at EOIR, which is running an astounding, yet rapidly increasing, backlog of 1.8 million cases. 

Other attorneys contacted by Courtside reacted with shock, sadness, and concern for Judge Burman’s well being. “I feel so bad to hear that. He is such a nice man and a good judge,” said one local practitioner.

Judge Burman has been an Immigration Judge for nearly a quarter-century, serving at the Los Angeles and Memphis Immigration Courts before arriving in Arlington. He has been a leader in court-related CLE, serving as a past chair of the FBA’s Immigration Section and the creator and editor emeritus of The Green Card, that section’s educational newsletter. He also has been an officer of the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”), where (perhaps ironically) he successfully represented a number of colleagues charged with disciplinary infractions or wrongfully denied benefits.

Until “grounded” by the Trump DOJ, Judge Burman was one of a limited number of local judges eager and willing to participate in educational events sponsored by bar associations and other groups. A graduate of UVA and Maryland Law, and a U.S. Army veteran, Judge Burman had careers in the “Legacy INS” and private practice before being appointed to the bench by then Attorney General Janet Reno in 1998.

Related posts:

  1. ⚖️🗽SATURDAY MINI-ESSAY: ONE TINY STEP FOR MANKIND: But It’s Going To Take Much More Than Finally Replacing A Few Stunningly Unqualified Judges To Save EOIR!
  2. EXPOSED! — AILA’S JOHNSON SHOWS HOW “GONZO” INTENTIONALLY MISUSES DATA TO CREATE A FALSE ANTI-ASYLUM, ANTI-LAWYER NARRATIVE TO CONCEAL THE REAL GLARING PROBLEM DRIVING US IMMIGRATION COURT BACKLOGS — AIMLESS DOCKET RESHUFFLING (“ADR”) DRIVEN BY POLITICOS ATTEMPTING TO STACK THE COURT SYSTEM AGAINST DUE PROCESS AND TILT IT IN FAVOR OF DHS/ADMINISTRATION ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVES!!!!!!! — SURPRISE — By Far The Biggest Increase In Continuances Comes From DHS & EOIR Itself!
  3. 🧑🏽‍⚖️⚖️🗽🇺🇸WHO’S JUDGE IS IT ANYWAY? — The Crisis Of Independence In Our Immigration Courts! — Coming April 7, 2021! — Sponsored By The HNBA! — Don’t Miss It!
  4. 🆘🤮IS 11TH CIR. GROWING WEARY OF GARLAND’S SCOFFLAW BIA? —Two Trips To The Circuit, & The BIA Still Violates Own Regulations, Ignores Precedent, Spouts Gibberish While OIL’s Defense Of This Nonsense & Malfeasance By EOIR Raises Serious Ethical Questions! — THAMOTAR v. U.S. ATT’Y GEN. — Garland’s Dysfunctional & Systematically Unjust Courts Undermine OUR Democracy☠️ — Demand An IMMEDIATE End To The Scofflaw Nonsense🤡 🧹 At OUR Justice Department! 🏴‍☠️