"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
U.S. watchdog says pressure from patent officials affected agency rulings
Blake Brittain July 21, 20224:11 PM EDTLast Updated a day ago
(Reuters) – U.S. Patent and Trademark Office administrators improperly influenced decisions by the office’s patent-eligibility tribunal for years, the U.S. Government Accountability Office said in a preliminary report released Thursday.
The report said two-thirds of judges on the PTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board felt pressure from higher-ups at the office to change aspects of their decisions, and that three-quarters of them believed the oversight affected their independence.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
While the report said management “rarely” influenced decisions on whether to cancel a patent, it said it did affect judges’ rulings on questions like whether to review a patent.
A PTO spokesperson said the report “reflects GAO’s preliminary observations on past practices,” and that current director Kathi Vidal has “prioritized providing clear guidance to the PTAB regarding the director review process” since taking office in April.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
The U.S. Supreme Court decided last year that the PTO director should be able to review board decisions.
The PTAB allows parties to challenge the validity of patents based on preexisting inventions in “inter partes review” proceedings.
A committee of volunteer judges began peer reviewing decisions in such cases for style and policy consistency and flagging them for potential management review in 2013, the report said. PTAB management began informally pre-reviewing board decisions on important issues and offering suggestions in 2017, and management review became official PTO policy in 2019.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
Some PTAB judges said their decisions had been affected by fears of negative career consequences for going against the suggestions. One judge said in the report that the review policy’s “very existence creates a preemptive chilling effect,” and that management’s wishes were “at least a factor in all panel deliberations” and “sometimes the dominant factor.”
The report said the internal review policies were not made public until May.
Republican Congressman Darrell Issa of California said during a U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee hearing Thursday that the report of officials influencing PTAB decisions “behind closed doors” was “disturbing.”
Andrei Iancu was appointed PTO director by former President Donald Trump and took charge of the office in 2018. Iancu, now a partner at Irell & Manella, had no comment on the report.
Issa, the subcommittee’s ranking member, and its chairman, Democratic Congressman Hank Johnson of Georgia, called on the GAO last year to investigate the PTO director’s potential influence on PTAB cases.
(NOTE: This story has been updated with comment from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.)
Blake Brittain reports on intellectual property law, including patents, trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets. Reach him at blake.brittain@thomsonreuters.com
***********************
While it might once have seemed like a great idea, after more than a half-century the so-called “Administrative Judiciary” has proved to be a failure. It often delivers watered-down, sloppy, political, expedient, or “agency friendly” decisions with the “window dressing” of due process and real judicial proceedings.
Moreover, contrary to the original purpose, in most cases it is neither truly “expert” not “efficient.” Indeed, the Immigration Courts have built “one of the largest backlogs known to man!” That just leads to more misguided “gimmicks” and pressure to “speed up the quasi-judicial assembly line!” Individual lives and rights are the “big losers.”
To make matters worse, under the “Chevron doctrine” and its “off the wall” progeny “Brand X,” the Article IIIs “cop out” by giving “undue deference” to this deficient product.
It’s time for all Federal Judicial tribunals to be organized under Article III or Article I of the Constitution and for the legal profession and law schools to take a long, critical look at the poor job we now are doing of educating and preparing judges. We need to train and motivate the “best, brightest, and fairest” to think critically, humanely, and practically. Then, encourage them to become judges — out of a sense of public service, furthering the common good, promoting equal justice for all, and a commitment to vindicating individual rights, not some “ideological litmus test” as has a become the recent practice.
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
“Sir Jeffrey Chase forwards our Round Table’s latest effort to promote reality, reasonableness, and due process in EOIR’s dysfunctional world:
Amici curiae are 38 former immigration judges (““IJs””) and members of the 2
Board of Immigration Appeals (““BIA””).2
Amici have dedicated their careers to improving the fairness and efficiency of
the United States immigration system, and have an interest in this case based on their combined centuries of experience administering the immigration laws of the United States. Amici collectively have presided over thousands of removal proceedings and thousands of bond hearings in connection with those proceedings, and have adjudicated numerous appeals to the BIA.
In denying Anderson Alphonse’’s (““Mr. Alphonse”” or ““Petitioner””) petition for writ of habeas corpus, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Saylor, J.), relied in part on the premise that it was ““readily foreseeable that proceedings will conclude in the near future”” because Mr. Alphonse’’s appeal to the BIA was ““fully briefed.”” This premise—at best aspirational when made in January 2022—has proven erroneous: nearly six months later, Mr. Alphonse’’s BIA appeal remains undecided. This is, regrettably, unsurprising given the surging caseload in the immigration courts, which now exceeds 1.8 million
1
1Amici state that this brief was not authored in whole or in part by counsel for any
party, and no person or entity other than Amici or their counsel made a monetary contribution to fund the preparation or submission of this brief.
2
2 See the appendix for a complete list of signatories.
pending cases. This crushing backlog—adding significantly to the backlog facing the BIA—-iis extremely relevant to the question of when a removal proceeding is likely to conclude. In fact, it might be the most important factor in this equation. Yet this factor is absent from the First Circuit’’s current analytical framework, opening the door to erroneous suppositions and conclusions based on a cursory review of a removal proceeding’’s posture, such as the one made by the District Court here.
Thus, Amici write to respectfully urge the Court to reassess the impact the backlog of cases facing the immigration courts may have on the ability of courts to accurately forecast when removal proceedings will conclude. Given their extensive experience with the immigration courts and BIA appeal process, Amici are uniquely positioned to provide insight into this narrow, but critical, issue.
The case is Alphonse v. Moniz, currently pending in the 1st Cir. Here’s a complete copy of our brief:
Many thanks to our wonderful pro bono counsel Matthew Levitt and Evan Piercy at MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C.
Although BIA decisions, particularly in non-detained cases, might take many months or even years to decide, the appellant is given only a relatively short period of time to file a brief — 21 days. A single 21 day extension may be requested and is usually granted, although it is common for the appellant not to be notified that the extension has been granted until after the extension period has expired.
Requests for additional or longer extensions are rarely granted. Motions to accept late-filed briefs, even those only a day or two tardy, are often denied. On the other hand, failure to file a timely brief after requesting a briefing schedule is a potential ground for summary dismissal of an appeal regardless of the merits! 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(E).
These rigid procedures might give the false impression that the EOIR system is driven by a sense of urgency in dispensing justice. Additionally, BIA and AG decisions often disingenuously pontificate about the supposedly “critical importance” of finality in immigration decisions. It’s all BS!
As you might note, the only “urgency” at EOIR is the potentially severe consequences imposed on the appealing party, usually the migrant. One the “compressed briefing” is complete, there is no particular assurance that the appeal will be decided on the merits for months, years — or ever! Additionally, the BIA can sometimes make dismissal of an appeal easier by ignoring an untimely brief or even by summarily dismissing an appeal for failure to file a brief without dealing with the merits.
Moreover, the hopelessness of the 1.82 million case EOIR backlog and the “assembly line justice” encouraged by EOIR’s “political masters” at DOJ results in a sloppy, “haste makes waste” approach to “justice.” This, in turn, means wrongful removals or unnecessary “remands” from Circuit Courts.
But, not to worry — there is neither penalty nor accountability for the BIA’s poor performance. Wrongly deported individuals are “out of sight, out of mind” — assuming they are even still alive.
Moreover, court remands actually give the BIA unlimited opportunities to correct their sloppy and unprofessional work, often with the benefit of a more thoughtful analysis from the Circuit Court. Not that such beneficial treatment by the Circuit necessarily means the BIA will get it right on remand. The BIA has been known to get “chewed out” by Circuit Courts for ignoring or “blowing off” their mandates.
“Red flags” 🚩 should be popping up all over the Falls Church horizon — so big that even the often “asleep at the wheel” immigration policy folks at the Biden Administration can see them! But, don’t hold your breath! Our Round Table, however, will continue “speaking truth to power” and revealing the real, awful due process mess at EOIR.
The respondent in this case is ably represented by Associate Dean Mary Holper of Boston College Law and her Immigration Clinic. In a way, this is a classic illustration of why Garland has been unable to fix EOIR. Dean Holper is an accomplished, universally-respected litigator, teacher, writer, practical scholar, and administrator. She is exactly the type of NDPA All-Star/Expert whom Garland should have recruited on “Day 1,” brought in, and empowered to fix EOIR and reinstate and realize its due process mission. Instead, Garland’s EOIR continues to flail and fail while the talent who could fix it are lined up in court against him!
Jarndyce v. Jarndyce: “The suit does not sleep; we wake it up, we air it, we walk it about. Thats something.” From “Bleak House” by Charles Dickens (1895). Garland has created a “Dickensonian” nightmare @ EOIR — including rushing some arbitrarily selected poor souls through his broken system to deportation orders with little or no process at all, let alone due process of law!
TRAC Immigration reports:
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
Pace of Immigration Court Processing Increases While Backlog Continues to Climb
The latest case-by-case records show that the Immigration Court backlog reached 1,821,440 at the end of June 2022. This is up 25 percent from the backlog just at the beginning of this fiscal year. These figures are based on the analysis of the latest court records obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University.
New Immigration Court cases continue to outstrip the number of cases being closed. So far during the first nine months the court received 634,594 new cases, but has only managed to dispose of 287,711. These closures took 1,130 days on average or more than three years from the date of the Notice to Appear (NTA) to the court’s disposition. Part of the delay represents the time it took from the Department of Homeland Security to actually file the NTA after it was issued. This delay reached record levels during the Trump administration three years ago, but NTAs are being filed much more promptly under the current administration.
The pace of court closures also has been accelerating. After the partial government shutdown in March 2020, court closures averaged just 6,172 per month for the remainder of that fiscal year. During FY 2021, court closures roughly doubled to 12,055 on average per month. By the end of the first six months of FY 2022, monthly closures had again doubled to an average of 23,957 per month. And this last quarter covering just the three-month period from April – June 2022, monthly closures doubled again to 47,991 on average each month.
According to court statistics, immigration judges on board at the beginning of this past quarter had increased just 6 percent over levels at the beginning of FY 2022. Thus, the increase in judge hiring only accounts for some of this speedier pace. A more important factor appears to be the many changes implemented by the Biden administration to increase the speed that court cases get scheduled and decided. However, as TRAC has reported, the increase in speed has come with heightened due process concerns, increasing the number of asylum seekers unable to secure legal representation which then greatly diminishes their opportunity to adequately prepare and present their asylum claims.
For more highlights on the Immigration Court, updated through June 2022, go to:
TRAC is self-supporting and depends on foundation grants, individual contributions and subscription fees for the funding needed to obtain, analyze and publish the data we collect on the activities of the US Federal government. To help support TRAC’s ongoing efforts, go to:
David Burnham and Susan B. Long, co-directors
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
Syracuse University Peck Hall
601 E. Genesee Street
Syracuse, NY 13202-3117
315-443-3563
trac@syr.edu
https://trac.syr.edu
The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse is a nonpartisan joint research center of the Whitman School of Management (https://whitman.syr.edu) and the Newhouse School of Public Communications (https://newhouse.syr.edu) at Syracuse University. If you know someone who would like to sign up to receive occasional email announcements and press releases, they may go to https://trac.syr.edu and click on the E-mail Alerts link at the bottom of the page. If you do not wish to receive future email announcements and wish to be removed from our list, please send an email to trac@syr.edu with REMOVE as the subject.
Hon. Ilyce Shugall U.S. Immigraton Judge (Retired) Member Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
A criminal conviction vacated due to a substantive or procedural defect does not qualify as a “conviction” establishing a noncitizen’s removability under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). By the statute’s plain language, vacatur under section 1473.7(a)(1) conclusively establishes that the underlying conviction rested on a substantive or procedural defect: It allows people no longer in criminal custody to seek vacatur of convictions that were “legally invalid due to prejudicial error damaging the moving party’s ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of a conviction or sentence.”
Even though a California court vacated the conviction of petitioner Jose Adalberto Arias Jovel under section 1473.7(a)(1), the BIA declined to sua sponte
2 Further statutory references are to the California Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
-2-
RESTRICTED Case: 21-631, 07/05/2022, DktEntry: 35.1, Page 12 of 34
reopen Mr. Arias’ removal proceedings because it held that, as a noncitizen,
Mr. Arias had the burden to show that his conviction under section 1473.7(a)(1) was vacated on the merits, and Mr. Arias failed to meet that burden. If affirmed, the BIA’s holding creates several problems.
First, the holding requires IJs to second-guess a state court’s determination under section 1473.7(a)(1), despite the statute allowing vacatur only for prejudicial defects. The plain language of section 1473.7(a)(1) requires “prejudicial error” that renders the conviction “legally invalid,” and IJs should accept that the state court must have vacated the conviction due to a substantive or procedural error of law. Precedent requires IJs to apply the INA to a section 1473.7(a)(1) vacatur without second-guessing the state court’s ruling.
Second, even if a section 1473.7(a)(1) vacatur doesn’t conclusively establish a substantive or procedural defect, the burden is not on noncitizens like Mr. Arias to demonstrate their convictions were vacated on the merits. IJs are bound by Ninth Circuit precedent, which holds that the government bears the burden of proving whether a vacated conviction can still form the basis for removal. To shift the burden of proof to noncitizens (who do not have a constitutional right to counsel, may be detained, and often have limited English proficiency) is contrary to the law and will inevitably increase the likelihood of due process violations.
-3-
RESTRICTED Case: 21-631, 07/05/2022, DktEntry: 35.1, Page 13 of 34
Third, the government’s interpretation of section 1473.7(a)(1) will exacerbate the growing backlog of immigration cases and the enormous pressure that IJs face to eliminate the backlog. Given the severe time and resource constraints applied to the immigration court, deviating from the established law governing vacated convictions will greatly hinder the fair and efficient administration of immigration proceedings.
Many thanks to NDPA Superstar 🌟 Judge Ilyce Shugall for taking the lead on this!
*************************
Here’s a nice “thank you” from respondent’s counsel Tomo Takaki at Covington & Burling, LA Office:
Dear former IJs and BIA members and GMSR Counsel,
Apologies for the delayed email, but thank you all again for your excellent and powerful brief. It was truly invaluable to get the perspective of former IJs and BIA members on this important issue, especially regarding the unworkability of the BIA’s decision here. It was particularly helpful to get GMSR’s appellate expertise on board here with such well-written advocacy. Our client, and many like him, I’m sure deeply appreciate your efforts on their behalf.
Best,
Tomo Takaki
Covington & Burling LLP
And, of course many, many thanks to our all-star 🌟 pro bono counsel Stefan C. Love and Tina Kuang ofGREINES, MARTIN, STEIN & RICHLAND LLP in Los Angeles. Couldn’t do it without you guys and your excellence in appellate advocacy!
Garland’s DOJ inexplicably defends a bad BIA decision, unworkable and slanted against immigrants! Why don’t we deserve better from the Biden Administration?
Why are scarce pro bono resources being tied up on wasteful litigation when Garland could appoint a “better BIA” dedicated to due process, fundamental fairness, practical scholarship, and best practices? Why not get these cases right at the Immigration Court level? Why not free up pro bono resources to represent more respondents at Immigration Court hearings? What’s the excuse for Garland’s poor leadership and lack of vision on immigration, human rights, and racial justice?
Sure, there have been a few modest improvements at EOIR. But, it’s going to take much, much more than “tinkering around the edges” to reform a broken system that routinely treats individuals seeking justice unfairly, turns out bad law that creates larger problems for our legal system, and builds wasteful and uncontrolled backlogs.
Accountability and bold progressive reforms don’t seem to be politically “in” these days.But, they should be! Responsibility for the ongoing mess at EOIR and the corrosive effects on our justice system rests squarely on Garland and the Biden Administration.
Wendy Young President, Kids In Need of Defense (“KIND”)
Dear Paul –
The entire team at Kids In Need of Defense is devastated by the news that at least 46 people were found dead in an abandoned tractor-trailer in Texas and more than a dozen others in the truck, including children, were taken to local hospitals for treatment. While we wait for more details to emerge, we wanted to share the following statement from our President, Wendy Young.
“As rising violence, natural disasters, and other threats force migrants to make impossible choices in their quest to find safety, our nation’s response cannot be to place families and children in further harm by indefinitely closing our borders to people seeking protection and ignoring the dangers they face in their home countries. This most recent tragedy and the disturbing rise in migrant deaths globally underscore the need to create safer pathways to protection for refugees. The Biden Administration should see this heartbreaking tragedy for what it is, a clarion call to abandon deeply flawed and dangerous immigration policies. It must reinstate humane and orderly processing, including reopening official ports of entry, hiring child welfare experts to care for and screen children, and provide fair adjudication of protection claims. It is time for the United States to regain its footing as a leader in the protection of migrant families and children.”
– The KIND Team
****************
The key part of Wendy’s statement: “including reopening official ports of entry, hiring child welfare experts to care for and screen children, and provide fair adjudication of protection claims.”
Denial rates for recent arrivals who manage to get hearings (see, e.g., Garland’s bogus “dedicated dockets,” — actually “dedicated to denial” and nothing else), many of them children and unrepresented, hover around 100%. They are “guided” by a “largely holdover,” anti-asylum BIA that lacks true asylum expertise and issues no positive precedents instructing judges on how to consistently and legally grant asylum. Consequently, there is no “fair adjudication” of asylum claims. That feeds the toxic nativist myth that nobody at the Southern Border is a “legitimate” asylum seeker.
Unless and until Garland tosses the unqualified jurists at EOIR and replaces them with experts committed to due process, fundamental fairness, and correct, generous, practical precedents and proper applications of asylum law, the system will remain in failure. It’s a monumental mistake by the Biden Administration not to fix that which they absolutely control — starting with the Immigration Courts at EOIR.
Refugees will continue to die at the hands of smugglers who were given control of our immigration system by the Trump Administration and remain empowered by Garland’s & Mayorkas’spoor performance combined with biased, White Nationalist, Federal Judges appointed by Trump at all levels of our failing justice system!
Today’s WashPost editorial described how far-right nativists have basically turned our immigration system over to smugglers:
The absence of any workable legal system that would admit migrants systematically, in numbers that would meet the U.S. labor market’s demand, is the original sin of the chaos at the border. That is Congress’s bipartisan failure, a symptom of systemic paralysis for many years. More recently, a public health rule has had the effect of incentivizing unauthorized migrants to make multiple attempts to cross the border. The rule, imposed by the Trump administration, retained for more than a year by the Biden administration, and now frozen in place by Republican judges, allows border authorities to swiftly expel migrants, but with no asylum hearings or criminal consequences for repeated attempts to cross the border. That has been a boon to migrant smuggling networks.
I take issue with the term “bipartisan failure” in the legislative context. It’s true that the Dems inexplicably squandered a golden chance to fix many immigration problems when they had 60 votes in the Senate in Obama’s first two years. But, before and after that time, the failure to achieve realistic, humane, robust legal immigration reform legislation has been on the nativist right of the GOP that now dominates the party. Pretending otherwise is useless and dishonest.
All of these proposals would have made long-overdue, common sense reforms to eliminate hopeless backlogs, benefit our economy, strengthen our legal system, and facilitate better allocation of Government resources. Yet, there has been scant GOP interest in improving the system. The GOP appears to believe that promoting a dysfunctional immigration system, denying human rights, and guaranteeing a large “extralegal population” available as scapegoats and exploitable labor best serves their parochial political interests.
And, speaking of useless and dishonest, here’s Leon Krausze, WashPost Global Opinions Contributor, on how the disingenuous performance of Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has helped fuel both resurgent Mexican migration and unnecessary deaths at or near the border. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/29/san-antonio-migrant-deaths-trailer-mexico-amlo/.
The “good guys” — those committed to due process, fundamental fairness, individual rights, equal justice, scholarship, and human dignity — need to fight back at every level of our political and judicial systems — while they still exist! Because if the GOP has its way, that won’t be for long!🏴☠️
Anti-Asylum Judges In Action! Factual distortions, ignoring evidence, and misapplications of the law are some of the “weapons” wielded by some EOIR judges to stop asylum seekers from getting the life-saving legal protections they deserve! Article III Courts can compound the problem by mis-using “deference” to avoid critical examination of the frequent abuses of humanity and the rule of law inflicted by this parody of a court system. Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
ONE TINY STEP FOR MANKIND: But It’s Going To Take Much More Than Finally Replacing A Few Stunningly Unqualified Judges To Save EOIR!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
Courtside Exclusive
June 25, 2022
Over the last few weeks the long overdue and essential process of weeding out poorly qualified Immigration Judges — still on “probation” at EOIR — finally got off to a very modest start.
Imagine yourself as a refugee fighting for your life in an asylum system that’s already stacked against you and where the “judges” work for the Attorney General, part of the Executive Branch’s political and law enforcement apparatus.
How would you like your life to be in the hands of (now) former Immigration Judge Matthew O’Brien. He was appointed in 2020 by former AG Bill Barr — a staunch defender of the Trump/Miller White Nationalist, xenophobic, anti-immigrant agenda.
Nativism A “Qualification?”
What made O’Brien supposedly “qualified” to be a “fair and impartial” administrative judge?
Thankfully, O’Brien will pass into history. But, the damage inflicted by the “official policy of child abuse” will adversely affect generations.
Or, perhaps it was O’Brien’s intimate connection with a leading nativist group. Immediately prior to his appointment, he was the “Research” Director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (“FAIR”) — a group renowned for sloppy to non-existent “research” and presenting racially-motivated myths and fear mongering as “facts.”
As noted by Nowrasteh, that’s not the only example of FAIR providing “bogus research papers” designed to “rev up hate” and demean the contributions of immigrants both documented and undocumented.
The Anti-Defamation League (“ADL”), one of America’s most venerable anti-hate, anti-misinformation groups, founded more than a century ago “To stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all,” had this to say about O’Brien’s former employer:
While the majority of the extreme anti-immigrant sentiment in the U.S. emanates from fringe groups like white supremacists and other nativists, there are a number of well-established anti-immigrant groups such as Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), NumbersUSA and The Remembrance Project which have secured a foothold in mainstream politics, and their members play a major role in promoting divisive, dangerous rhetoric and views that demonize immigrants. A number of these groups have attempted to position themselves as legitimate advocates against “illegal immigration” while using stereotypes, conspiracy theories and outright bigotry to disparage immigrants and hold them responsible for a number of societal ills. A decade ago, most of this bigotry was directed primarily at Latino immigrants, but today, Muslim and Haitian immigrants, among others, are also targeted.
. . . .
There is a distinct anti-immigrant movement in this country, whose roots can be traced back to the 1970s. Groups such as the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) hope to influence general audiences with somewhat sanitized versions of their anti-immigrant views. In their worldview, non-citizens do not enjoy any status or privilege, and any path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants or refugees is portrayed as a threat to current citizens. Like some other problematic movements, the anti-immigrant movement also has a more extreme wing, which includes border vigilante groups, as well as groups and individuals that seek to demonize immigrants by using racist, sometimes threatening language.
So, perhaps, you say, once actually “on the bench,” Judge O’Brien was able to overcome his biases and knowledge gaps and function as a fair and impartial judicial officer. Nope! Not in the cards!
According to TRAC, O’Brien denied almost every asylum case he heard (96.4% denials). That was, astoundingly, nearly 40% above the average of his colleagues in Arlington and nearly 30% higher than the nationwide asylum denial rate of approximately 67%.
But, to put this in perspective, we have to recognize that this denial rate had already been intentionally and artificially increased by a expanded,”packed,” politicized, “weaponized,” and intentionally “dumbed down” EOIR during the Sessions/Barr era at DOJ. For example, approximately 10 years ago, more than 50% of asylum, cases were being granted annually nationwide, and approximately 75% of the asylum cases in Arlington were granted. See, e.g., https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/judge2014/00001WAS/index.html. And, even then, most asylum experts would have said that the nationwide grant rate was too low.
Gaming The System For Denial
It’s not that conditions in “refugee/asylum sending” countries have gotten better over the past decade! Far from it! The refugee situation today is as bad as it has ever been since WWII and getting worse every day.
So, why would legal refugee admissions be plunging to record lows (despite a rather disingenuous “increase in the refugee ceiling” by the Biden Administration) and asylum denials up dramatically over the past decade?
It has little or nothing to do with asylum law or the realities of the worldwide refugee flow, particularly from Latin American and Caribbean countries. No, it has to do with an intentional move, started under Bush II, tolerated or somewhat encouraged in the Obama Administration, but greatly accelerated during the Trump-era, to “kneecap” the legal refugee and asylum processing programs. Indeed, the “near zeroing-out” of refugee and asylum admissions and the illegal replacement of Asylum Officers by totally unqualified CBP Agents by the Trump Administration are two of the most egregious examples.
Ironically, the EOIR backlog tripled. Under the “maliciously incompetent management” of the Trump group at DOJ, more judges actually meant more backlog! How is that giving taxpayers “value” for their money?
Some of the new judges, like O’Brien and some of the Immigration Judges “elevated” to the BIA, were appointed specifically because of their established records of anti-asylum bias, rude treatment of attorneys, and dehumanizing treatment of asylum seekers and other migrants.
“Ignorance And Contempt”
It’s not like O’Brien was just your “garden variety” “conservative jurist.”(I’ve actually worked with many of the latter over the years). No, he was notorious for his lack of scholarship, rudeness, and bias!
Here are a few of the comments he received on “RateYourJudge.com:”
“Rarely grants cases. No knowledge of the law, only there to deny cases. He needs to be removed.”
“Biased judge, hates immigrants and even kids of immigrants.”
“Incompetent.”
“One of the most condescending and self-righteous judges I have had the displeasure to hear. His word choice and tone left absolutely no doubt that he considered the Respondent to be beneath his notice, even to the point of referring to her as “the female Respondent” and to her domestic partner as a “paramour”. I have heard other judges’ oral opinions on very similar sets of facts, and they were accomplished in a fifth of the time with no loss of dignity to anyone.”
“This guy’s ignorance about immigration law and contempt for the people who appear before him is staggering. The way he threatens lawyers is reprehensible. EOIR is a disgrace.”
“Horrible human being with no business being on the bench. Shame on EOIR for allowing him to continue adjudicating cases.”
“Late, abusive, made up his mind before the case even started, frequently interrupted testimony, yelled at immigrants and their lawyer, and refused to listen to anything we said. Ignorant of the law and facts of the case. He should go back to directing hate groups.”
Among the stream of negative comments there were three “positive” comments about O’Brien;
Most of the comments both positive and negative were “anonymous” or apparent user “pseudonyms;”
“RateMyImmigrationJudge” is neither comprehensive nor transparent.
Flunking the “Gold Standard”
So, was O’Brien really as horrible as most experts say? Let’s do another type of “reality check.”
Among the other IJs at the Arlington Immigration Court, two stand out as widely respected expert jurists who have served for decades across Administrations of both parties. Judge John Milo Bryant was first appointed as an Immigration Judge in 1987 under the Reagan Administration. Judge Lawrence Owen Burman was appointed in 1998 under the Clinton Administration. With 66 years of judicial service between them, they would be considered more or less the “gold standard” for well-qualified, subject matter expert, fair and impartial Immigration Judges.
Significantly, according to the last TRAC report, O’Brien’s asylum grant rate of 3,6% wasapproximately 1/15th of Judge Bryant’s and approximately 1/22 of Judge Burman’s. https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/judgereports/. Case closed! O’Brien should never have been on a bench where asylum seekers lives were at stake and expertise and fairness are supposed to be job requirements!
“Worse Than O’Brien”
What about now former Arlington Immigration Judge David White who was removed at the same time as O’Brien? Apparently, during his relatively short tenure (appointed by Barr in 2020), White was unable to deny enough asylum to qualify for TRAC’s system (100 decisions minimum).
Yet, he made an indelible impression on those “sentenced” to appear before him. Here are comments from RateMyImmigrtionJudge.com:
“This judge is absolutely terrible. Unfair and biased. He is only here to deny asylum cases regardless of what the person has been through. Completely misstates the facts, doesn’t know the law so goes after credibility (using those misstated facts) as an excuse to say there’s no past persecution. Absolute disgrace.”
“Worst judge ever. The clerks at the Immigration Court told the private bar attorneys that they have NEVER seen this judge approve an asylum case. Not one. They have running bets and jokes about him, but he never grants. He writes the denial during the trial instead of listening to the person testify. He is insulting and rude and not at all compassionate about trauma.”
“This is the worst immigration judge in Arlington, hands down. He’s even worse than O’Brien, and O’Brien is an former hate-group director.”
“Terrible immigration judge. Had his mind made up well before our hearing. Came in with a prewritten denial that misstated the law. Was rude and dismissive about my client’s trauma.”
Wow! Worse than O’Brien. That’s quite an achievement.
GOP Court Packing
Fact is, the overt politicization, “weaponization,” and “dumbing down” of the Immigration Courts goes back nearly two decades to AG John Ashcroft and the Bush II Administration. Ashcroft reduced the size of the BIA as a gimmick to “purge” the supposedly “liberal” judges — those, including me, who voted to uphold the legal rights of migrants against government overreach. In other words, our “transgression” was to stand up for due process and the individual rights of immigrants — actually “our job” as properly defined.
And, the downward spiral has continued. The DOJ Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) actually confirmed some of the Bush II improper Immigration Judge hires. But, they avoided dealing with the “BIA purge” that got the ball rolling downhill at EOIR! The GOP has been much more skillful than Dems in reshaping the Immigration Courts to their liking.
During the Trump Administration, putting clearly unqualified IJs who were some of rudest highest denying in America on the BIA was certainly “packing” and “stacking” EOIR against legitimate asylum seekers. Again, however, the OIG failed to “seal the deal” regarding this outrageous conduct that has undermined our entire justice system, fed uncontrollable backlog, and cost human lives that should and could have been saved.
Trump’s “court packing scheme” was no “small potatoes” matter, even if some in the Biden Administration are willfully blind to the continuing human rights and due process disaster at EOIR.
Removing two of the most glaringly unqualified Barr appointees in Arlington is a very modest step by AG Garland in the right direction. But, it’s going to take more, much more, decisive action to clean out the unqualified and the deadwood, bring in true expertise and judicial quality, and restore even a modicum of legitimacy and integrity at EOIR.
Reactionaries’ Predictably Absurdist Reaction
Meanwhile, even this long overdue, well justified, and all too minimal change at EOIR produced totally absurdist reactions from O’Brien and fellow nativists (including some still “hiding out in plain sight” at DOJ) which were picked up by the Washington Times (of course). Don’t believe a word of it!
The removal of guys like O’Brien and White — who never had any business being placed in “quasi-judicial” positions where they exercised life or death authority over refugees of color whose humanity and legal rights they refused to recognize, is just a beginning. The ethical, competence, and judicial attitude rot at EOIR goes much deeper.
Garland has been dilatory in “cleaning house” at EOIR. Vulnerable individuals who were wrongly rejected rather than properly protected have needlessly suffered, and probably even died, as a result. Poor Immigration Judging and lack of effective, correct, courageous, positive asylum guidance by the BIA has helped fuel a human rights disaster and rule of law collapse at the border!
Perhaps, at long last, Garland has slowly started fixing the unconscionable and unnecessary dysfunction andintentionally ingrained institutional bias at EOIR. But, I’ll believe it when I see it!
Keep Up The Pressure
In the meantime, it’s critical that NDPA members: 1) keep applying for EOIR judgeships; and 2) ratchet up the pressure and demand the removal of all unqualified Immigration Judges and Appellate Immigration Judges who are undermining sound scholarship, due process, fundamental fairness, and human dignity at EOIR!
Human rights matter! Individual rights matter! Immigrants’ rights matter! Good judges matter!
Today, we are surrounded by too many bad judges, at all levels of our justice system, who reject the first three in favor of warped far-right ideologies, dangerous myths, and disregard for human dignity. The existential battle to get good judges into our system has begun. And, Immigration Courts are the primary theater of action!
“Nexus? What nexus? These “just happen to be” women facing a little “random violence!” Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
With credible testimony and harm that rises to the level of persecution for a woman in El Salvador, who was the victim multiple rapes, on its face, this should have been an easy grant for a competent IJ.
Essentially, this judge argues that harm rising to the level of persecution — multiple rapes — inflicted on a woman in El Salvador, where femicide and misogyny run rampant, has nothing to do with her being a woman. Such a conclusion is unlikely — some experts would say facially absurd!
Indeed, the IJ’s apparent view that multiple rapes had nothing to do with a gender-based protected ground of being a woman would be totally “off the wall” for any experienced asylum adjudicator who truly understood the well-documented nature of violence against women as a widespread form of persecution worldwide!
According to the UN Handbook for Determining Refugee Status, adjudicators should give credible applicants “the benefit of the doubt.” “It is therefore frequently necessary to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt.” (Par. 203). That’s not what this IJ did!
Also, in the remand order, the BIA specifically rejected the IJ’s finding that this gross harm to the respondent was “individualized” and “personalized” and therefore not a basis for an asylum claim — something not mentioned by the IJ in his “certification.”
Counsel for the applicant is well aware of this “better analysis” and could have argued it.But, in his snarky haste to prejudge and deny needed protection, this Houston IJ didn’t even give the parties a chance to participate in his “return to sender” (“certification”) nonsense.
A better functioning expert BIA would have long ago provided precedential guidance granting cases like this — adopting and amplifying the rationale of the IJ in the Honduran case.
Additionally, the BIA remand instructed the IJ to inquire of the DHS as to whether this victim of multiple rapes with no apparent criminal record or other adverse factors was and “enforcement priority” under applicable DHS guidelines — something that the IJ contemptuously and improperly did not do! Indeed,he didn’t seek any input from the parties despite being instructed to do so.
Unquestionably, being an El Salvadoran woman is a) immutable or fundamental to identity; b) highly particularized, and c) socially visible, as recognized by the Salvadoran government and everyone in El Salvador, thereby clearly qualifying as a “particular social group.”
There is also plenty of reliable evidence that El Salvador, like the rest of the Northern and Triangle Governments, is basically a failed state — something publicly admitted by some Administration officials, including Special Envoy to the Northern Triangle Ricardo Zuniga. https://apple.news/A9FpzsjRAQ2OoAyQZzHZm1A (“democracy, the rule of law and the security situation continue to deteriorate”). The Salvadoran government is neither willing nor able to provide a reasonable level of protection to women like this applicant. Indeed, there is likely sufficient evidence for a better BIA to establish a “rebuttable presumption of failure of state protection” in El Salvador and the rest of the Northern Triangle.
Temporary Appellate Immigration Judge Gabe Gonzalez, author of the remand, is one of the better BIA judges. But, his remand could have been even stronger. He could have reversed this IJ and granted asylum on this record. Why “beat around the bush” on grantable cases that are being mishandled by “chronically over-denying IJs” below? At this point, removal of this particular judge from the case would be more than justified. Cases like this certainly raise the legitimate question of why IJs who sit around inventing reasons to deny relief to those in need of protection are on the Immigration Bench in the first place. There are certainly better-qualified judicial choices — many of them located in Texas — who could bring legitimacy, quality, and efficiency to Garland’s dysfunctional courts!
“Bogus lack of nexus” is one of the most overused grounds for improper denials of protection by EOIR judges at all levels. It’s part of the “any reason to deny” approach enabled by EOIR’s current “anti-asylum culture” — one that was overtly encouraged and promoted by the Trump DOJ.
Inexplicably selecting Houston as one of the “test locations” for the new asylum regulations is “built to fail.” Without expert, positive guidance from qualified IJs in Houston (and the BIA) on granting asylum — something that this “denial centered court” simply doesn’t possess — there is every reason to believe that asylum seekers will not receive professional treatment or correct decisions from either the Asylum Office or the Immigration Court in Houston. And, relying on the BIA or, worse yet the “over the top” 5th Circuit,” to guarantee fairness and justice for asylum seekers? That’s a sick joke under current conditions!
8) Poorly reasoned, legally incorrect asylum denials and frivolous actions like the IJ’s “certification” in this case are a major factor in generating a 1.8 million case EOIR backlog and enabling a lawless, non-expert, anti-immigrant “culture of denial” at EOIR. Many grantable asylum cases languish in the backlog, are subjected to “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” and then are wrongfully denied by poorly performing judges at both levels of EOIR.
9) EOIR suffers from poor leadership, a poorly performing BIA that overall lacks the expertise and courage to grant the large number of deserving asylum cases currently languishing in the EOIR backlog, and to set proper legal standards that will guide Immigration Judges and Asylum Officers in efficiently granting deserving cases at the first level of the system.
10) Garland should remove or reassign the “under-performers” and “non-performers” at EOIR and replace them with qualified experts committed to best practices and “guaranteeing fairness and due process for all” (EOIR’s now long-forgotten and dishonored mission).
11) Lives and the future of democracy are at stake here! America simply can’t afford the “institutionalizednonsense” still rampant at EOIR as illustrated by this case!
12) Also, EOIR’s performance in this cases is inconsistent with almost every sentence of the recent “LA Declaration.” Issuing statements of principle that are directly contradicted by your actual practices is a bad idea!
This has been a bad week for individual rights and particularly the rights and humanity of women in America. Garland can’t fix the out of control, “fringe-right,” Supremes’ majority. But, he can fix EOIR! And, that would be a long overdue and desperately needed first step toward fixing the entire broken and foundering Federal Court system. Start “at the retail level” with what you have the power to fix and work from there!
There are plenty of similar cases out there in the EOIR backlog and waiting at the border for the Administration to start following asylum law!(Others have been unlawfully and immorally returned to persecution without meaningful opportunities to present their claims.)
These types of cases could be identified, represented, and timely granted by a “better EOIR” led by a “better BIA.” These are the decisions that should be binding precedents. Practical, positive legal guidance shows how to “build on” gender-based and family-based asylum to grant more protection, encourage good preparation and presentation on both sides, rein in “never asylum judges,” and to clear dockets of cases of individuals who deserve to be on their way to green cards, citizenship, and full participation in our society.
A fair, consistent, timely application of asylum and refugee laws would establish that many of those wrongly characterized as “law violators” are, in fact, legal immigrants. And, that’s something our country needs!
What if the “powers that be” would “institutionalize” this type of judicial performance rather than the “denial factory/good enough for government work” culture that continues to operate widely at EOIR under Garland? Wouldn’t that be the type of “good government” that Biden and Harris promised, but have yet to deliver, particularly on immigration?
Personal note:Judge Balasquide was the widely respected ICE Chief Counsel in Arlington when I arrived at the Arlington Immigration Court in 2003. He was initiallyappointed as a Immigration Judge in New York in July 2006 by then AG Alberto Gonzalez. I always enjoyed working with Judge Balasquide during my time in Arlington. (He actually appeared before me in court on a few occasions.)
Elizabeth Gibson Managing Attorney National Immigrant Justice Center Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
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.
CBP: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announced today it has completed the expansion of biometric facial comparison technology at all international airports across the United States to further secure and streamline international travel. This innovation effort is a critical milestone for the biometric Entry/Exit program and complements biometric boarding, which is currently at select departure locations.
Law360: An advocacy group and a trio of formerly detained migrants asked the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s civil rights office on Thursday to investigate “system-wide abuses and deficiencies” in mental health care provided to those in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody.
Guardian: The largest number of migrants in the caravan come from Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua – three countries whose authoritarian rulers Joe Biden has conspicuously refused to invite to the summit. But there are also Haitians, Salvadorans, Hondurans, Guatemalans and even citizens of India, Bangladesh, and several African countries.
NPR: We wanted to know more about what’s going on here, so we called Kate Melloy Goettel. She is the legal director of litigation at the American Immigration Council.
Reuters: The Biden administration is in talks with Spain and Canada about taking more Western Hemisphere refugees for resettlement, people familiar with the matter said on Wednesday, signaling possible commitments that could be announced at next week’s Summit of the Americas.
Reuters: More than a year into U.S. President Joe Biden’s sweeping effort to tackle the “root causes” of migration with aid to Central America, projects likely worth millions of dollars have been canceled or put on hold due to corruption and governance concerns, U.S. officials and others tracking the issue said. See also Harris’ tough task addressing migration to the southern border not getting any easier one year later.
NPR: People seeking asylum are still crossing and at least one shelter for them in Arizona is seeing record numbers. Seventy miles to the north of Nogales, the Casa Alitas Welcome Center in Tucson is taking in 375 people in a day, just a few days after the judge kept the closures in place at official southern ports of entry. See also How Asylum Seekers Cross the Border.
NYT: While countries like Germany and Canada have streamlined programs for asylum seekers and refugees — offering housing, food, work authorization and a monthly stipend to asylum seekers — the United States has strengthened enforcement at the border, while processing times for asylum applications have increased from weeks to months to years.
Law360: Recent guidance instructing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to drop nonpriority cases has brought welcome relief to some migrants, but the new policy seems unlikely to put a significant dent in immigration court backlogs.
Law360: U.S. consulates deny a majority of employer-sponsored visas for individuals hoping to obtain green cards, pointing to a lack of trust by the U.S. Department of State in its counterparts at Homeland Security and Labor, according to libertarian think tank The Cato Institute.
IDP: New York’s legislation follows the example of 15 other states that provide a remedy when notification is not given, which will help prevent unlawful deportation based on unfair and unknowing pleas.
CNN: It’s not clear how many migrants have been loaned phones as part of the program. ICE hasn’t released that data in its regular public updates about the program, and the agency didn’t respond to CNN’s questions about it. But lawyers and advocates who work with migrants told CNN the government-issued phones — which can only be used with the SmartLINK app and can’t make calls or access the internet — are becoming increasingly common.
Justia: The Fifth Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition, citing the efforts of the Haitian government following the attacks against Petitioner. Based on the government’s response, Petitioner could not show that the Haitian government was unable or unwilling to protect him.
LexisNexis: Because Yahm offered nontestimonial evidence of country conditions in Cameroon, the BIA erred by not considering it in the context of his CAT claim and instead treating Yahm’s lack of credibility as dispositive.
Law360: A Ninth Circuit panel on Friday upheld three class certifications in an action brought by immigrant detainees who said they were forced to work against their will and without adequate pay while in private U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement-contracted detention facilities.
Law360: A D.C. federal judge tossed the Southern Poverty Law Center’s claim that confinement conditions at Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities impeded its clients’ access to attorneys, saying the issue arose from immigration removal proceedings the district court could not hear.
NIJC: The National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) and three people previously detained at different U.S. immigrant detention centers filed a federal civil rights complaint today demanding a system-wide investigation into Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) failures to provide adequate mental health care for people in its custody and its abusive use of solitary confinement. Included with the complaint are declarations from three physicians with extensive experience working with individuals in ICE custody and documenting their conditions.
Law360: The federal government’s immigration powers don’t supersede a state’s power to enforce wage laws, the American Civil Liberties Union said when asking the Ninth Circuit to affirm that a private prison owes immigrant detainees $23.2 million in back pay.
NIPNLG: J.O.P. class counsel encourages practitioners to reach out promptly if you represent a J.O.P. class member who: (1) is facing an upcoming asylum merits hearing in immigration court; (2) has a pending BIA appeal of an asylum merits denial in immigration court; or (3) has a pending petition for review of an EOIR asylum merits denial in a U.S. court of appeals. Please contact Wendy Wylegala (wwylegala@supportkind.org) and Michelle Mendez (michelle@nipnlg.org) if you have a client in one of these situations.
AILA: CBP issued a memo that clarifies previous guidance implementing the CDC Order to ensure that it is consistent with Huisha Huisha v. Mayorkas decision, which found that the government may expel family units but only to places where they are “not likely to be persecuted or tortured.” See also CBP Clarifies Guidance Regarding Expulsion of Family Units Under Title 42.
AILA: USCIS updated its public charge resources webpage. The updates clarify that relatively few noncitizens are both subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility and eligible for public benefits under the 1999 Interim Field Guidance. An updated question-and-answer section is also available.
AILA: Per USCIS, those seeking parole into the United States to attend a funeral or provide emergency assistance to a family member affected by the shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, can request urgent humanitarian or significant public benefit parole by filing Form I-131.
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
A key quote from the NPR report (Liz’s “Item 6” under “news”):
Shelter staff says what’s being left out of the bitter partisan immigration battles in Congress is the fact that so many people are fleeing dangerous situations right now, as violence and global instability has risen, especially in Latin America during the pandemic.
So, as more and more legitimate claims for protection arise abroad (completely contrary to nativist myths and also some of the Biden Administration’s blather), the U.S. continues to defy its own laws and international agreements, while using poor interpretations of law and “holdover” adjudicators to artificially “force down” asylum grants to dishonestly low levels. Meanwhile, refugee programs, which, if properly robust and competently administered, could alleviate both the need for journeys to the U.S. border and the danger that can involve, continue to languish — as if nobody in the Biden Administration has ever read the Refugee Act of 1980!
At the same time, there are jobs in our economy that asylum seekers could fill that would help everyone. Talk about dumb policies driven by fear, hate, and resentment!
“Gimmicks,” mindless “deterrents,” and false “silver bullet solutions” don’t cut it! They just waste money, deprive our nation of credibility, destroy lives, and increase human suffering.
No surprise:The Round Table, NAIJ, AILA, CGRS, HRF, HRW, ACLU, and many other experts have been “spot on” in their assessment of what it will take to restore order to the border, due process and fundamental fairness to the Immigration Courts (and also the failing Article III Federal Courts), and rational self-interest to immigration, human rights, and civil rights policies.
The GOP nativists and the Biden Administration — not so much.
“Elvis Njenula Yahm, a citizen of Cameroon facing removal, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) based on his pro-Anglophone political opinion. An immigration judge denied all three avenues for relief, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Yahm’s appeal. … A recent decision supports Yahm’s view that an adverse credibility finding does not relieve the agency of its obligation to also consider documentary support for a CAT claim. See Arulnanthy v. Garland, 17 F.4th 586 (5th Cir. 2021). … Because Yahm offered nontestimonial evidence of country conditions in Cameroon, the BIA erred by not considering it in the context of his CAT claim and instead treating Yahm’s lack of credibility as dispositive. See Arulnanthy, 17 F.4th at 598. Yahm’s petition for review is GRANTED and these proceedings are REMANDED for the BIA to address the CAT claim consistent with Arulnanthy.”
Way to go, Keith! Congrats! Winning justice for asylum seekers in the 5th Circuit is no mean feat!
The 5th Circuit decision in Arulnanthy sounds very much like the 4th Circuit’s decision in Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F. 3d 361 (4th Cir. 2004). Camara actually changed for the better the preparation, presentation, and most of all results in asylum cases in the 4th Circuit.
I consider it the “precursor” to the REAL ID provision now incorporated in the INA requiring IJ’s and the BIA to consider the “the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors,” in making credibility determinations. If that is actually done, which it isn’t in far too many cases in today’s broken Immigration Courts, the results are likely to be far more positive for asylum seekers and other respondents seeking relief in Immigration Court.
The “Camara effect” was real. For example, in 2004, on the “eve of Camara,” the asylum denial rate at the Arlington Immigration Court, where I sat, in the 4th Circuit, was in excess of 70%. By the time I retired in 2016, it was the polar opposite. The asylum grant rate exceeded 70%! SOURCE: TRAC Immigration.
Of course, no one factor is responsible for that positive change. And, I acknowledge that in the Charlotte Immigration Court, also in the 4th Circuit, where several judges were reknowned for their hard-core anti-asylum attitudes, the denial rates remained disturbingly above the national average. And, of course, the “institutionalized anti-asylum bias” ushered in and promoted at EOIR by the Trump regime resulted in another dramatic, totally unjustified, downturn in asylum grants by EOIR across America after 2016.
Nevertheless, positive appellate guidance on asylum is a major factor in establishing and maintaining due process in the Immigration Courts. Unfortunately, almost none of that expert positive guidance on asylum and other forms of relief comes from Garland’s BIA precedents. Additionally, although some of his appointments have been welcome, overall, Garland has done a very poor job of bringing in dynamic progressive expert leaders and judges to reverse the anti-asylum, anti-due-process, anti-immigrant “culture” that continues to haunt EOIR at all levels.
The “results” of his dysfunctional courts speak for themselves. Backlogs build, Circuit Courts struggle with EOIR’s poor “haste makes waste” work product, and decisional consistency on asylum is shockingly, “tragicomically” lacking!
In almost all ways, this system has seriously regressed in the past decade, even while eating up more resources! That’s about as much of an “engineered lose-lose” as one can imagine! Yet, Biden, Harris, and Garland appear impervious to this glaring, “fixable” problem that threatens our entire justice system!
Shouldn’t racial justice advocates be all over Garland, Monaco, Gupta, and Clarke for the EOIR’s disgraceful performance on asylum claims involving Cameroonians and other applicants of color! If not, why not? The entire “progressive social justice community” should be expressing “collective outrage” to the Biden Administration about the Garland DOJ’s disgraceful performance at EOIR and on other human rights issues involving race and immigration.
It’s also worthy noting, as my Round Table colleague retired Judge Jeffrey Chase has pointed out before, that the Biden Administration has granted TPS to Cameroonians in the U.S.So, there is really no issue about the truly miserable human rights conditions there. That is, apparently, except in Garland’s Immigration Courts where the “programmed to deny” and “good enough for government work” mentalities continue to prevail — even where the stakes are life or death!
Additionally, the regulations implementing the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) at EOIR initially became effective on Mar. 22, 1999 — over two decades ago. I remember that at one of the next Immigration Judge Conferences, probably in 1999 or 2000, the training specifically instructed that because of the country-conditions related nature of CAT, adverse credibility rulings against a respondent were not determinative of CAT claims.
Yet, more than two decades later, Immigration Judges and, worse yet, the BIA are still making that same fundamental error! How does this make the idea that EOIR is an “expert court” or that “constitutional due process is being protected at EOIR” anything other than a “sick joke.” Yet, the mockery of justice continues and nobody at Justice, from the top down, is being held accountable for stomping on life-determining legal and Constitutional rights! Why?
Here’s another remand you might like to read. This time it was Nexus and PSG with IJ Monique Harris (previously in Houston). According to TRAC she has a 96.5 asylum denial rate. The prior remand I shared was IJ Khan who is at 97% denial rate. Clearly these IJs are getting a lot of “matter of life and death” decisions wrong. As you say, haste makes waste. This case (like the previous one) should have been easy grants with all of the supporting documents that were included. I appeared at the individual hearing and my colleague Bryan Russell Terhune (from the same office) worked on the BIA Brief.
P.S. you can see this news article: https://sv.usembassy.gov/court-inaugurated-memory-pnc-agent/ , from our own U.S. Embassy in El Salvador where they inaugurated an athletic court in the Usulutan Police Delegation, named after the PNC officer Nelson Panameño, who was killed. Panameño was one of the instructors from the Gang Resistance Education and Training Program (GREAT) which my client closely worked with for many years helping him and the PNC gain trust with the community and local youth. This was part of the record, plus a lot more evidence showing this specific connection and the specific and imminent warnings that Panameno gave to my client before his own murder. This was just one of the many great things this client did in El Salvador to try and make his country a better place. We are lucky to have him and his family in this country now.
This was just one of the many great things this client did in El Salvador to try and make his country a better place. We are lucky to have him and his family in this country now.
That this respondent is here to contribute to our country is due to Roberto and his colleagues in the Law Office of Juan Reyes, Houston, and to this particular panel of BIA Appellate Judges. But it is “no thanks” to the IJ who got this case egregiously wrong below!
Nor, is it thanks to an Attorney General who has allowed injustice, bad judgment, and poor quality decision-making to flourish at the “retail level” of his wholly-owned “court” system. What about the many folks who don’t have Roberto or someone like him for a lawyer or who get members of the “BIA asylum deniers club” appointed under Trump to “pack the BIA for an anti-asylum agenda” instead of this panel of conscientious appellate judges?
I note that Judge Elise Manuel and Judge Denise Brown are currently denominated “Temporary” Appellate Judges. At least in this case, along with Judge Ellen Liebowitz, they “got it” at a level at odds with the work of too many of their so-called “permanent” colleagues. Why has Garland allowed this obviously problematic situation to continue to fester with human lives at stake?
Judge Ellen Liebowitz’s compact, cogent, powerful opinion is a terrific “mini-primer” on how PSG and “one central reason” nexus cases properly should be decided! As Judge Liebowitz demonstrates, you don’t have to write a lot to say a lot. You just have to know what you’re doing!
The gross, fundamental errors in the application of basic statutory terms by the IJ below in this case are, unfortunately, repeated on a regular basis by many of her colleagues across America who are improperly “programmed to deny” clearly grantable asylum cases.
It belies the bogus claim that EOIR is an “expert subject matter tribunal!” That expertise is, at least in part, what the questionable doctrines of “Chevron deference” and “Brand X abdication” by the Supremes rest upon. Shouldn’t it make a difference that in EOIR’s case, it’s a lie?
Why is Garland allowing this to happen when it could be remedied? Make this case a precedent and start removing, retraining, or reassigning so-called “judges” who don’t follow it and who continue to disregard the law and the rights of asylum seekers!
Why isn’t this case a precedent? Why is an IJ who is so clearly unqualified to decide asylum cases still on the Immigration Bench under Garland? Why aren’t cases like this being used to end the “asylum free zone” improperly established by some Houston IJs?
These are the “tough questions” that Garland should have addressed. Why hasn’t he? Why is “refugee roulette” still plaguing EOIR and American justice — 15 years after the problem was first “outed” by my Georgetown Law colleagues Professors Schrag, Schoenholtz, and Ramji-Nogales? How is this “good government,” or even “minimally competent government?”
When compelling, well-documented cases like this are turned down at the trial level, something clearly is rotten in the system! Make no mistake about it, lack of expertise, bad judicial attitudes, widespread anti-asylum bias, counterproductive “haste makes waste gimmicks,” and way, way too many denials are significant “drivers” of the backlog that continues to mushroom under Garland.
The arbitrary and often grotesquely unfair, unprofessional, and results-driven state of “justice” in Garland’s dysfunctional Immigration Courts was recently highlighted by Brooklyn Law Associate Dean Stacey Caplow in her lament about the Supremes’ abdication of responsibility in Patel v Garland.
Stacy Caplow Associate Dean of Experiential Education & Professor of Law Brooklyn Law PHOTO: Brooklyn Law website
As Dean Caplow cogently points out:
Patel shuts the door firmly and unequivocally, preventing independent review of fact-finding by Immigration Judges, however irrational and indefensible once the Board of Immigration Appeals has affirmed. This makes the need to populate the Immigration Court bench with independent, highly qualified, experienced, non-political unbiased individuals with appropriate temperament even more urgent. Perhaps this case will provide new impetus for reform such as Real Courts, Rule of Law Act of 2022 voted by the House Judiciary Committee in May just days before the Supreme Court’s decision.
While an independent, subject matter expert Article I Immigration Court is the obvious answer, unfortunately, it’s not immediately on the horizon. Meanwhile, the innocent and vulnerable continue to suffer daily injustices, sometimes gratuitous humiliation or dehumanization, in Garland’s broken system. It DOESN’T have to be this way!
As Dean Caplow says, we “need to populate the Immigration Court bench with independent, highly qualified, experienced, non-political unbiased individuals with appropriate temperament.” It’s not “rocket science” 🚀— just intellectual excellence, courage, and a fair-minded approach to justice!
There are literally hundreds of extraordinarily well-qualified individuals out there in the private sector who could outperform the IJ in this case in every critical aspect of the job! Why hasn’t Garland actively recruited them for his courts? Why isn’t his system functioning correctly “on the retail level?”
Garland has the authority to take the bold action necessary to redirect, refocus, and re-populate his current parody of a court system to laser-focus on due process, fundamental fairness, judicial expertise in immigration and human rights, and efficiency (without sacrificing due process or decisional excellence).All of us who care about the future of American justice should be asking why he isn’t doing his job!
GW Law Immigration Clinic Director Professor Alberto Benítez & Co-Director Paulina Vera
Please join me and Professor Vera in congratulating Immigration Clinic client, R-A-, from Nigeria, and his student-attorneys, Olivia Russo, LinLin Teng, Kennady Peek, Lea Aoun, and Megan Elman. The client’s asylum application was filed on December 3, 2018, his interview at the Asylum Office was on September 3, 2021, and he was granted asylum on May 18, 2022. We received the approval notice yesterday. The above-captioned is what R-A- said upon learning about his asylum grant.
R-A- is a gay man and LGTBQ+ activist. Throughout his entire life, R-A- experienced bullying and threats and had to keep his dating life a secret. However, things got even worse for him once he started an LGTBQ+ online magazine that received international attention. His family disowned him. A former classmate also set him up and he was physically beaten, sexually assaulted, called derogatory names, blackmailed, and outed. Since coming to the U.S., R-A- has continued to work on his online publication and volunteer for other LGBTQ+ initiatives. He hopes to one day attend law school in the U.S.
Thanks for the update and for all you and your student attorneys do for American justice! Once again this shows the effect of expert representation of asylum seekers and the critical importance of winning cases at the first possible level, in this case the USCIS Asylum Office. Who knows what might have happened if this had been sent over to the “EOIR roulette wheel,” where life or death justice for immigrants has become a “high-stakes game of chance?” 🎰
Perhaps even more remarkably, most of the folks who participated in that “intentional misdirection” remain on the agency payroll under Garland, a number in their same positions.
The lack of an Attorney General who “gets it” (apparently a staple of Dem Administrations) and who is willing to clean house and make the necessary aggressive progressive reforms to restore due process at EOIR and throughout the Immigration bureaucracy is yet another reason why the work of clinics and other battalions of the NDPA remains so critical! With a Government whose contempt for Due Process is amply illustrated by foot-dragging on Title 42 revocation, bogus, justice-denying “Dedicated Dockets,” and an appellate body that cuts corners while eschewing positive asylum guidance that would save lives, advocates for respondents are the only folks seriously interested in carrying out our Constitution and insuring that the rule of law is honored.
If that sounds like an indictment of Garland’s “leadership” on human rights, racial justice, and immigrant justice, that’s because it is!
GW Law Immigration Clinic Director Professor Alberto Benítez & Co-Director Paulina Vera
Please join me and Professor Vera in congratulating Immigration Clinic client, T-Y-, from China, and his student-attorneys, Gisela Camba, Esder Chong, Jordan Nelson, Tessa Pulaski, and Julia Yang. The client’s asylum application was filed on April 6, 2018, his interview at the Asylum Office was on November 8, 2021, and he was granted asylum on May 17, 2022. We received the decision today. The above-captioned is what T-Y- said upon learning about his asylum grant.
T-Y- is a Muslim Uyghur, an ethnic and religious minority in China. Due to his decades-long work as an Uyghur activist, he was persecuted by the Chinese government. T-Y- was falsely imprisoned, sentenced to a ‘re-education camp’, physically and psychologically tortured, and had his movements restricted and monitored. Despite everything he has endured, T-Y- continues his Uyghur advocacy work from within the United States and has even consulted with U.S. politicians and government agencies about the treatment of Uyghurs in China.
Congratulations! Another job REALLY well done by Professors Benitez and Vera and their band of NDPA recruits at GW Law.
As Jason “The Asylumist” Dzubow says, lots of winnable cases out there if folks can get well-qualified representation and actually reach a merits determination before the Asylum Office or EOIR — no mean feat in such a backlogged system!
That raises the point of why wouldn’t a clearly well-prepared and grantable Uyghur case like this one be moved to the “front of the line” for expedited processing instead of sitting around for more than four years?
For years, both USCIS and EOIR have been “expediting” the wrong cases (known as “Aimless Docket Reshuffling”) in an ill-advised and failed attempt to use the legal asylum system as a “deterrent” by maximizing and prioritizing “anticipated denials.” Instead, they should be putting protection and excellence in preparation and advocacy first. It would actually free up more representation resources if advocates weren’t forced to “babysit” “ready for prime time” cases for years!
During that time, records must be constantly updated, memories fade, and witnesses can become unavailable. Attorneys on both sides move on. Judges retire. There are all sorts of “below the radar screen” costs to creating and maintaining a huge backlog. Unfortunately, it promotes the “refugee roulette” image of what is supposed to be a fair, expert, timely system (but isn’t).
In addition, many of the “haste makes waste” attempts to cut corners by prejudging and denying certain cases, or creating “defective in absentias” end up being reopened or remanded because of sloppy, substandard work.
What is the Government’s “vision” of how this system can be made to work in a fair and timely manner for all concerned?
The question I get asked the most as someone who went from being a Republican to a Democrat is: “What’s the biggest difference between the two parties?”
The answer: Every impulse Democrats have is defensive and every impulse Republicans have is offensive.
A report in the Washington Post this week showed these dynamics at play perfectly between Democrats and Republicans on the House Jan. 6 select committee. As the Post described, Democratic Rep. Stephanie Murphy (Fla.) insisted that the committee focus less on former President Trump and more on the security and intelligence failures that allowed the attack on the Capitol. In response, Republican Vice Chair Liz Cheney (Wyo.) argued that the committee should keep its focus on the former president.
This is the best illustration I have come across that demonstrates how different Republicans and Democrats approach things on a tactical and, I’d say, cellular level.
When Republicans have the reins of power, they do not hesitate to go after the very top. From Barack Obama’s birth certificate to Hillary Clinton’s emails and potentially Hunter Biden’s laptop, the GOP is unapologetic about pursuing witch hunts for political gain.
Democrats, on the other hand, are always pursuing lines of legitimate oversight reluctantly. At times, it feels like they are apologizing for doing the right thing.
I think back to Trump’s first impeachment and the hesitant posture displayed by the Democrats during those proceedings. It was almost as if they were forced into it, regretted that it came to this, and moved as fast as possible to get it over with.
Democrats controlled the House majority but never forced Trump administration officials with firsthand knowledge of the events that were at the center of the impeachment inquiry to testify, such as John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney or Rick Perry, and the Republican-controlled Senate predictably torpedoed any effort to compel them to testify.
History repeated itself during Trump’s second impeachment as firsthand witnesses like Mike Pence, Mark Meadows, Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, Rudolph W. Giuliani, etc., were never called to testify. Hillary Clinton, of course, was grilled by the Republican-led Benghazi committee for more than 11 hours.
It’s almost as if Democrats believe there is some prize awaiting them for showing what they would characterize as restraint. There isn’t.
. . . .
*********************
Read the complete article at the link.
This has been obvious in the Dems’ feckless approach to Immigration, and particularly the Immigration Courts, over the years.
Without enacting any significant legislation, the GOP instituted an overtly racist/nativist/restrictionist program. They negated existing laws, scorned the Constitution, abrogated log-standing international agreements, and aggressively and blatantly stacked the Federal Judiciary at all levels with far-right zealots. And they have gotten away with it!
Yet, even after successfully running on programs promising a restoration of the rule of law and the Constitution in immigration and human rights, Dems have been from feckless, to timid, to complicit in the GOP’s vile programs.
The GOP did not hesitate to “stack” the Immigration Court system at all levels with questionably qualified judges who lacked perspective, expertise, and a commitment to due process. The result was a dramatic plunge in the grant rates for asylum seekers, even though conditions in the primary sending countries have continued to worsen dramatically over the years.
No justification for what the GOP did, and no hesitation or self-doubts about doing it! Amid tons of criticism, they just plowed ahead and did it! They “played to the most extreme elements of their base” — nobody else! They weren’t scared to take extreme actions that most polls showed the majority of American’s didn’t favor!
By contrast, the Dems approach to immigration and human rights policy is a complete mess. And, worst of all, the Immigration Courts and EOIR remain largely as the Trump regime left them. Indeed, the backlog is growing at an astounding rate, as Garland flails and fails to bring on board the “best and brightest” judges and intellectual leaders to reform EOIR into the due-process oriented “model judiciary” that it was once intended to be!
Immigration courts are overrun with cases, and it’s only getting worse
Nolan Rappaport, opinion contributor
The immigration court has a backlog of more than 1.7 million cases. This means that the number of people waiting for a hearing is larger than the population of Phoenix, Ariz., or of Philadelphia, Pa., the fifth and sixth largest cities in the United States.
This isn’t a new problem, but it has gotten much worse recently. According to TRAC, a data distribution organization at Syracuse University, the growth of the backlog has been accelerating at a breakneck pace since the start of the Biden administration when it was “only” close to 1.3 million cases.
What is the administration doing to reduce the backlog?
Hiring more judges: Recent administrations have prioritized hiring more judges to lower the backlog. From fiscal 2014, to fiscal 2021, the number of judges has more than doubled, rising from 249 to 559. At the end of the first quarter in fiscal 2022, there were 578.
According to the Congressional Research Service, the backlog probably would continue to grow even if 100 more judges were hired. An additional 200 could reduce the backlog to just under 1.1 million, but it wouldn’t reach that level until fiscal 2031. It would take an additional 500 judges to eliminate the backlog entirely, and it wouldn’t happen until fiscal 2030.
Accelerated dockets: In May 2021, DHS announced a “dedicated docket” program to “more expeditiously and fairly” render decisions in the cases of certain families who are apprehended after making an illegal entry.
These families are placed in removal proceedings and then released into the interior of the country under the “Alternatives to Detention” program. This program currently is monitoring more than 227,508 families and single individuals.
The Florence Projectclaims that the Obama and Trump administrations attempted these “dedicated dockets” to reduce the backlog and it not only failed, but led to widespread due process violations and undermined access to legal counsel.
The Vera Institute of Justiceopposes the program because it “forces newly arriving, asylum-seeking families through rushed ‘rocket docket’ court proceedings without guaranteeing legal representation for all, depriving families of fairness and due process.”
In any case, it just speeds up the processing of new additions to the immigration court caseload. It does nothing to reduce the size of the backlog, and it is very unfair to migrants who have been waiting for a hearing for up to five years.
It also may hamper efforts to reduce the backlog. Georgetown law school professor Paul Schmidt points out that when dedicated docket judges are not available for cases on the general docket, it places extra burdens on their judicial colleagues who are handling the general docket cases.
Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an Executive Branch Immigration Law Expert for three years. He subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years. Follow him at https://nolanrappaport.blogspot.com
******************
Go over to The Hill at the above link to read the complete article.
Thanks Nolan for continuing to “shine the light” on this critical issue that might appear to be “below the radar screen” but actually threatensthe stability of our entire legal system!⚖️
As I’ve said many times, Aimless Docket Reshuffling (“ADR”), engaged in to some extent by Administrations of both parties, is NOT the answer. It’s a huge part of the problem!
