"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.
Stephen Miller & Count Olaf. Despite promises to the contrary, the Biden Administration still channels Stephen Miller in its approach to kids in court. And, now they are working with GOP nativists and wobbly Dems in Congress to make things even worse, for kids and other asylum seekers! Evil Twins, Notorious Child Abusers
A new “white paper” investigation from UCLA Center for Immigration Law and Policy documents shocking abuses already being inflicted on children Immigration Court even as Congress and the Administration look for more ways to strip asylum seekers of legal rights and human dignity:
NO FAIR DAY: THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION’S TREATMENT OF CHILDREN IN IMMIGRATION COURT 3
alone, while others are in “consolidated proceedings” with their fami-
lies. The immigration system, and the Biden administration, has failed
both. Many of these children proceeded without counsel, and a huge
number of children have been ordered removed for failure to appear.
We explain why these two policies—the imposition of in absentia
removal orders against unrepresented children and the failure to
provide counsel—are unlawful, and we provide recommendations
for how the Biden administration can remedy this crisis.
. . . .
It should be obvious that immigration court proceedings are far too
complex for children to navigate without legal representation. As
Secretary Mayorkas acknowledged earlier this year, “a nine-year-old
child cannot navigate the immigration system.”44 Attorneys General
under the Obama administration made similar statements, as had
the government’s own expert in litigation challenging the failure to
provide counsel for children several years ago.45 Prior to that conces-
sion, one supervisory immigration judge was extensively ridiculed
for stating his view that he could teach three- and four-year-olds to
understand immigration law and represent themselves in immi-
gration court.46 Yet, despite the obvious absurdity of that view, the
Biden administration’s immigration courts—like the immigration
courts of all prior administrations—recognize no age below which
children cannot proceed without a lawyer in court.
. . . .
CONCLUSION
Despite taking some strong symbolic and practical steps in its early
days, the Biden administration has failed children in immigration
court under its watch. In the last three years, Immigration Judges
have issued removal orders against tens of thousands of children in
violation of basic due process principles. Though the administration
has not enforced most of those removal orders, nothing will stop a
future administration from doing so without ever providing those
children a fair day in court.
But there is time to reverse course. We urge the administration to
adopt the concrete recommendations laid out in this paper: prohibit
the issuance of in absentia removal orders against unrepresented
children; terminate the Dedicated Docket; and ensure legal represen-
tation for all children in removal proceedings. To do so would make
real the Biden administration’s promise of a fair and humane immi-
gration system for children.
******************
Read the complete report at the above link.
This should be a fixable problem! Instead, Congress and the Administration are fixated on making things worse for children and other legal asylum seekers at the border. What’s happening in the Senate now is neither a “negotiation” nor does it have much to do with “national security.”
It’s mostly about bullying the most vulnerable while diverting attention from the failure of all three branches of Government to address human migration and human rights in an rational, lawful, and constructive manner.
Artificially inflating and manipulating “in absentia” order statistics has been a long-time practice of EOIR under Administrations of both parties. The DOJ and EOIR use their own unfair procedures to paint a false picture of individuals evading the system.
In reality, statistics show that the overwhelming majority of those able to secure representation and therefore understand the “system” want fair merits decisions on their asylum applications.
But, as many who, unlike Garland and his minions, have actually practiced in the dysfunctional Immigration Courts know, getting a timely merits hearing on meritorious, already-prepared cases can be “mission impossible” in a system wedded to “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and lacking in dynamic due-process-focused expert leadership!
Additionally, “notice” problems at EOIR are endemic — now reaching the Supremes for the third time (after being blown out on the first two trips) in a “supreme dereliction of duty” by Garland’s DOJ. Haphazard notice procedures and endless delays are also major contributors to the abuse of children in Immigraton Court.
Melissa Del Bosque Border Reporter PHOTO: Melissadelbosque.comCaitlyn Yates Fellow Strauss Center for International Law & Security PHOTO: Strauss Center
This podcast from Melissa Del Bosque of The Border Chronicle and Caitlyn Yates, who actually works with migrants in the Darien Gap, gives real life perspective on the humanitarian crisis and all the reasons why more cruelty, punishment, and deadly deterrence isn’t going to solve the flow of forced migrants. But, unhappily, policy makers aren’t interested in the voices of those who actually have experience with forced migrants, nor are they interested in learning from the forced migrants themselves — a logical — if constantly ignored — starting point for making sound policy decisions!
Migration and human rights experts have excelled in court and academia. Yet, they have been consigned to wander the political wilderness, their wisdom, expertise, and real world solutions are routinely ignored or mindlessly rejected by both political parties. Colmar – Unterlinden Museum – The Isenheim Altarpiece 1512-16 by Matthias Grünewald (ca 1470-1528) – Visit of Saint Anthony the Great to Saint Paul the Hermit in the Wilderness Creative Commons
Four “takeaways” on what a consensus on migration should be:
Human migration is real;
Forced migration is largely beyond the unilateral control of any one nation;
Deterrence alone won’t stop migration;
More legal pathways for migration are necessary.
We’re a long way from that needed consensus right now!
A robust asylum system is essential to national security. A closed border is as dangerous as an open border. If you close the asylum system, they will just cross illegally. Republicans need the border out of control. This is a trap!
*****************
That’s it in a nutshell! Reality and practicality have nothing to do with it. It’s about the GOP creating chaos and fanning hate! Unhappily, Dems fall for it — every time! That’s why American democracy is on the ropes!
The Dems have ready access to the greatest “treasure trove” of real life expertise and truth about the border in history. Yet, they routinely ignore it and let themselves be “hoodwinked” by GOP nativists peddling lies, hate, and myths. It’s seriously undermining our democracy while squandering human lives and potential!
There’s deep irony in “national security” being disingenuously parroted by a party lead by a demagogue who encouraged actual insurrection against the U.S. Government! Yet Dems and the “mainstream media” fall for it! Gimmie a break!
WASHINGTON (AP) – President Joe Biden is taking a more active role in Senate negotiations about changes to the immigration system that Republicans are demanding in exchange for providing money to Ukraine in its fight against Russia and Israel for the war with Hamas.
The Democratic president has said he is willing to make “significant compromises on the border” as Republicans block the wartime aid in Congress. The White House is expected to get more involved in talks this week as the impasse over changes to border policy has deepened and the money remaining for Ukraine has dwindled.
Republican Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma, who is leading the negotiations, pointed to the surge of people entering the U.S. from Mexico and said “it is literally spiraling out of control.”
But many immigration advocates, including some Democrats, say some of the changes being proposed would gut protections for people who desperately need help and would not really ease the chaos at the border.
Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, the top Democratic bargainer, said the White House would take a more active role in the talks. But he also panned Republican policy demands so far as “unreasonable.”
. . . .
Critics say the problem is that most people do not end up getting asylum when their case finally makes it to immigration court. But they say migrants know that if they claim asylum, they essentially will be allowed to stay in America for years.
“People aren’t necessarily coming to apply for asylum as much to access that asylum adjudication process,” said Andrew Arthur, a former immigration court judge and fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for less immigration in the U.S.
Some of what lawmakers are discussing would raise the bar that migrants need to meet during that initial credible fear interview. Those who do not meet it would be sent home.
But Paul Schmidt, a retired immigration court judge who blogs about immigration court issues, said the credible fear interview was never intended to be so tough. Migrants are doing the interview soon after arriving at the border from an often arduous and traumatizing journey, he said. Schmidt said the interview is more of an “initial screening” to weed out those with frivolous asylum claims.
Schmidt also questioned the argument that most migrants fail their final asylum screening. He said some immigration judges apply overly restrictive standards and that the system is so backlogged that it is hard to know exactly what the most recent and reliable statistics are.
. . . .
WHAT MIGHT THESE CHANGES DO?
Much of the disagreement over these proposed changes comes down to whether people think deterrence works.
Arthur, the former immigration court judge, thinks it does. He said changes to the credible fear asylum standards and restrictions on the use of humanitarian parole would be a “game changer.” He said it would be a “costly endeavor” as the government would have to detain and deport many more migrants than today. But, he argued, eventually the numbers of people arriving would drop.
But others, like Schmidt, the retired immigration court judge, say migrants are so desperate, they will come anyway and make dangerous journeys to evade Border Patrol.
“Desperate people do desperate things,” he said.
*****************************
Ignoring both the powerful forces that drive human migration and folks who actually work with migrants at the border and in foreign countries seems like a totally insane way to “debate policy.” But, then, whoever said this “nativist-driven debate” on enhanced cruelty, dismantling the rule of law, and de-humanization is rational?
You can read Rebecca’s full article, with an “accessible” explanation of what’s at stake and what’s being proposed at the above link.
BIA Asylum Panel In Action — After three years of ignoring experts on how to fix asylum and the border, the Biden Administration appears ready to join GOP nativists in throwing vulnerable legal asylum seekers and their supporters “under the bus.” Cartels and criminal smugglers undoubtedly are looking forward to “filling the gap” left by the demise of the legal asylum system! They will be “the only game in town’” for those seeking life-saving refuge! There is no record of increased cruelty and suspension of the rule of law “solving” migration flows, although an increase in exploitation and death of migrants seems inevitable. Perhaps, that’s just “collateral damage” to U.S. politicos. Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:
[T]he Board found that Sebastian-Sebastian failed to demonstrate a nexus between her particular social groups and the harm she faced. In its denial of CAT protection, the Board found that Sebastian-Sebastian failed to demonstrate that she is more likely than not to be tortured if removed to Guatemala. On appeal, Sebastian-Sebastian argues that the Board’s conclusions were not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Because the Board’s failure to make necessary findings as to the asylum and withholding of removal claims is erroneous, but its conclusion as to Sebastian-Sebastian’s CAT claim is supported by substantial evidence, we GRANT Sebastian-Sebastian’s petition for review in part, DENY in part, VACATE the Board’s denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal, and REMAND to the Board for reconsideration consistent with our opinion.”
[Hats off to Jaime B. Naini and Ashley Robinson! N.B., the motion for stay of removal was denied. I have a call in to the attorneys to find out if she was removed…]
Rather than looking for ways to restrict or eliminate asylum, Congress and the Administration should be concerned about quality-control and expertise reforms in asylum adjudication, including a long-overdue independent Article I Immigration Court! Once again, the BIA violates Circuit precedent to deny asylum.
The answer to systemically unfair, (intentionally) unduly restrictive interpretations, and often illegal treatment of asylum seekers by the USG should not be to further punish asylum seekers! It should be fixing the asylum adjudication system to comply with due process, fundamental fairness, best practices, and professionalism!
Casey Carter Swegman Director of Public Policy at the Tahirih Justice Center PHOTO: Tahirih Justice Center
Here’s a statement from the Tahirih Justice Center about the disgraceful “negotiations” now taking place in Congress:
The Tahirih Justice Center is outraged by the news that the administration appears willing to play politics with human lives. These attacks on immigrants and people seeking asylum represent not simply a broken promise, but a betrayal and we urge the President and Congress to reverse course.
“I am gravely concerned that, if passed, these policies will further trap and endanger immigrant survivors of gender-based violence. Selling out asylum seekers and immigrant communities under the guise of ‘border security’ in order to pass a supplemental funding package is absolutely unacceptable,” said Casey Carter Swegman, Director of Public Policy at the Tahirih Justice Center. “And we know the impact of these cruel, deterrence-based policies will land disproportionately on already marginalized immigrants of color. I urge the White House and Congress not to sell out immigrants and asylum seekers for a funding deal.”
Every day, people fleeing persecution – including survivors of gender-based violence – arrive at our border having escaped unspeakable violence. Raising the fear standard, enacting a travel ban, putting a cap on asylum seekers, and expanding expedited removal nationwide (to name just a few proposals that have been floated in recent days) will do nothing to solve the challenges at the southern border and serve only to create more confusion, narrow pathways to humanitarian relief, increase the risk of revictimization and suffering, and punish immigrants seeking safety and a life of dignity.
These kinds of proposals double down on the climate of fear that many immigrants in this country already face on a day-to-day basis and will disproportionately impact Black, Brown and Indigenous immigrant communities.Immigrants should not be met with hostile and unmanageable policies that violate their humanity as well as their legal rights. We can and must do better.
These are “negotiations” in which those whose legal rights and humanity are being “compromised” (that is, tossed away) have no voice at the table as politicos ponder what will best suit their own interests.
Courtney Greene Accredited Representative Catholic Charities of Central Texas VIISTA Villanova Grad PHOTO: Linkedin
Dear Judge Schmidt,
I hope this email finds you well, with the holiday season upon us.
I wanted to write and tell you again how much the training last spring stands out in my mind as a highlight for 2023. I received my full accreditation in June and have represented three different clients in proceedings so far. The judges in San Antonio have been very open to dismissing cases, and two of the three cases were dismissed as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion! Our clients have been able to apply for asylum affirmatively and hopefully will be successful, even though we anticipate a very long wait for their interviews. I have also completed U visa filings, a T visa filing, family petitions and lots and lots of work permits. Mailing every filing fills me with so much hope.
I hope that I will get a chance to see you again at a future VIISTA event!
Best,
Courtney
*******************
Thanks so much Courtney!
Rather than looking for expensive ways to diminish asylum-seekers’ rights and inflict more cruelty, Congress and the Administration should be investing in cost-effective programs like VIISTA that actually work, protect rights, and have promise for the future!
Building hope rather than intentionally causing despair!😎 Why don’t our public officials “get it?”
Some Article III Judges recognize that “deport at any cost” at EOIR is a “bad look” for American justice! https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
In this case, involving a woman and her two children, EOIR engaged in “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” by unilaterally moving the respondents hearing to an earlier date — arguably a due process denial in and of itself given the coordination and preparation necessary to competently present merits cases in Immigration Court. Then, EOIR failed to give legally sufficient notice of the arbitrarily accelerated hearing — a common occurrence in this dysfunctional and poorly administered system, as most practitioners would tell you.
Indeed, the defective notice was returned to EOIR, so the IJ knew that the respondent was never properly notified of the hearing. Nevertheless, ICE improperly moved for an in absentia order and the the IJ erroneously granted it.
Upon learning of the illegal “in absentia” order entered against her, the respondent promptly moved to reopen, providing unrebutted evidence of non-receipt of notice. The IJ erroneously denied the motion.
On appeal, the BIA compounded this farce by wrongfully affirming the IJ’s clearly wrong decision. Instead of confessing error, OIL advanced frivolous arguments for dismissal, falsely claiming dilatory action by the respondent, even though there is no “time bar” on a motion to reopen for defective notice.
The Ninth Circuit summarily reversed in an (unfortunately) unpublished decision. Circuit Judges Friedland and Paez, obviously and justifiably upset by this totally preventable travesty, were motivated to enter a separate concurring opinion commenting on the unprofessional “clown show” 🤡 operating at EOIR:
FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judge, with whom Circuit Judge PAEZ joins, concurring:
When the date of a removal hearing changes, the Government is required to provide a Notice of Hearing (“NOH”) containing the new date and time. 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(2)(A). If a person fails to appear for her hearing, she shall be removed in absentia only “if the Service establishes by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that the written notice [of the hearing] was so provided.” Id. § 1229a(b)(5)(A).
Here, when Ontiveros Lozano’s removal hearing date was moved up, the Government mailed her an NOH, but it was returned as undeliverable over a month before her scheduled hearing. Ontiveros Lozano therefore indisputably did not receive the required notice, and the Government knew this. Yet the Government requested and received an in absentia removal order against Ontiveros Lozano when she did not appear for her scheduled hearing. In doing so, the Government violated the explicit statutory requirement in § 1229a(b)(5)(A).
The Government now argues that Ontiveros Lozano’s removal proceedings should not be reopened because she was not diligent in discovering the Government’s conduct and because she has forfeited her challenge to the entry of the in absentia removal order.
The Government’s duty should be to seek justice, not to deport people at any cost. In my view, it lost sight of that duty here.
The full ugliness and dysfunction of EOIR and the DOJ are on display here:
Aimless Docket Reshuffling in action;
Defective notice;
Violation of statutory requirements;
Defective administration of justice;
Unethical actions by ICE counsel in requesting an in absentia order knowing full well that the respondent had never received notice;
Stunningly poor trial judging (2X);
Horrible appellate judging;
Frivolous defense of an unjust decision by OIL.
This system is broken! It’s promoting injustice and clogging the Article III Courts with poor quality work product by USG “judges” and attorneys who aren’t up to or well-qualified for their jobs. The focus on “removal at any cost” rather than due process and justice is unconstitutional and unethical. It comes from poor leadership from the Attorney General on down! The only question is why isn’t anybody in charge motivated to fix it!
A quarter century ago, the “EOIR vision” was a noble one: “Through teamwork and innovation be the world’s best administrative tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all!” It was even posted on the website! Not only has that noble vision disappeared, both literally and figuratively, but over the last two decades Administrations of both parties have degraded justice and functionality at EOIR — some intentionally, some negligently, sometimes a toxic combination of the two.
In the absence of Article I legislation, what EOIR and the DOJ immigration bureaucracy need is a thorough housecleaning, new dynamic, due-process-focused expert leadership, and better judges at both levels. Letting EOIR continue its “death spiral,” as the Biden Administration has done, is totally unacceptable!🤯
Many thanks and appreciation to one of our newest Round Table 🛡️ members, Judge Sandy Hom, recently retired from the New York Immigration Court, for spotting this unpublished opinion and forwarding it! It’s the kind of common purpose, collegiality, and teamwork that is largely absent from today’s dysfunctional EOIR!
The agency is still considering referred applicants from the previous announcement posted September 25, 2023, under announcement number, IJ-12116877-23-VG. If you applied under that announcement and were referred for consideration, you need not reapply under this announcement.
This is an Excepted Service position. Upon completion of the required trial period, the position will be permanent. Additional positions may be filled from this announcement within 90 days of certificate issuance.
This position is in the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), Office of the Chief Immigration Judge. EOIR seeks highly-qualified individuals to join our team of expert professionals who serve as immigration adjudicators in this important Agency.
EOIR plays a pivotal role in the administration of the Nation’s immigration system. EOIR’s mission is to adjudicate immigration cases fairly, equitably, and efficiently at the trial and appellate level, governed by due process and the rule of law. Under delegated authority from the Attorney General, EOIR conducts immigration court proceedings, appellate reviews, and other administrative hearings, applying the immigration laws while ensuring that adjudicators are impartial, that laws are applied humanely and equitably, that all parties are treated with respect and dignity, and that cases are resolved expeditiously and in accordance with the Administration’s priorities and all applicable laws and regulations.
EOIR consists of three adjudicatory components: the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge, which is responsible for managing the numerous immigration courts located throughout the United States where immigration judges adjudicate individual cases; the Board of Immigration Appeals, which primarily conducts appellate reviews of the immigration judges’ decisions; and the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer, which adjudicates immigration-related employment cases. EOIR’s Headquarters is located in Falls Church, Virginia, about 10 miles from downtown Washington, DC.
As the federal agency whose mission is to ensure the fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans, the Department of Justice is committed to fostering a diverse and inclusive work environment. To build and retain a workforce that reflects the diverse experiences and perspectives of the American people, we welcome applicants from the many communities, identities, races, ethnicities, backgrounds, abilities, religions, and cultures of the United States who share our commitment to public service.
Job Description
Immigration Judges preside in formal, quasi-judicial hearings. Proceedings before Immigration Judges include but are not limited to removal, and bond adjudications, and involve issues of removability as well as applications for relief such as asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture, cancellation of removal, and adjustment of status.
Immigration Judges make decisions that are final, subject to appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals. In connection with these proceedings, Immigration Judges exercise certain discretionary powers as provided by law, and are required to exercise independent judgment in reaching final decisions. Immigration Judges may be required to conduct hearings in penal institutions and other remote locations
Qualifications
In order to qualify for the Immigration Judge position, applicants must meet all of the following minimum qualifications:
Education: Applicants must possess a LL.B., J.D., or LL.M. 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
Experience: Applicants must have seven (7) years of post-bar admission experience as a licensed attorney preparing for, participating in, and/or appealing court or administrative agency proceedings at the Federal, State or local level. Qualifying trial experience involves cases in which a complaint was filed with a court or administrative agency, or a charging document (e.g., indictment, notice of violation, or information) was issued by a court, administrative entity, a grand jury, or appropriate military authority. Relevant administrative experience includes cases in which a formal procedure was initiated by a governmental administrative body.
NOTE: Qualifying experience is calculated only after bar admission.
IN DESCRIBING YOUR EXPERIENCE, PLEASE BE CLEAR AND SPECIFIC. WE MAY NOT MAKE ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING YOUR EXPERIENCE. If your resume does not support your assessment questionnaire answers, we will not allow credit for your response(s). Ensure that your resume contains your full name, address, phone number, email address, and employment information. Each position listed on your resume must include: From/To dates of employment (MM/YYYY-MM/YYYY or MM/YYYY to Present); agency/employer name; position title; Federal grade level(s) held, if applicable; hours, if less than full time; and duties performed. In addition, any experience on less than a full time basis must specify the percentage and length of time spent in performance of such duties.
Additional information
This is an Excepted Service position, subject to a probationary period. The initial appointment is for a period not to exceed 24 months. Conversion to a permanent position is contingent upon appointment by the Attorney General.
Additional positions may be filled from this announcement within 90 days of certificate issuance.
Alternative work schedule options are available. Immigration Judges’ tour of duty may include Saturdays and Sundays.
There is no formal rating system for applying veterans’ preference to Immigration Judge appointments in the excepted service; however, the Department of Justice considers veterans’ preference eligibility as a positive factor in Immigration Judge hiring. Applicants eligible for veterans’ preference must claim their status when completing their application in the online application process and attach supporting documentation. (See the “Required Documents” section.)
Many vacancies (see below vacancy link for locations): Location Negotiable After Selection
Travel
50% or less – You may be expected to travel for this position.
Relocation Expenses
Not authorized
* * *
Department Policies
Equal Employment Opportunity: The U.S. Department of Justice is an Equal Opportunity/Reasonable Accommodation Employer. Except where otherwise provided by law, there will be no discrimination because of race, color, religion, national origin, sex – including gender identity, sexual orientation, or pregnancy status – or because of age (over 40), physical or mental disability, protected genetic information, parental status, marital status, political affiliation, or any other non-merit based factor. The Department of Justice welcomes and encourages applications from persons with physical and mental disabilities. The Department is firmly committed to satisfying its affirmative obligations under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, to ensure that persons with disabilities have every opportunity to be hired and advanced on the basis of merit within the Department of Justice. For more information, please review our full EEO Statement.
Reasonable Accommodations: This agency provides reasonable accommodation to applicants with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation for any part of the application and hiring process, please notify the agency. Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis.
Outreach and Recruitment for Qualified Applicants with Disabilities: The Department encourages qualified applicants with disabilities, including individuals with targeted/severe disabilities to apply in response to posted vacancy announcements. Qualified applicants with targeted/severe disabilities may be eligible for direct hire, non-competitive appointment under Schedule A (5 C.F.R. § 213.3102(u)) hiring authority. Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to contact one of the Department’s Disability Points of Contact (DPOC) to express an interest in being considered for a position. See list of DPOCs.
Suitability and Citizenship: It is the policy of the Department to achieve a drug-free workplace and persons selected for employment will be required to pass a drug test which screens for illegal drug use prior to final appointment. Employment is also contingent upon the completion and satisfactory adjudication of a background investigation. Congress generally prohibits agencies from employing non-citizens within the United States, except for a few narrow exceptions as set forth in the annual Appropriations Act (see, https://www.usajobs.gov/Help/working-in-government/non-citizens/Links to other government and non-government sites will typically appear with the “external link” icon to indicate that you are leaving the Department of Justice website when you click the link.). Pursuant to DOJ component policies, only U.S. citizens are eligible for employment with the Executive Office for Immigration Review, U.S. Trustee’s Offices, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Unless otherwise indicated in a particular job advertisement, qualifying non-U.S. citizens meeting immigration and appropriations law criteria may apply for employment with other DOJ organizations. However, please be advised that the appointment of non-U.S. citizens is extremely rare; such appointments would be possible only if necessary to accomplish the Department’s mission and would be subject to strict security requirements. Applicants who hold dual citizenship in the U.S. and another country will be considered on a case-by-case basis. All DOJ employees are subject to a residency requirement. Candidates must have lived in the United States for at least three of the past five years. The three-year period is cumulative, not necessarily consecutive. Federal or military employees, or dependents of federal or military employees serving overseas, are excepted from this requirement. This is a Department security requirement which is waived only for extreme circumstances and handled on a case-by-case basis.
Veterans: There is no formal rating system for applying veterans’ preference to attorney appointments in the excepted service; however, the Department of Justice considers veterans’ preference eligibility as a positive factor in attorney hiring. Applicants eligible for veterans’ preference must include that information in their cover letter or resume and attach supporting documentation (e.g., the DD 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty and other supporting documentation) to their submissions. Although the “point” system is not used, per se, applicants eligible to claim 10-point preference must submit Standard Form (SF) 15, Application for 10-Point Veteran Preference, and submit the supporting documentation required for the specific type of preference claimed (visit the OPM website, www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/SF15.pdfLinks to other government and non-government sites will typically appear with the “external link” icon to indicate that you are leaving the Department of Justice website when you click the link. for a copy of SF 15, which lists the types of 10-point preferences and the required supporting document(s). Applicants should note that SF 15 requires supporting documentation associated with service- connected disabilities or receipt of nonservice-connected disability pensions to be dated 1991 or later except in the case of service members submitting official statements or retirement orders from a branch of the Armed Forces showing that their retirement was due to a permanent service-connected disability or that they were transferred to the permanent disability retired list (the statement or retirement orders must indicate that the disability is 10% or more).
USAO Residency Requirement: Assistant United States Attorneys must reside in the district to which appointed or within 25 miles thereof. See 28 U.S.C. 545 for district specific information.
* * *
This and other vacancy announcements can be found under Attorney Vacancies and Volunteer Legal Internships. The Department of Justice cannot control further dissemination and/or posting of information contained in this vacancy announcement. Such posting and/or dissemination is not an endorsement by the Department of the organization or group disseminating and/or posting the information.
Updated December 1, 2023
*****************
Yes, I’ve been highly critical of EOIR, particularly the BIA. But, to change the system for the better, we need the “best and brightest judges” at the “retail level” — the U.S. Immigration Courts!
In the process of denying asylum to a family targeted by gangs in Mexico, the BIA says:
The Immigration Judge’s finding that the cartel was motived by a desire to control the respondents’ land rather than their family membership is a permissible view of the evidence and is not clearly erroneous.
This negative finding by the IJ was “permissible,” not “compelled.” That language admits that other fact-findings on the same evidence could also be “permissible.” Much depends on the individual Immigration Judge’s frame of reference and willingness to look for “reasons to protect” rather than defaulting to “reasons to reject.”
So, what if the IJ were able to see and understand asylum from the standpoint of the applicant, rather than defaulting to the EOIR “any reason to deny” approach? Fairer fact-findings below would require more careful review by the BIA. Rather than just being able to mindlessly affirm adverse findings below, the BIA would basically be legally bound to uphold more positive findings unless “clearly erroneous.”
Of course in their haste to deny some BIA panels are prone to violate the “clearly erroneous” standard to “get to no.” But, that increases the chances of Circuit reversal. See, e.g., Crespin Valladares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117 (4th Cir. 2011) (my case from Arlington).
Additionally, DHS can’t and doesn’t appeal every asylum grant, particularly when they are “fact bound.” I actually had ICE Assistant Chief Counsel say on the record in waiving appeal that while they respectfully disagreed with my fact-findings, they recognized that they were not “clearly erroneous” for purposes of appeal. (Other times they actually agreed after I had stated my detailed findings and analysis, sometimes actually repeating during closing arguments the basic analysis I would have reached on the record we had just made.)
Better judging below can actually cut off and discourage backlog building “let’s spin the bottle” appeals by DHS encouraged by the BIA’s systemic failure to consistently uphold the rights of asylum seekers and their “unduly restrictive” interpretations of asylum law!
Buried amongst the morass of poor administration and bad appellate judging at EOIR, many “true expert” IJs are making great decisions and saving lives on a daily basis. One of the “best kept secrets” at EOIR — often intentionally obscured by both EOIR and the media (not to mention GOP White Nationalist nativists) — is that as of this summer over half of all those who passed “credible fear” — 55% — received asylum grants if they were actually able to get to merits hearings at today’s backlogged EOIR!See, e.g., https://humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Asylum-grant-rates-fact-sheet-August-2023.pdf.
That’s an impressive rate, given that the system is stacked against asylum applicants! It also highlights the total insanity of today’s discussions on the Hill of how to artificially heighten standards to bar asylum seekers and promote more arbitrary wrongful denials of life-saving protection. What’s needed is better judging and more realistic and humane policies, NOT more cruelty and misapplications of asylum law!
As I have pointed out along with others, asylum grant rates would be much higher with better judges at EOIR and better precedents from the BIA. Better guidance would mean more cases granted at the Asylum Office and Immigration Court levels and a more timely and efficient system that advances and promotes due process, rather than inhibiting it!
But, it can’t all be done “from the outside!” Better Immigration Judges — true asylum experts with “hands on” experience representing applicants before EOIR and the Asylum Office — are essential to rebuilding EOIR as a functional court system.
For example, one of the expert recommendations from the very recent Women’s Refugee Commission study of asylum reception, resettlement, and processing was that: “One pro se assistance goal is to incentivize immigration judges to take a closer look at pro se asylum cases.”
But, this laudable goal presupposes Immigration Judges who are experts in asylum law and able to “work their way through” some of the inherent barriers to justice in pro se Immigration Court cases rather than submitting to the “artificial production pressures and any reason to deny culture” that still exists at much of EOIR. Sadly, not all current IJs have this ability. Moreover, the BIA has provided defective leadership and guidance. EOIR judicial training on asylum does not measure up to much of that readily available in the private/NGO sector. See, e.g.,VIISTA Villanova.
Many practitioners who have contacted me here at “Courtside” lament that their lives and their client’s futures would be better if they only were appearing before Immigration Judges who actually understood asylum law from a protection standpoint. They are frustrated by having their fine presentations and great arguments “shrugged off” with “predetermined boiler plate denials” citing negative language from the BIA — often ignoring what actually happened or was proved at trials.
Instead of being destined to forever be frustrated by EOIR’s shortcomings, YOU now have a chance to “be that judge” — the one who understands asylum law, has seen the defects in EOIR decision-making, who doesn’t view denial as “preordained,” and will require both parties fairly to meet their burdens. (Ironically, there are many places where the asylum regulations still place the burden of proof on DHS, even if many IJs and BIA panels are unwilling to enforce them.)
So, get in those applications for EOIR judgeships! It’s a great way to show leadership by improving the system from the inside while saving lives in the process! Better judges for a better America — starting at the “retail level!”
Professor Mary Holper Associate Clinical Professor Director of the Immigration Clinic Associate Dean for Experiential Learning Boston College Law PHOTO: BC Law
Here’s the brief expertly prepared for us by NDPA All-Star Mary Holper and her team of student attorneys at Boston College Legal Services LAB Immigration Clinic:
As we argue, the BIA’s action here violated their own precedent in Matter of Morales-Morales, 28 I. & N. Dec. 714 (BIA 2023). As stated in our brief:
In Morales-Morales, the case in which the BIA first held that it could equitably toll a notice of appeal deadline, the BIA stated that the quintessential example of an extraordinary circumstance warranting equitable tolling is when “a party uses a guaranteed delivery service, and the service fails to fulfill its guarantee.” See Morales-Morales, 28 I. & N. Dec. at 717. When presented with exactly those facts, however—FedEx’s Priority Overnight service failed to deliver Ms. Diaz-Valdez’s notice of appeal on time, violating its guarantee—the BIA arbitrarily and capriciously refused to equitably toll the deadline.
One could well ask why Garland is spending Government time and resources defending the BIA’s erroneous and unjust actions. No wonder EOIR can’t help building more and more backlog — much of it through poor quality, anti-immigrant decision-making that causes unnecessary delays, confusion, gross inconsistencies, and contributes to the dreaded “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” — an endemic problem at EOIR!
Thanks again to Mary and her team for their outstanding help. Also, as pointed out in the intro to the brief, I joined in my individual capacity, NOT as a representative of the Round Table, Georgetown Law, or any other group or entity with which I am associated.
Jennifer Habercorn and Burgess Everett report for Politico:
A growing number of Senate Democrats appear open to making it harder for migrants to seek asylum in order to secure Republican support for aiding Ukraine and Israel.
They are motivated not just by concern for America’s embattled allies. They also believe changes are needed to help a migration crisis that is growing more dire and to potentially dull the political sting of border politics in battleground states before the 2024 elections.
“Look, I think the border needs some attention. I am one that thinks it doesn’t hurt,” said Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), one of the Senate’s most vulnerable Democrats in next year’s midterm election.
Tester said he’s eager to see if a bipartisan group of negotiators can come up with an agreement on a policy issue as elusive as immigration. While he refused to commit to supporting a deal until he sees its details, he didn’t rule out backing stronger border requirements. And he’s not alone.
“I am certainly okay with [border policy] being a part of a national security supplemental,” said Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), another Democrat facing reelection next year. On changes to asylum policy, she said: “I would like to see us make some bipartisan progress, which has eluded us for years. The system’s broken.”
. . . .
******************
Professor Karen Musalo Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Hastings Law
Meanwhile, the GOP’s proposal to essentially end asylum — going well beyond the unfair and unduly restrictive policies already imposed by the Administration — has been condemned in the strongest possible terms by human rights and immigration experts. For example, here’s what Professor Karen Musalo, Founder & Director of the Center For Gender & Refugee Studies at Hastings Law, and an internationally-renowned human rights expert, said yesterday:
CGRS Urges Senators to Reject GOP Push to End Asylum
Nov 28, 2023
As negotiations over President Biden’s supplemental funding request continue, the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS) urges lawmakers to reject Republican-led proposals that would upend the U.S. asylum system and eviscerate life-saving protections for people fleeing persecution and torture. If enacted, they would erase our longstanding tradition of welcoming asylum seekers and lead to the wrongful return of refugees to countries where they face persecution or torture, in violation of international law.
“These radical proposals amount to a complete abandonment of the U.S. government’s legal and moral obligations to extend protection to refugees fleeing persecution,” Karen Musalo, Director of the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS), said today. “In practice, they would result in the persecution, torture, and deaths of families, children, and adults seeking safe haven at our nation’s doorstep. It is utterly shameful that Republican lawmakers are attempting to exploit the budget negotiations process to advance an extremist, anti-immigrant and anti-refugee agenda. The lives of people seeking asylum are not political bargaining chips. We urge lawmakers to join Senator Padilla and other congressional leaders in rejecting these cynical proposals.”
Read the complete Politico article at the first link above.
To me, expressions like “attention” and “bipartisan progress” used by Dem politicos in connection with the Southern border are “code words” for appeasing the GOP nativist right by agreeing to “more border militarization” and “abrogation of the human rights of refugees and asylees!”
I see little “attention” or “bipartisan progress” being discussed on measures that, unlike the GOP “end of asylum/uber enforcement” proposals, would actually address the humanitarian situation on the border (and elsewhere) in a constructive and positive manner:
More, better trained, expert Immigration Judges and Asylum Officers;
Organized resettlement assistance and expedited work authorization for asylum applicants;
Legal assistance for asylum seekers;
An independent Article I Immigration Court;
Revision of the refugee definition to more clearly cover forms of gender-based persecution;
Increased DHS funding for sophisticated undercover and anti-smuggling operations targeting smugglers and cartels;
Adjustment of status for long-term TPS holders.
These are the types effective measures that have long been recommended by experts, yet widely ignored or even directly contravened by those in power. The negative results of “enforcement only” and “extreme cruelty” at the border are obvious in today’s continuing humanitarian situation.
The idea that a forced migration emergency will be “solved” by more draconian enforcement, eradication of human rights, and elimination of due process, as touted by GOP nativists, is a preposterous! Yet, many Dems seem ready, even anxious, to throw asylum applicants and their advocates under the bus — once again!
Unhappily, Congress and the Biden Administration have paid scant attention to the views of experts and those actually involved in relieving the plight of asylum seekers at the border. The politicos continue to dehumanize and demean forced migrants while stubbornly treating a human rights emergency as a “law enforcement crisis” that can be solved with more cruelty and repression.
As experts like Karen Musalo continue to point out, experience shows us that more deterrence and harshness will only make things worse, squandering resources and attention that could more effectively be used to address and alleviate unnecessary human suffering and finally making our refugee and asylum systems function in a fair and efficient manner.
Yet, politicos are more interested in grandstanding, “victim shaming,” and finger pointing than in achieving success and harnessing the positive potential of forced migration for countries like ours fortunate enough to be “receivers” rather than “senders!”
Ending asylum will NOT stop refugees from coming — at least in the long run. Every Administration manipulates or misrepresents statistics to show immediate “deterrent” effect from their latest restrictionist gimmicks (some ruled illegal by Federal Courts). But such “bogus successes” are never durable!
As the current situation shows, decades of failed deterrence merely creates new flows, in different places, piles up more dead migrant bodies, and surrenders the control of border policies to smugglers and cartels. That, in turn, fuels calls by restrictionists and their enablers for harsher, crueler, and ever more expensive (and profitable to some) sanctions imposed on some of the world’s most vulnerable humans.
If asylum ends, America will find itself with a larger, less controllable reality of a growing underground population of extralegal migrants. Contrary to nativist alarmism, this population has remained largely stable recently.
But, that will change as the legal asylum system contracts. Right now, most asylum seekers either apply at ports of entry (often undergoing unreasonable and dangerous waits and struggling with the dysfunctional “CBP One App”) or voluntarily surrender to CBP shortly after entering between ports. The GOP and Dem “go alongs” are determined to change that so that those seeking refuge will have no choice but to be smuggled into the interior where they can become lost in the general population.
This, in turn, will fuel demands by GOP White Nationalists and their Dem enablers for even more expensive and ultimately ineffective border militarization. It will also turn DHS into an internal security police.
Unable to “ferret out” and remove the underground population — because, in fact, they look, act, and are in many cases indistinguishable from native-born Americans and often perform essential services — they will concentrate on harassing and spreading fear among minority populations in America. Also, Trump has also promised that if re-elected, he will abuse his Executive authority to punish his critics and political opponents. Further empowerment of DHS in the interior would be handy in this respect.
Underground populations are also more susceptible to exploitation — another unstated objective of GOP restrictionist policies. What’s better for employers than a disenfranchised workforce who can be fired and turned over to DHS if they demand fair wages or better treatment?
Senate Dems appear to be on the verge of doing precisely what Karen and other experts have repeatedly warned against: using the lives and rights of asylum seekers as a “political bargaining chip” to appease the GOP right and secure military funding for Israel and Ukraine. It’s exactly what happens when experts and those with “on the ground” experience dealing with forced migrants are “locked out of the room” where decisions are made!
While White Nationalist neo-fascists like Stephen Miller and his cronies have remained “at the heart” of GOP policy making on eradicating human rights and punishing asylum seekers, lifetime experts on human rights and asylum find themselves reduced to the role of “outside critics” and “kibitzers” as the Dem Administration and Senate Dems bumble along on the border and human rights. That’s a shame that will certainly diminish and threaten the future of American democracy! And, it’s hard to see how appeasing the GOP restrictionist right will help Dems in 2024!
Three principles are at the core of Andy’s article:
. . . .
International Obligations and Refugee Protection
Key international obligations regarding refugees also play a crucial role in shaping the discourse. The United States, as a signatory to the 1967 Protocol to the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, is bound by several obligations, including:
Non-refoulement: Prohibiting the return of refugees to countries where they would face persecution or harm based on their race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.
Access to asylum procedures: Ensuring a fair and accessible process for individuals to seek asylum and present their claims for protection.
Non-discrimination: Preventing discrimination against refugees based on factors such as nationality or place of entry.
. . . .
***************
Read the complete article at the link!
I think that the U.S. is in violation of all three of these essential, mandatory legal obligations.
Gimmicks like Title 42, “Remain in Mexico,” coercive detention, “CBP One,” and artificial roadblocks for those applying between ports of entry have violated and continue to violate our “non-refoulment” obligation.
These provisions, along with conducting interviews in detention settings, improperly limiting access to representation, and “expedited dockets” to limit the ability to prepare and present claims are examples of violations of our obligation to provide “fair access” to our asylum system.
And, by intentionally designing our system to discourage and deny applicants of color from the Western Hemisphere, Africa, and Muslim nations, and imposing illegal higher burdens on those not applying at ports of entry, we clearly are violating the “non-discrimination” requirement.
The GOP answer is simply to double down on the violations and abrogate our domestic and international obligations. While the Biden Administration at least nominally acknowledges these obligations, their actions and policies, some actually carried over or borrowed from the Trump Administration, blatantly undermine these principles of protection.
Indeed, the whole “movement” by both parties to use the refugee/asylum system for “rejection and deterrence” rather than “enhanced protection” is a “bipartisan legal and moral travesty!”
What if our “number one priority” was what it should be: Establish a world-class, expert, efficient, robust, generous system that is driven by, and true to, these three governing obligations?
Only after achieving that can we discuss and achieve “border security” in a realistic and effective manner! And, it couldn’t possibly be more expensive, in both fiscal terms and human lives cost, than decades of costly failed deterrence gimmicks and schemes! It’s a case of badly screwed up priorities aggravated by political cowardice!
Institutionalized cruelty, deterrence, and unlawful behavior by our Government has failed to create order at the border and has demonstrably destroyed or diminished human lives. Why not give adherence to laws and to humanitarian values and principles a chance?🤯
We can diminish ourselves as a nation, but it won’t stop human migration!
Attorney General Merrick B. Garland Official White House Photo Public Realm
Attorney General Merrick Garland announced the appointment of 39 new Immigration Judges to EOIR. In somewhat of a “return to the past,” attorneys with primarily government backgrounds and judges from non-immigration systems predominated.
My “quick and dirty” analysis came up with the following groupings:
NGOs = 4
Immigration Private Practice = 9
Retired IJs = 2
DHS/EOIR = 10
Other Gov. = 8
Other Judicial = 5
Other Private Practice = 1
Among the names that stand out for me personally:
Judge Florence Chamberlain, San Francisco Immigration Court — Previously Managing Director, Northern Division, Ciudad Juarez, Kids In Need of Defense (“KIND”)
Judge Kevin Chapman, Atlanta Immigration Court — Previously Retired Immigration Judge, Orlando Immigration Court, previously Acting General Counsel and Deputy General Counsel EOIR
Judge Allison Daw, Sacramento Immigration Court — Previously Retired Immigration Judge Los Angeles & San Francisco Immigration Courts and former Member of the Round Table
Judge Enrique Holguin, El Paso Immigration Court — Previously Managing Attorney, Diocesan Immigrant & Refugee Services of El Paso
Judge June K. Lee, Hyattsville Immigration Court — Previously Director, Immigrants’ Rights Legal Services Project at Legal Aid D.C.
Judge Dianna Michelle Martinez Soler, New York (Broadway) Immigration Court — Previously Legal Director at Central American Legal Assistance (“CALA”), Brooklyn, NY
Judge Elizabeth Kohler Maya, Baltimore Immigration Court — Previously Managing Partner, Bromberg, Kohler Maya & Petre LLC, who appeared before me at the “Legacy” Arlington Immigration Court
Judge Anam Rahman Petit, Annandale Immigration Court — Previously Partner, Calderon Seguin PLC, Fairfax, VA, who appeared before me at the “Legacy” Arlington Immigration Court
Judge Tyler “Tiger” Wood, Denver Immigration Court — Previously Assistant Chief Counsel for ICE in Denver and Arlington where he appeared extensively in my court
Bios of these and all of the other newly appointed judges are here:
Is this REALLY the “look” that Dems want at the “retail level” of the U.S. justice system. What if Garland and his lieutenants had to face this every day of their professional careers?
Received in the “Courtside mailbox:”
Hello. I just came across your page. What great work you are doing. This is awesome. I have a few topics that it would be nice to see a discussion about regarding IJ demeanor and how immigration lawyers are treated by IJs:
1. IJs are unchecked in many instances. When a lawyer is sick and unable to appear, there is no established method for informing the court.You just hope that the IJ has a responsible and reliable legal assistant [note: high turnover and understaffing of legal assistants is a chronic problem at EOIR] who will inform the IJ of your illness. Oftentimes, IJs become enraged that you do something human like “become too sick to appear.” They take it out on the respondent who has courageously appeared, without a lawyer, to avoid an in–absentia order. They oftentimes display bullying and rude behavior towards the client and the office staff of the lawyer when they learn that the lawyer cannot appear, even in instances where the lawyer or lawyer’s staff members have taken measures to inform the court of said illness. This bullying behavior may cause the client to lose faith in the attorney’s representation.
In years past, I can probably count upwards of several dozen occasions when I have traveled over 2 hours for a PreCovidafternoon individual hearing only to find out that the IJ was out sick. [“Aimless Docket Reshuffling (“ADR”) in action.] No one called to inform my office, and there was no recourse or reimbursement of travel funds. It would have been inappropriate to express any anger at the time I was informed at the pre-COVID hearing. Yet some IJs take it out on lawyers, the respondent, and the lawyers’ staff for the being too ill to appear. There is no human response. This behavior pressures some lawyers to perform even in instances where they may not be competent to perform. Yet IJs cancel court hearings, from the privacy of their homes, by calling out of work, providing lawyers and respondents with absolutely no notice or explanation.
2. Some IJs are unreasonably denying Webex hearings. How can the private bar join the DHS to make a statement regarding their newest fight to challengeIJs seeking to force them to travel from other states and far-away locations for hearings?
3. IJs need to stop yelling, rolling eyes, bullying, and mistreating lawyers and respondents.
4. One time I appeared in court with high fever and a bad cough, and asked for a continuance. Instead, the judge forced me to conduct the 3-hour individual hearing anyway. I was surely not competent to represent the respondent that day.
5. OPLA apparently is now being forced by EOIR to appear in person at the court. OPLA’s position is that its attorneys shouldn’t be forced to travel hours each way to and from to conduct hearings, and that it is essentially a waste of resources when WebEx is available. I believe that the private bar should join OPLA in its battle to preserve the ability to appear by WebEx, since it concerns us too.
6. We should not be arbitrarily and capriciously dragged in to court for in person appearances when technology affords otherwise. We have been using virtual technology for almost four years now, with the lesson of efficiency at the forefront. Traveling numerous hours each way is costly and ultimately unproductive for both the government and private bar members not living in close proximity to courts. With the advent of WebEx, attorneys get more work done by cutting down the number of hours sitting in traffic, leaving more time for case management and preparation. Most importantly, the benefit of WebEx hearings is an improvement of mental health of attorneys on both sides. It is important to mention that the pressure associated with dealing with temperamental adjudicators, a lack of productivity from daily travel, and overwhelming pressure to perform one’s duties for fear of being found ineffective ultimately leads to depression and anxiety.
7. One can also imagine the overall benefits for IJs and EOIR personnel. Having an efficient process for disposal of cases also gives IJs more time for case review and case management. One might also surmise that IJs may find relief in having fewer people in their courtrooms.
****************************
This unduly harsh treatment of the legitimate needs of private attorneys by some IJs contrasts sharply with the recent “policy position” of OPLA that, essentially, ICE attorneys only have to appear in cases where “they feel like it.” https://www.ice.gov/about-ice/opla/prosecutorial-discretion.
I can testify from years on the bench that there are many occasions when as an IJ, I needed information and positions that only the Assistant Chief Counsel could furnish. This basically contemptuous approach to Immigration Court by DHS effectively converts IJs into Asylum Officers, perhaps less than that because IJs don’t have ready access to key information in the DHS databases. Moreover, I actually learned useful things about the strengths or weaknesses of a case by having an opportunity for a face-to-face dialogue with bothcounsel.
I wonder if OPLA would dare conduct business in this highly insulting and unprofessional manner if the DOJ had actually implemented the statutory contempt authority granted to IJs by Congress decades ago but improperly withheld by DOJ over Administrations of both parties.
This isn’t to minimize the observations of the anonymous attorney who related their experiences above that both counsel, and the cause of justice, suffer from lack of minimum professional judicial standards at EOIR.
I wonder how AG Merrick Garland and his political lieutenants would like it if, rather than moving on to cushy jobs after their DOJ tenure, they were required to spend the rest of their careers making a living representing individuals before the dysfunctional and irrationally “user-unfriendly” courts that they thus far have failed to materially reform? Until the Immigration Courts are finally removed from DOJ into an independent Article I structure, the appointment of AGs who lack significant “hands on” experience representing individuals before EOIR will remain problematic for justice in America. In the interim, Garland could and should make reforms administratively! Why hasn’t he?
Appearing before EOIR courts can be highly stressful — not everyone survives the ordeal! Here, a 3-judge panel deliberates the fate of an asylum seeker using traditional methods.Jeremy McKinney, Esquire Greensboro, NC AILA President
As Congress returns to action after House Republicans were finally able to elect a speaker of the House following a weekslong impasse, one area they seem determined to address is border policy. Unfortunately, there seems to be much less interest in tackling one of the most important parts of our immigration system: immigration courts.
To put it mildly, there are a lot of misunderstandings about immigration court, and how things work or don’t work. As someone who’s been working in immigration courts for 25 years, I can say there are a myriad of ways things can and should be better.
First, the distances between immigration courts and the people who need to use them are often vast. My office is in Greensboro, North Carolina; my immigration court is in Charlotte. My clients typically travel from two to five hours to appear in court.
I once represented two children—a brother and sister from Central America—in immigration court proceedings. They had been sold by their father into domestic servitude and then abused by the people who trafficked them. The children escaped and reached the United States.
To prove they deserved asylum under our laws, they had to share what happened to them. The brother was so young, he struggled to articulate the horrors he experienced, while his older sister bore the deep scars of trauma, ones so severe that she had attempted to take her own life while her case in court was pending.
As horrifying and clear-cut as their stories seemed, the siblings faced a bewildering array of legal challenges. Their notices to appear lacked any hearing date, leaving them confused about when to appear. Immigration judges frequently order people removed for not appearing, despite the countless examples of ways in which the bureaucracy fails to inform people what their obligations are.
Before filing their asylum applications, I had to send a copy to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to trigger biometrics appointments for their criminal and security background checks. Some judges have ordered people removed for not having the biometrics done even though there isn’t anything they can do except request an appointment. Without a competent attorney working with you, it is impossible to make your way through all these pitfalls; errors at any of these stages could have resulted in them losing their asylum case—a devastating consequence and really a matter of life or death.
Prior to the hearing, I tried to contact the Immigration and Customs Enforcement attorney in their case to narrow down the legal issues. But the ICE attorney never responded, which is unfortunately common. In fact, ICE has recently instructed their attorneys that they don’t even need to appear in court. In any other court, if the trial attorney didn’t show up, the case would be dismissed. But not in immigration court.
Ultimately these siblings won their case because at the time, fear of persecution on account of kinship and domestic abuse was recognized as a valid basis for asylum. But several years after they won, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions changed asylum law using his unusual power to override immigration court decisions and tried to block kinshipand abuse cases as bases for gaining asylum.
The simple truth is that immigration courts are not real courts. The Executive Office for Immigration Review, or EOIR, is an arm of the Department of Justice headed by a political appointee, the attorney general. The attorney general has total authority over EOIR—including the power to hire the judges and re-adjudicate any case they decide. In an appeal, the attorney general represents the government in seeking to deport the person instead of remaining the neutral decision-maker. Given their very structure, the courts are not fair.
. . . .
*****************
Read the rest of the article at the link.
Notably, the notice issue, such as the lack of a hearing date, time, and place, as required by statute, has reached the Supremes for the third time. A better BIA would have followed the statute and held DHS accountable right off the bat.
This is just one of many problems that, in the absence of long-overdue Congressional action to establish an independent Article I Court, as urged by Jeremy and other experts, Garland has failed to address with administrative reforms and needed personnel changes within his sole authority!
WASHINGTON — An immigration judge and lawyer told a U.S. Senate Judiciary panel on Wednesday that an independent immigration court would help ease a backlog of more than 2 million pending cases.
Because the immigration court system is an arm of the U.S. Justice Department — the Executive Office for Immigration Review — each presidential administration has set immigration policy, and often those courts are subject to political interference, said Mimi Tsankov, an immigration judge, and Jeremy McKinney, an immigration attorney.
In the immigration court system, judges hold formal court proceedings to determine whether someone who is a noncitizen should be allowed to remain in the United States, or should be deported.
“Every administration has interfered with the courts. This undermines the courts’ integrity, and many of the executive branch’s manipulations of judges and their dockets simply backfire,” said McKinney, the former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
Tsankov, the president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, said in order to alleviate the backlog of immigration court cases, Congress should establish an independent immigration court under Article I of the U.S. Constitution.
. . . .
“An independent board will begin the process of healing this broken system,” she said.
The witnesses also argued that many people going through the immigration system lack legal representation, which can greatly impact their outcome.
The top Republican on the Senate panel, John Cornyn of Texas, argued that most cases are without merit, as opposed to asylum cases, which are based on a credible fear of death or harm. He said that people are “clogging the courts” and are aware the severe backlogs will allow them to stay in the country. Some courts have backlogs until 2027.
Sen. Mazie Hirono, Democrat of Hawaii, pushed back.
“People who have attorneys are 10.5 times more likely to be granted relief,” she said. “So it is when they have attorneys that they can proceed with their asylum claims.”
She added that another issue is that many children who are unaccompanied, even some toddlers, are expected to legally represent themselves.
“There is no guarantee that children will also have a lawyer, and this is alarming because children are some of the most vulnerable people in our immigration system,” she said.
Cornyn said he did not believe that “the taxpayer should be on the hook” for paying for legal fees and representation.
McKinney said that those who have representation and are not detained are five times more likely to gain relief. Immigrants who are detained and have legal representation are 10 times more likely to be granted relief than those who do not have representation.
“The point is that representation ensures due process,” he said. “It also makes the system more efficient when all the parties know the rules and know how to present a case. Cases move faster.”
***********
Read the full article at the above link. You can also check out the full video of the hearing here:
In his opening statement, ranking GOP Sen. Cornyn made it very clear that fixing the Immigration Courts is a nonstarter for the GOP.
Instead of engaging on this critically important initiative, he wasted much of his introduction disingenuously repeating the oft-debunked claim of a connection between asylum seekers and fentanyl smuggling. See, e.g., “Who is sneaking fentanyl across the southern border? Hint: it’s not the migrants,”https://www.npr.org/2023/08/09/1191638114/fentanyl-smuggling-migrants-mexico-border-drugs.
Obviously grasping at straws, in the absence of any empirical support for his nativist “scare scenario,” Cornyn went so far as to suggest — of course without a shred of evidence — that perhaps “go-arounds” were smuggling fentanyl.
This theory appears particularly questionable in light of evidence that most fentanyl is successfully smuggled through ports of entry by U.S. citizens and legal residents. Why would cartels abandon proven successful methods of port of entry smuggling to entrust their cargos to individuals who might not even survive the border crossing and, if apprehended, would certainly be searched? Cornyn had no answer.
What does seem likely is that by concentrating border law enforcement largely on “apprehending” and fruitlessly trying to “deter” those merely seeking to turn themselves in to exercise legal rights, the USG has diverted attention and resources from real law enforcement like an anti-fentanyl strategy. That almost certainly would require undercover infiltration of smuggling rings — dangerous and sophisticated law enforcement operations far removed from “apprehending” folks who WANT to be caught because they were forced to leave their home countries, are unsafe in Mexico, and can’t wait to schedule asylum appointments at ports of entry through the badly flawed and inadequate “CBP One App!” Building a fair and efficient asylum system should even help CBP apprehend more of Sen. Cornyn’s “go arounds!”
But, Cornyn’s misdirection isn’t just a distraction; it’s actually dangerous! As the GOP has shown over and over, if you repeat a lie or myth enough times, folks start to believe it. Witness the demonstrably totally frivolous claims of election interference that drive much of the GOP’s agenda and has become “truth” for their misguided “base.”
A case in point is the outrageous political boondoggle recently carried out by Virginia’s right-wing Governor Glenn Youngkin. In response to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s White Nationalist plea, Youngkin wasted two million taxpayer dollars on a bogus detail of the National Guard to the Texas border, ostensibly to “protect Virginians from the scourge of fentanyl.”
What if Youngkin had spent the same amount of money supporting NGOs in Virginia struggling to resettle and represent migrants aimlessly bussed to the DMV by Abbott and DeSantis as part of a political stunt? Community social justice NGOs generally use funds more carefully and efficiently than GOP blowhards like Youngkin and co.
The GOP claim that most asylum claims are frivolous also is misleading. For those who can actually get a merits hearing on asylum at EOIR — often in and of itself no mean feat given the prevalence of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” — TRAC statistics for FY 2022 show that 46% are granted. Seehttps://trac.syr.edu/whatsnew/email.221129.html#. And, this is in a system that is still heavily tilted against asylum seekers. EOIR still has many “holdover judges” from the Trump years who were hired not because of their expertise, qualifications, or reputations for fairness, but because their backgrounds indicated that they were likely to be unsympathetic to asylum seekers!
Admittedly, the manner in which EOIR keeps asylum statistics can make meaningful analysis difficult. For example, more than half of asylum “dispositions” are listed as “other” — which covers“abandoned, not adjudicated, other, or withdrawn,” a facially, at least partially, circular definition! Seehttps://www.justice.gov/media/1174741/dl?inline.
Moreover, since EOIR procedures generally require that all potential relief be stated at the time of pleading or presumptively be waived, prudence requires that the right to appply for asylum be protected, even if it is unlikely that the case will proceed to the merits on that application.
Also, it’s worth remembering that the Government already has a powerful tool for both identifying and quickly tossing frivolous asylum claims and expeditiously granting clearly meritorious claims to keep them out of the Immigration Court. It’s called the Asylum Office at USCIS! That despite much ballyhooed regulatory changes, DHS has failed to obtain “maximum leverage” from the credible fear/Asylum Office process is not a reason for eschewing EOIR reform!
What we can tell from the available data is that, rather than wasting more money on expensive and ineffective “deterrence gimmicks,” the best “bang for the buck” for the USG would be to invest in representation for asylum seekers and in a better, professionally-managed EOIR with better, independent judges, acknowledged experts in asylum law, who could “keep the lines moving” without denying due process or stomping on individual rights.They could also set helpful precedents for the Asylum Office. That’s what Congress and the Administration should be investing in.
Reforming the Immigration Courts and creating an independent Article I Court should be a high national priority. While no single action can bring “order to the border” overnight, fixing EOIR is an achievable priority that will support the rule of law and dramatically improve the quality and efficiency of justice at the border and throughout the U.S.
As Chairman Padilla (D-CA) said, this should be a bipartisan “no-brainer.” Just don’t look to today’s White-Nationalist-myth-driven GOP for help or rational dialogue on the subject.
As horrifying and clear-cut as their stories seemed, the siblings faced a bewildering array of legal challenges. Their notices to appear lacked any hearing date, leaving them confused about when to appear. Immigration judges frequently order people removed for not appearing, despite the 
