"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals PAUL WICKHAM SCHMIDT and DR. ALICIA TRICHE, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
Professor Laila L. Hlass Tulane LawProfessor Elora Mukherjee Columbia LawAdjunct Professor Carrie L. Rosenbaum Golden Gate LawProfessor Maureen Sweeney U. of Maryland Law
Four immigration law professors, Laila L. Hlass, Elora Mukherjee, Carrie L. Rosenbaum, and Maureen Sweeney on Slate criticize the Trump administration for barring immigration judges, Immigration and Customs Enforcement attorneys, and asylum officers from talking to classes about immigration law and policy.Such guest lectures were common in the recent past. However,
“things have recently changed. When we’ve asked judges, ICE attorneys, and asylum officers to visit our classes, almost all have declined. They’ve told us they can’t speak with our classes even on their days off, even in their personal capacities, without prior clearance and approval from high-level supervisors—approval that is increasingly difficult to obtain. This silencing of line officers is a marked departure from past years. It is taking place across the country, and it is no coincidence. The administration has denied these civil servants permission to speak publicly. According to former immigration judge Jeffrey Chase, immigration judges `are not even allowed to speak at conferences or law schools, because the administration does not consider them qualified to speak on behalf of the agency or its policies.’”
KJ
**********************************
Obviously, this is an “agency,” not a “court,” at war with the public it supposedly serves.
Somewhat “below the radar screen” in the Administration’s all-out White Nationalist attack on migrants is the assault on those who represent them. Studies show that represented individuals both show up for their hearings at an exceptionally high rate and succeed in their cases at a rate that is multiples of unrepresented individuals. Therefore, some type of “universal representation program” utilizing a combination of public and private sector funding, would be the “first logical step“ in solving the Due Process and operational crises in our Immigration Courts. And, it wouldn’t cost any more than the expensive, inhumane, often illegal, and frequently ineffective “enforcement only gimmicks” being employed against migrants, and often their attorneys, by this Administration.
Crushing Immigration Judge Caseloads and Lengthening Hearing Wait Times
==========================================
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
==========================================
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The current policies of the Trump Administration have been unsuccessful in stemming the rise in the Immigration Court’s backlog. Overcrowded dockets create lengthening wait times for hearings. At some locations, immigrants with pending cases now wait on average 1,450 days or more – over four years! – before their hearing is scheduled.
Despite promises to reduce the backlog, the latest case-by-case records show that the growth in the backlog has actually accelerated each year since President Trump assumed office. At the start of this administration, 542,411 cases were pending before immigration judges. By September 30, 2019, the backlog had grown to 1,023,767 “active” cases. This rises to 1,346,302 when cases that have not yet been calendared are added. Year-by-year the pace of increase has quickened. The active backlog grew 16.0 percent from January 2017 to the end of that fiscal year, climbed an additional 22.1 percent during FY 2018, and this past year jumped by a further 33.3 percent.
While many sources for this rise are outside the court’s control, policy decisions and practices by the Department of Justice which oversees the Immigration Court have significantly contributed to growing caseloads. For example, the decision to reopen previously closed cases has caused a much greater increase in the court’s backlog than have all currently pending cases from families and individuals arrested along the southwest border seeking asylum.
Despite accelerated hiring of new judges and the imposed production quotas implemented last year, the average caseload Immigration Court judges face has continued to grow. On average each judge currently has an active pending caseload of over two thousand cases (2,316) and over three thousand cases when the additional un-calendared cases are added (3,046). Even if the Immigration Court stopped accepting any new cases, it would still take an estimated 4.4 years to work through this accumulated backlog.
In the New York City Immigration Court which has the largest backlog in the country, hearings are currently being scheduled five years out – all the way into December of 2024. Four other courts are scheduling hearings as far out as December 2023. These include courts in Chicago, Illinois; Houston, Texas; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Arlington, Virginia.
For full details, including the average wait times and pending cases at each hearing location, 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 U.S. federal government. To help support TRAC’s ongoing efforts, go to:
The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse is a nonpartisan joint research center of the Whitman School of Management (http://whitman.syr.edu) and the Newhouse School of Public Communications (http://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 http://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.
************************************
Obviously, “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”), stripping Immigration Judges of all authority to manage their individual dockets, the war on Attorney representation, and the complete absence of the type of prosecutorial discretion that all other enforcement systems in America, save for the DHS, use to make reasonable use of the available judicial time are taking a big toll here! A court run by maliciously incompetent political clowns is inevitably going to become “Clown Court.”
Congress and the Article III Courts are heading for an existential crisis in our justice system if they don’t step in and force some Due Process, judicial independence, and normal professional unbiased judicial administration into this corrupt and intentionally broken system that spews out illegal and unconstitutional “removal orders” every day.
Whatever happened to accountability and the supposedly independent role of the Article III Federal Judiciary? Why is a national disgrace like the “Trumped-Up” Immigration Courts operating within the rogue DOJ allowed to continue its daily abuses?
History will judge these failing institutions and those who ignored their sworn duties harshly!
By Kim Hunter, Katharine Gordon and John Bruning, opinion contributors – 10/13/19 04:00 PM EDT
The immigration system is designed to fail
The Trump administration’s latest efforts to block as many asylum seekers as possible from entering the U.S. have expanded exponentially with the implementation of “port courts.”
Tens of thousands of refugees have been forced to remain in Mexico in order to request any protection from persecution, rather than be permitted to enter the U.S. to await their hearing dates. For their hearings, they enter port courts, which are literally in tents and trailers that have been hastily put up in southern border cities.
We are part of a group of attorney volunteers who recently returned from assisting asylum-seekers in Matamoros, Mexico. One of us accompanied two new clients to the port court in Brownsville, Texas. Neither the judges nor government attorneys are physically present, instead appearing by video and hidden from public view as press and observers are barred.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is solely responsible for this. The Department of Justice (DOJ), which employs the immigration judges, notes that the Justice Department will follow the regulation that requires hearings to be public. However, since DHS operates the port courts, DOJ has capitulated to the ad hoc rules which deny transparency.
At every step of the way, refugees and the handful of attorneys who represent them are reminded that this “system” is designed to fail. There are no marked entrances to the Brownsville court, which resembles a concentration camp in its design and layout.
Instead, attorneys must already know where the entrance is and ask to be let in by privately contracted guards who monitor it for DHS. Forms with client signatures are required to gain entry. Attorneys are escorted by guards from the front gate to client meetings, to attend court and even to access the restroom.
Attorneys are not allowed to bring electronics into the tent complex, which means they cannot access their calendars or legal research. Meanwhile, DHS lawyers maintain access to their technology as they sit off-screen. Only the immigration judge and interpreter are video streamed into the port courtroom.
In order to even schedule the next hearing, the attorney must request a recess so that they can leave the court complex, go to their car to access their calendar on their phone and go through the security process all over again to get back to their hearing.
Immigrants with hearings and their children are also subjected to security screening in order to enter. Their shoelaces are confiscated by DHS and not returned. Some refugees report being subjected to cavity searches just to attend court.
Unless the immigrant is represented, the families wait for a “group advisal” of their rights, which is interpreted only in Spanish. Many refugees speak indigenous languages and have no way to communicate that in the face of a video link via a Spanish interpreter. Yet, in order to secure a full hearing on their claim, they must submit applications and all supporting documents in English.
Individuals with attorneys do not have their full hearings interpreted. At most, procedural matters are translated at the very beginning and end. For a client to know what is happening, their attorney must translate for them while making legal arguments and responding to the DHS attorney and the immigration judge.
At the conclusion of one of our clients’ hearings, the contracted guard tried to force counsel from the courtroom without giving him an opportunity to explain the non-interpreted hearing that had just taken place.
The attorney had to involve the judge, who intervened and asserted some control over the courtroom to allow our client access to counsel. Meanwhile, DHS’s position is that attorneys have enough time to speak to their clients before the hearing, and can meet their client in Mexico later to explain what happened.
To meet with clients in Mexico, attorneys must violate the State Department’s travel advisories, which categorize Matamoros as a level 4 security risk, which is the category reserved for the most dangerous places on earth, including active war zones like Syria.
As volunteer attorneys we were allowed to cross the border exclusively in a group during daylight hours. We conducted our work within 100 yards of the border crossing point which makes client confidentiality impossible. In case of cartel violence, we were instructed to drop everything and sprint for the crossing on our group leader’s signal.
The harms refugees suffer due to our official U.S. government policy of rendering them homeless includes deaths by drowning in the Rio Grande (even while bathing), multiple documented instances of kidnappings within minutes or hours of being returned from the U.S. The toll of surviving on the streets of Mexico is amplified by the due process farce refugees face in post courts.
As tempting as it is, we cannot give in to our exhaustion and cynicism: We must hold this administration accountable for the ongoing illegality that is engulfing the border. It may take decades or longer to repair what we have lost under this administration and there is no time to waste.
Kim Hunter, Katharine Gordon and John Bruning are immigration attorneys working on behalf of Lawyers for Good Government.
Lawyers, mostly working pro bono, are the only ones involved in a concerted effort to make our immigration system function. They deal daily with a system intentionally and maliciously stacked against them and their clients, a disinterested Congress, and spineless Federal Appellate Courts who mindlessly sign off on the results of these illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional atrocities.
These are crystal clear denials of the right to assistance of counsel of choice, guaranteed by statute and Due Process. So, what happened to Congress and to the reviewing courts? Look at the Ninth Circuit’s disgusting and cowardly performance in Innovation Law Lab v. McAleenan and the Supreme Court’s disgraceful decision in Barr v. East side Sanctuary Covenant. Derelection of duty costs lives! How do these guys get away with it? How do they sleep at night?
Human rights lawyers also suffer endless abuse by cowardly, dishonest officials of the Trump Administration carrying out an unconstitutional White Nationalist attack on America and its courageous defenders:
As tempting as it is, we cannot give in to our exhaustion and cynicism: We must hold this administration accountable for the ongoing illegality that is engulfing the border. It may take decades or longer to repair what we have lost under this administration and there is no time to waste.
The good news is that members of the “New Due Process Army” are in it for the long run!
On August 16, 2019, the Executive Office for Immigration Review issued a memo limiting the types of cases that an immigration judge may place on a status docket while a noncitizen is waiting for some event to occur that will impact the removal proceedings. The policy may make it more difficult for some respondents to seek immigration relief while in removal proceedings, especially relief before U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. This practice advisory provides background on status dockets, describes the new policy, and provides tips for practitioners with clients whose cases are currently on a status docket or who would otherwise have pursued status docket placement but may now be found ineligible for status docket placement.
action to avoid increasing the Board’s backlog—it is critically important to make certain that all appeals are processed in a timely manner.
The Board Chairman is required to establish a case management system to manage the Board’s caseload. 8 C.F.R. 1003.1(e). The Chairman, under the supervision of the Director, is responsible for the success of the case management system. Id. The Director is further authorized, inter alia, “to ensure the efficient disposition of all pending cases, including the power, in his discretion, to set priorities or time frames for the resolution of cases; to direct that the adjudication of certain cases be deferred; to regulate the assignment of adjudicators to cases; and otherwise to manage the docket of matters to be decided by the Board.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.0(b)(1)(ii).
Although the Board has implemented a case management system pursuant to regulation, that system does not fully provide for clear internal deadlines for all phases of the pre-adjudicatory process.1 Similarly, although the regulations evince a clear directive for prompt processing and disposition by the Board, they do not provide specific deadlines for case processing prior to completion of the appellate record. Moreover, as the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General has previously noted, the regulatory deadlines for the adjudication of appeals exclude a significant amount of pre-adjudicatory processing time, skewing the Board’s reported achievements of its goals for appeals and impeding the effective management of the appeals process. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Management of Immigration Cases and Appeals by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (Oct. 2012), https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2012/e1301.pdf.
To ensure the success of the Board’s case management system and to
Michelle Mendez Defending Vulnerable Populations Director Catholic Legal Immigration Network
better manage the appeals process so that cases are adjudicated promptly, it is appropriate to clearly state EOIR’s expectations regarding the timely processing of appeals. 2 To that end, it is important to have clear deadlines for the movement of cases throughout the entire appellate process, and not just for the adjudication at the end of the process. Accordingly, EOIR now issues the following guidance regarding the case management system for appellate adjudications by the Board.3
Case Processing
All case appeals are referred to the screening panel for review, and appeals subject to summary dismissal “should be promptly dismissed.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(1). To ensure prompt initial
1 The pre-adjudicatory process includes, inter alia, screening of notices of appeal, requesting Records of Proceedings (ROPs), ordering transcripts, serving a briefing schedule, and assigning a case for merits review once the record is complete.
2 Although the importance of timely adjudication applies to all types of appeals at the Board, the specific provisions of this PM do not apply to the processing of appeals of decisions involving administrative fines and penalties, decisions on visa petitions, decisions on the exercise of discretion by the Department of Homeland Security pursuant to INA § 212(d)(3), and decisions in practitioner discipline proceedings.
3 For timeframes that are not currently being met, EOIR understands that Board leadership recently changed and that it may take time to adjust Board practices. Nevertheless, the agency is also cognizant that the Board recently hired six new permanent Board members and is also hiring additional support staff. Consequently, EOIR expects that the Board will address inefficiencies in its appellate processing as soon as possible.
2
screening, all cases should be referred to the screening panel within 14 days of the filing of the notice of appeal to determine whether the appeal is subject to summary dismissal. Appeals subject to summary dismissal, particularly appeals subject to summary dismissal under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(G) for being untimely filed, should be dismissed within 30 days of referral to the screening panel.
In any case that has not been summarily dismissed, the Board “shall arrange for the prompt completion of the record of proceedings and transcript, and the issuance of a briefing schedule.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(3). Thus, to ensure prompt completion of the record for case appeals that have not been summarily dismissed, the Board should order the ROP4 if it was not previously ordered and, if appropriate, request a transcript within 14 days of referral to the screening panel.5 If a case does not require the preparation of a transcript and is not subject to summary dismissal, the Board should set and serve a briefing schedule within 14 days of referral to the screening panel. If a case requires neither the preparation of a transcript nor the service of a briefing schedule—e.g. a motion to reopen filed directly with the Board—the Board should forward the case for merits review within three days of the receipt of the ROP.
Every appeal that requires a transcript should be sent to a vendor for transcription within 14 days of referral to the screening panel. The only exceptions are situations in which there is no vendor with available capacity or if there is no available funding for further transcription.6
Upon receipt of the transcript, the Board should set and serve a briefing schedule within three days if the immigration judge’s decision was rendered in writing. If the immigration judge’s decision was rendered orally, the Board should provide the transcript of the oral decision to the immigration judge within three days of receipt of the transcript. The immigration judge “shall review the transcript and approve the decision within 14 days of receipt, or within seven days after the immigration judge returns to his or her duty station if the immigration judge was on leave or detailed to another location.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.5(a). The Board should then set and serve a briefing schedule within three days of the immigration judge’s review and approval.
4 It is crucial that immigration courts promptly comply with requests for the ROP by the Board, and the Board may remand a case for recovery of the record if an immigration court does not forward the ROP promptly. The Board should decide whether such a remand is appropriate within 21 days of an immigration court’s failure to forward the ROP following the Board’s request. Such a remand will not be counted against an immigration judge for purposes of evaluating that judge’s performance. The Chairman shall promptly notify the Chief Immigration Judge and the Director of any immigration court that has not complied with a request for the ROP within 21 days of that request.
5 Unless the ROP contains cassette tapes requiring transcription, ordering the ROP and requesting transcription should occur concurrently within 14 days of referral to the screening panel. Transcripts are not normally prepared for the following types of appeals: bond determinations; denials of motions to reopen (including motions to reopen in absentia proceedings); denials of motions to reconsider; and interlocutory appeals. Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual, § 4.2(f)(ii).
6 The Chairman is directed to immediately notify the Director and the Assistant Director for the Office of Administration in any situation in which it appears that funding for transcription of all cases relative to vendor capacity is insufficient to meet the goals of this PM. Similarly, the Chairman is directed to notify the Director and the Assistant Director for the Office of Administration of any additional resource needs in order to meet the goals of this PM.
3
“In the interest of fairness and the efficient use of administrative resources, extension requests [of briefing schedules] are not favored.” Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual, § 4.7(c)(i). Because extension requests are not favored, they should not be granted as a matter of course, and there is no automatic entitlement to an extension of the briefing schedule by either party. Extension requests filed the same day as a brief is due are particularly disfavored and should be granted only in the most compelling of circumstances.
The case should be forwarded for merits review within three days after the expiration of the briefing schedule or the filing of briefs by both parties, whichever occurs earlier. A single Board member may summarily dismiss an appeal after completion of the record. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(3). An appeal subject to summary dismissal because a party indicated that it would file a brief and failed to do so, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(E), should be dismissed within 21 days of expiration of the briefing schedule.
The single Board member should determine the appeal on the merits as provided in paragraph 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4) or (e)(5), unless the Board member determines that the case is appropriate for review and decision by a three-member panel under the standards of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(6). The single Board member should determine whether the case should be referred to a three-member panel within 14 days of referral of the case for merits review, and the Board should assign the case to a three-member panel within three days of the single Board member’s determination.7 If a case is assigned to a three-member panel, a decision must be made within 180 days of assignment. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(8)(i). If a case is not assigned to a three-member panel, the single Board member shall adjudicate the appeal within 90 days of completion of the record on appeal. Id.
The Chairman may grant an extension of the 90 and 180-day deadlines of up to 60 days in exigent circumstances. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(8)(ii).8 “In rare circumstances,” the Chairman may hold a case or cases and suspend the 90 and 180-day deadlines to await an impending decision by the Supreme Court, a U.S. Court of Appeals, or an en banc Board decision or to await impending Department regulatory amendments. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(8)(iii).9 The Chairman shall provide a monthly report of all cases in which an extension was granted due to exigent circumstances and all cases being held pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(8)(iii).
Any appeal not adjudicated within the regulatory time frames shall be handled in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(8)(ii). The Chairman shall provide a monthly report of all cases which have exceeded these time frames.
Overall, absent an exception or unique circumstance provided for by regulation or this PM, no appeal assigned to a single Board member should remain pending for longer than 230 days after
7 A single Board member retains the ability to later decide that a case should be assigned to a three-member panel if circumstances arise that were unknown at the time of the initial determination that such assignment was not warranted.
8 Additionally, the 90 and 180-day deadlines do not apply to cases in which the Board holds an adjudication of the appeal while awaiting the results of identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(d)(6) and (e)(8)(i).
9 As a matter of policy, the Chairman may also defer adjudication of appeals under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(2)(i)(C) to await an impending decision by the Attorney General.
4
filing of the notice to appeal, and no appeal assigned to a three-member panel should remain pending for longer than 335 days after filing the notice of appeal. The Chairman shall track the progress of appellate adjudications and shall provide a monthly report of all cases which exceed those parameters.
Finally, EOIR does not have a policy restricting or prohibiting the use of summary dismissals of appeals, nor does it have a policy restricting or prohibiting the use of affirmances without opinion. Any appeals amenable to those procedures should be adjudicated consistent with the regulatory requirements for them, 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(d)(2) and (e)(4), and this PM.
III. Interlocutory Appeals
The regulations do not expressly address interlocutory appeals. “The Board does not normally entertain interlocutory appeals and generally limits interlocutory appeals to instances involving either important jurisdictional questions regarding the administration of the immigration laws or recurring questions in the handling of cases by Immigration Judges.” Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual, § 4.14(c).
The Board does not normally issue briefing schedules for interlocutory appeals, nor do most interlocutory appeals require transcription. Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual, §§ 4.2(f)(ii), 4.14(e). Consequently, interlocutory appeals are not subject to the same processes as typical case appeals on the merits. Nevertheless, it is the policy of EOIR to adjudicate interlocutory appeals promptly and efficiently.
To that end, interlocutory appeals should be reviewed by the screening panel within 14 days of filing. The screening panel should then either decide the interlocutory appeal within 30 days of filing or forward it for merits review.
Assignment and Performance
Regulations authorize the Chairman to designate a screening panel and other merits panels as appropriate. It is the policy of EOIR that panel assignments shall occur no less frequently than the beginning of each fiscal year.
Finally, “[t]he Chairman shall notify the Director of EOIR and the Attorney General if a Board member consistently fails to meet the assigned deadlines for the disposition of appeals, or otherwise fails to adhere to the standards of the case management system. The Chairman shall also prepare a report assessing the timeliness of the disposition of cases by each Board member on an annual basis.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(8)(v). Notification pursuant to this regulation should occur no later than 30 days after the Chairman determines that a Board member has failed to meet these standards. The Chairman shall prepare the annual report required by this regulation at the conclusion of each fiscal year.
5
V . Conclusion
In December 2017, Attorney General Sessions provided a list of principles to which EOIR is expected to adhere, including the principle that “[t]he timely and efficient conclusion of cases serves the national interest.” Memorandum to the Executive Office for Immigration Review, Renewing Our Commitment to the Timely and Efficient Adjudication of Immigration Cases to Serve the National Interest (Dec. 6, 2017), https://www.justice.gov/eoir/file/1041196/download. That principle applies to cases at the Board no less than it applies to cases in immigration courts, and EOIR remains committed to ensuring that all immigration cases at both the immigration court and appellate levels are adjudicated efficiently and fairly consistent with due process.
Responsibility for the Board’s case management system and the duty to ensure the efficient disposition of pending cases fall on the Chairman, and Board members themselves are ultimately responsible for the adjudication of individual cases. Accordingly, nothing in this PM is intended to require—or should be construed as requiring—a change in the conditions of employment of any bargaining unit employees at the Board.
The Board maintains a goal developed under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of completing 90% of detained appeals within 150 days of filing. The instant PM does not alter that goal, and in all cases, it remains EOIR policy that the Board “shall issue a decision on the merits as soon as practicable, with a priority for cases or custody appeals involving detained aliens.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(8).
This PM supersedes any prior guidance issued by EOIR regarding the timely processing of cases on appeal.
This PM is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create, any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. Further, nothing in this PM should be construed as mandating a particular outcome in any specific case.
Please contact your supervisor if you have any questions. _____________
WASHINGTON, DC – Today, the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) reviewed and analyzed the recent policy memo impacting the workings of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) which serves as the appellate arm of the immigration courts within the Department of Justice (DOJ).
Jeremy McKinney, Second Vice President of AILA noted, “This memo offers significant areas of concern. An earlier rule issued in August describing the reorganization of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) at DOJ delegates authority from the Attorney General to the EOIR director to adjudicate cases ‘that cannot be completed in a timely fashion.’ As a political appointee and not an immigration judge, the director should not have that power. This memo goes even further and pressures BIA members to speed up adjudications without care for due process. Frankly, this latest memo only underscores the need for an independent immigration court to get these proceedings out from under the thumb of the nation’s prosecutor.”
Benjamin Johnson, AILA Executive Director stated, “The purported reasoning behind this memo is that BIA adjudication rates have stalled. What did they expect the appellate situation would look like when immigration enforcement was ramped up and targeted people with longstanding ties to their communities and potential equities in immigration cases? It was inevitable that the appeals caseload would increase. This memo actually urges BIA adjudicators to dismiss appeals, before a transcript of the original hearing is even reviewed. The result of this policy change will be even more federal court litigation as people seek to get their fair day in court. Everything about this system is incongruent with an independent decision-making body.”
It just keeps getting worse and worse, as Congress and the Article IIIs shirk their duties to intervene and enforce Due Process in our broken and “maliciously incompetently” managed Immigration “Courts.”
As one “Roundtable” member noted, in an amazing public ripoff, the Administration is raising the appeal fees by nearly 1000% so abused immigrants subjected to the EOIR “Kangaroo Court” will now “pay more for less justice!”
But, all is not lost! NDPA Lt. General and Roundtable stalwart Judge Lory D. Rosenberg has put out a timely format (below) for filling out a Notice of Appeal (“NOA”) that will be “McHenryproof” and will also highlight to the Article III Courts of Appeals the stunning denial of Due Process and encouragement of sloppy work, “worst practices,” and corner cutting at EOIR. Let’s see whether being flooded with inferior, biased work product by the BIAwill finally spur the Article IIIs to take some long overdue corrective action (as they did during the due process disaster at EOIR that followed the “Ashcroft Purge” at the BIA).
Hon. A. Ashley Tabaddor President, National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”)
Dear NAIJ Members,
On Friday, September 27, 2019, the National Press Club (NPC) convened a Headliners “Newsmaker” Press Conference entitled “Immigration Courts in Crisis.” Moderated by NPC President and award-winning AP Washington Investigations Editor journalist Alison Fitzgerald Kodjak, the panel presentation explored sweeping and controversial changes in the nation’s Immigration Courts. The presentations were led by NAIJ President Ashley Tabaddor, followed by the ABA President Judy Perry Martinez, and the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) Second Vice President Jeremy McKinney. The trio expressed broad consensus around key concerns undermining the independent decision making authority of Immigration Judges and compromising the integrity of the court.
Judge Tabaddor honed in on the specifics of how the decisional independence of judges and the independence of the court is under attack by the Department of Justice through their actions ranging from the imposition of unrealistic and unreasonable quotas and deadlines to the recent announced DOJ regulation, effective immediately, which collapsed into a single individual the role of the chief policy director with the role of the chief appellate judge. The EOIR Director was previously prohibited from engaging in any judicial role over cases because of the political nature of the position, but has now been given authority to interfere in individual cases, direct the result of cases, and to sit as an appellate judge over immigration judge decisions. Judge Tabaddor also reported on Friday’s filing of two unfair labor practice petitions against the Department of Justice with the Federal Labor Relations Authority. The ULPs stem from the Agency’s efforts to decertify the Association under the guise of reclassifying the Immigration Judges as managers and policy-makers and its subsequent personal attacks on the Association leadership from the podium of the Department of Justice.
ABA President Perry Martinez (Judy) was a powerful voice on a number of important issues ranging from support for fair proceedings and the rule of law to the importance of effective representation for individuals in removal proceedings.
Finally, AILA Vice President McKinney (Jeremy) reported on the impact of the “tent” courts that have been shrouded in secrecy with wholly inadequate operational logistics related to attorney access. He said, “DHS not only has complete control over access to these facilities, but DHS also has complete control over attorney/client representation when migrants are on the U.S. side of the border.” He explained that the program creates insurmountable hurdles to attorney representation, and as a result, as of the end of June, only 1.2% of asylum seekers had been able to obtain counsel.
The three speakers were aligned in the NAIJ’s call for a lasting solution to these and other problems plaguing the Immigration Court system — legislative action to restructure the courts in a manner offering independence from the Department of Justice, and the creation of an independent Article I Immigration Court.
Several national and local news outlets, including the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, CNN, and others, were present and have reported on the event. To watch the press conference, see:
If you have any questions or comments, or if you would like to have copies of the ULPs or Judge Tabaddor’s remarks, please feel free to reach out to Judge Tabaddor directly atashleytabaddor@gmail.com.
Every day, the Trump Administration is further reducing the Immigration Courts to “Kangaroo Courts” while Congress and the Article IIIs shirk their respective duties to protect Due Process!
Seventeen year-old Josue and his mom, Esperanza, were visibly drained. They had just spent more than four hours at their asylum trial inside an immigration court at 26 Federal Plaza in Lower Manhattan, answering questions from their attorney and a government lawyer. We are withholding their full names to protect their identities because they’re afraid.
“It was exhausting,” said Josue, whose angular haircut was neatly combed for the occasion. In Spanish, he told us the judge seemed nice but, “you feel bad if you don’t know if you are going to be allowed to stay or if you have to go.”
The teen and his mother crossed the U.S. border in California in the summer of 2018. At the time, a rising number of families were entering the country, and the Trump administration wanted to send a message to them by swiftly deporting those who don’t qualify for asylum. But immigration judges are so busy, they can take up to four years to rule on a case. In November, judges in New York and nine other cities were ordered to fast track family cases and complete them within a year.
This is how Esperanza and Josue wound up going to trial just 10 months after they arrived in the U.S. and moved to Brooklyn. They were lucky to find attorneys with Central American Legal Assistance, a nonprofit in Williamsburg that’s been representing people fleeing the troubled region since 1985.
Listen to reporter Beth Fertig’s WNYC story on Josue and Esperanza’s cases.
Play/Pause
Volume
EMBED
Winning asylum was never easy. But in 2018, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions made it tougher for people like Josue and Esperanza when he issued his own ruling on an immigration case involving a woman from El Salvador who was a victim of domestic violence. He wrote: “The mere fact that a country may have problems effectively policing certain crimes—such as domestic violence or gang violence—or that certain populations are more likely to be victims of crime, cannot itself establish an asylum claim.”
Immigration judges were bound to give heavy weight to that ruling. Their courts are run by the Department of Justice, whose boss is the Attorney General. And the AG’s boss, President Trump, frequently asserts that too many migrants lie about being threatened by gangs when they’re just coming for jobs. “It’s a big fat con job, folks,” he said at a Michigan rally this year.
Esperanza and Josue went to court soon after Sessions’ decision. She was fighting for asylum as a victim of domestic abuse; Josue claimed a gang threatened his life. Both would eventually lose their cases.
Josue’s case
Esperanza and Josue are typical of the Central American families seeking asylum these days, who say they’re escaping vicious drug gangs, violence and grinding poverty. The two of them came from a town outside San Pedro Sula, one of the most dangerous cities in the world.
During their trial, Josue testified under oath about how gang members repeatedly approached him outside his high school, asking him to sell drugs to the other students. He tried to ignore them, and gave different excuses for resisting, until one day when they spotted him playing soccer and became more aggressive. That’s when he said the gang leader put a gun in his face.
“He told me that if I didn’t accept what he wanted he was going to kill my whole family, my mother and sister,” he said, through a Spanish interpreter.
“I was in shock,” he said. “I had no other choice to accept and said yes.”
He told his mother and they left Honduras the next day. When Josue’s lawyer, Katherine Madison, asked if he ever reported the threat to the police he said no. “That was practically a suicide,” he said, explaining that the police are tied to the gang, because it has so much power.
Josue said his older sister later moved to Mexico because she was so afraid of the gang.
Winning asylum is a two-step process. You have to prove that you were persecuted, and that this persecution was on account of your race, religion, nationality, social group or political opinion. Madison, Josue’s attorney, argued that in Honduras, defying gangs is a risky political statement.
“They function in many ways as the de facto government of the areas where people like Josue lived,” she told WNYC/Gothamist, summing up the arguments she submitted to the judge. “They make rules. They charge basically taxes, they say who can live there and who can’t.”
And they’re known to kill people who don’t obey.
In her ruling, issued in August, Immigration Judge Oshea Spencer found Josue did experience persecution. But she denied his application for asylum. She said much of what he described “were threats and harm that exist as part of the larger criminal enterprise of the gangs in Honduras and not on the basis of any actual or perceived opposition to the gangs.”
Esperanza’s case
Esperanza’s attorney argued that her life was at risk because the gang member threatened Josue’s family. But Spencer didn’t find that specific enough. She wrote that the gang members “were motivated by their efforts to expand their drug trade, not the family relationship.” Among other cases, she referred to a recent decision by the current Attorney General, William Barr, that makes it harder for the relatives of someone who’s been threatened to win asylum.
Esperanza also lost on a separate claim that she deserved asylum because she was repeatedly beaten by Josue’s father. In court, she testified about years of abuse culminating in an incident in which he chased her with a machete. She said she couldn’t get the police to issue a restraining order, and said he kept threatening her after she moved to another town to stay with relatives.
Madison argued that women like Esperanza belong to a persecuted social group: they can’t get help from the authorities in Honduras because they’re viewed as a man’s property. The country is one of the deadliest places to be a woman; police are known to ignore complaints; and it’s extremely hard for women to get justice.
But Spencer ruled that there is no persecuted social group made up of “Honduran women who are viewed as property” for being in a domestic relationship.
Echoing the Sessions’ ruling, the judge said these categories “all lack sufficient particularity,” and called them “amorphous” because they could be made up of a “potentially large and diffuse segment of society.”
She also cited evidence submitted by the government that showed conditions in Honduras are improving for women. This evidence came from a 2018 State Department report on human rights in Honduras. Immigration advocates claim it’s been watered down from the much harsher conditions described in the last report from 2016. It’s also much shorter in length.
Jeffrey Chase, an immigration lawyer and former New York immigration judge, said it’s not surprising that Esperanza and Josue would each lose asylum. Judge Spencer only started last fall and is on probation for her first two years in the job.
“This was decided by a brand new judge who didn’t have any immigration experience prior to becoming an immigration judge,” he said, referring to the fact that Spencer was previously an attorney with the Public Utility Commission of Texas. He said she went through training which, “These days, includes being told that we don’t consider these to be really good cases.”
Sitting judges don’t talk to the media but Chase noted that they must consider the facts of each individual case, meaning the former Attorney General’s ruling doesn’t apply to all cases. He noted that some women who were victims of abuse are still winning asylum. He pointed to a case involving a Guatemalan woman who was raped by her boss. A Texas immigration judge found she did fit into a particular social group as a woman who defied gender norms, by taking a job normally held by a man.
During Josue and Esperanza’s trial, there was a lot of back and forth over their individual claims. A trial attorney from Immigration and Customs Enforcement questioned why Esperanza didn’t contact the police again after moving to another town, where she said her former partner continued to threaten her. Esperanza said it was because her brother chased him away and the police “don’t pay attention to you.”
The ICE attorney also asked Josue if his father was physically violent with anyone besides Esperanza. Josue said he did fight with other men. San Diego immigration lawyer Anna Hysell, who was previously an ICE trial attorney, said that could have hurt Esperanza’s case.
“The government was able to make the arguments that he didn’t target her because of being a woman that was in his relationship,” she explained. “He just was probably a terrible person and targeted many people.”
Hysell added that this was just her analysis and she wasn’t agreeing with the decision.
Attorney Anne Pilsbury said she believes Esperanza would have won her case, prior to the asylum ruling by Sessions, because she suffered years of abuse. But she said Josue would have had a more difficult time because gang cases were always tough. And like a lot of migrants, Josue had no evidence — he was too afraid to go to the cops. Pilsbury said immigration judges are even more skeptical now of gang cases.
“They’re getting so that they won’t even think about them,” she said. “They aren’t wrestling with the facts. They’re hearing gang violence and that’s it.”
She said Judge Spencer does sometimes grant asylum, and isn’t as harsh as other new judges. New York City’s immigration court used to be one of the most favorable places for asylum seekers. In 2016, 84 percent of asylum cases were granted. Today, that figure has fallen to 57 percent, according to TRAC at Syracuse University. Meanwhile, the government is forcing migrants to wait in Mexico for their immigration court cases or seek asylum in other countries before applying in the U.S., as the national backlog of cases exceeds one million.
Pilsbury, who founded Central American Legal Assistance in 1985, said immigration courts are now dealing with the result of a regional crisis south of the border that’s never been properly addressed since the wars of the 1980s.
“The anti-immigrant people feel it’s broken because people get to come here and ask for asylum and we feel it’s broken because people’s asylum applications aren’t seriously considered,” she explained. “We should be doing more to understand what’s going on in those countries and what we can do to help them address the chronic problems.”
Esperanza and Josue’s cases will now be appealed. Madison said she believes the judge ignored some of her evidence about gangs. She’s now turning to the Board of Immigration Appeals. However, it’s also controlled by the Justice Department — meaning the odds of getting a reversal are slim. If they lose again, the family can go to a federal circuit court which may have a broader definition of who’s eligible for asylum.
But Esperanza and Josue won’t be deported as long as their case is being appealed. On a late summer day, they seemed relaxed while sitting in a Brooklyn park. Esperanza talked about how happy she is that Josue is safe at his public high school, and can even ride a bike at night with his friends.
“He goes out and I’m always trusting the Father that just as he goes out, he comes back,” she said.
Even if they knew they would lose their asylum case, both said they still would have come to the U.S. because the risk of staying in Honduras was too great. Josue said the gang would definitely find him if he ever returned because their networks are so deep throughout the country. He’s now taking the long view. He knows there will be a Presidential election next year.
“It’s like a game of chess,” Josue said. “Any mindset can change at any moment. Maybe Trump changes his mind or maybe not. But I would have always made the decision to come.”
With translation assistance from Alexandra Feldhausen, Lidia Hernández-Tapia and Andrés O’Hara.
Beth Fertig is a senior reporter covering immigration, courts and legal affairs at WNYC. You can follow her on Twitter at @bethfertig.
******************************************
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this posting incorrectly identified Beth’s network affiliation. She reports for WNYC.
By clicking on the link at the top and going to Beth’s article on The Gothamist, you will be able to get a link to the original WNYC audio broadcast of this story.
It’s not “rocket science.” Better, fairer outcomes were available that would have fulfilled, rather than mocked, our obligation to provide Due Process and protection under our own laws and international treaties.
Here’s how:
Esperanza’s claim is a clear asylum grant for “Honduran women” which is both a “particular social group” (“PSG”) and a persecuted group in Honduras that the government is unwilling or unable to protect.
Although the last two Administrations have intentionally twisted the law against Central American asylum seekers, Josue has a clear case for asylum as somebody for whom opposition to gang violence was an “imputed political opinion” that was “at least one central reason” for the persecution. See, e.g,https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2018/6/3/3rd-generation-gangs-and-political-opinion.
In any event, on this record, Josue clearly showed that he faced a probability of torture by gangs with the acquiescence of the Honduran government, and therefore should have been granted mandatory protection by the Immigration Judge under the Convention against Torture (“CAT”).
The Immigration Judge’s assertion that things are getting better for women in Honduras, one of the world’s most dangerous countries for women where femicide is rampant, not only badly misapplies the legal standard (“fundamentally changed conditions that would eliminate any well founded fear”) but is also totally disingenuous as a factual matter. See, e.g.,https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/05/opinion/honduras-women-murders.html.
Additionally, Honduras remains in a state of armed conflict. See, e.g.,https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23740973.2019.1603972?needAccess=true. Under an honest Government, granting TPS to Hondurans (as well as Salvadorans and Guatemalans affected by environmental disasters heightened by climate change) would be more than justified.
Under honest Government following the rule of law, well-documented cases like this one could be quickly granted by the USCIS Asylum Officer or granted on stipulation in short hearings in Immigration Court. Many more Central Americans could be granted CAT relief, TPS, or screened and approved for asylum abroad. They could thereby be kept off of Immigraton Court dockets altogether or dealt with promptly on “short dockets” without compromising anybody’s statutory or constitutional rights (compromising individual rights is a “specialty” of all the mostly ineffective “enforcement gimmicks” advanced by the Trump Administration).
Over time, the overwhelming self-inflicted Immigration Court backlogs caused by the Trump Administration’s “maliciously incompetent” administration of immigration laws (e.g., “Aimless Docket Reshuffling”) would be greatly reduced.
That, in turn, would allow the Immigration Courts to deal with cases on a more realistic timeline that would both aid rational, non-White-Nationalist immigration enforcement and provide real justice for those seeking protection under our legal system.
As I’ve said before, it’s not “rocket science.” All it would take is more honest and enlightened Government committed to Due Process, good court management, and an appropriate legal application of laws relating to refugees and other forms of protection. I doubt that it would cost as much as all of the bogus “enforcement only gimmicks” now being pursued by Trump as part of his racist, anti-migrant, anti-Hispanic agenda.
Poor judicial decision making, as well illustrated by this unfortunate wrongly decided case, not only threatens the lives of deserving applicants for our protection, but also bogs down an already grossly overloaded system with unnecessarily protracted litigation and appeals of cases that should be “clear grants.”
Contrary to the intentionally false “party line” spread by “Big Mac With Lies” and other corrupt Trump sycophants at the DHS and the DOJ, a much, much higher percentage, probably a majority, of asylum applicants from the Northern Triangle who apply at our Southern Border should properly be granted some type of legal protection under our laws if the system operated in the fair and impartial manner that is Constitutionally required. The Trump Administration aided by their sycophants and enablers, all the way up to the feckless Supremes, are literally “getting away with murder” in far, far too many instances.
Consequently, quickly identifying and granting relief to the many deserving applicants would be a more efficient, humane, and lawful alternative to the “Kill ‘Em Before They Get Here” deterrence programs being pursued by Trump, with the complicity of the Supremes, the Ninth Circuit, and some of the other Federal Circuit Courts who have been afraid to put a stop to the extralegal nonsense going on in our Immigraton Courts, detention centers (the “New American Gulag”), our Southern Border, and countries like Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, and El Salvador where we are basically encouraging extralegal abuses and gross human right violations against migrants. It will eventually come back to haunt our nation, or whatever is left of our nation after Trump and his gang of White Nationalist thugs, supporters, appeasers, apologists, and enablers, are done looting and destroying it.
An asylum-seeker from Honduras who presented himself at the southern border this summer seeking protection was forced to wait in Mexico until his court date in the United States. In case the government needed to contact him, a Border Patrol officer listed an address on his forms: “Facebook.”
The man, who asked to only be identified by his last name Gutierrez, told BuzzFeed News that shortly before he was sent back to Mexico along with his family, a Border Patrol agent asked him to confirm that a shortened version of his name was indeed the one he used on Facebook.
“I said ‘Yes, why?'” Gutierrez recalled. “The agent told me ‘Because that’s how we’re going to send you information about your court case.’ I thought that was strange, but what could I do?”
The form Gutierrez was given, called a Notice to Appear (NTA), is a charging document issued by the Department of Homeland Security that includes information on where an immigrant must present themselves for their first court hearing, and critically, should include an address where the applicant can be contacted if the time, date, or location of the hearing is changed.
If an immigrant fails to appear at court hearings they run the risk of being ordered deported in absentia by an immigration judge, which makes having accurate and detailed information on the forms crucial for asylum-seekers.
Gutierrez said he was never contacted about his case via Facebook and it’s unclear how DHS officials would contact an immigrant via social media.
A US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) spokesperson did not respond to questions about why an agent would write “Facebook” as a known address, or whether the agency was using immigrants’ social media accounts as a way to inform them of any changes or updates to their hearings.
Attorneys and advocates working with asylum-seekers at the border, including those forced to wait in Mexico under the Trump administration’s Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) said they’ve seen other notices with “Facebook” addresses, or no address at all.
“‘Facebook’ is the most egregious example of the Department of Homeland Security doing away with the aspect of proper notice,” Leidy Perez-Davis, policy counsel at the American Immigration Lawyers Association told BuzzFeed News. “Facebook is not an adequate way to serve an NTA.”
Perez-Davis said she’s heard from other attorneys who had viewed documents from immigrants with improper or inadequate addresses such as shelters, which are often already full or only allow immigrants to remain there for a few days. Asylum-seekers are often given initial US court dates months in the future.
“This is procedurally incorrect, but DHS has been doing it anyway because there hasn’t been oversight on insufficient NTAs,” Perez-Davis said.
An immigrant in Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), shows documents to a US border agent at Paso del Norte border bridge to attend a court hearing for asylum seekers.In June 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that an immigrant’s notice to appear was invalid because it didn’t have the date or location of his scheduled court appearance. Attorneys have pointed to the ruling to argue that NTAs with inadequate information should also be invalid.
The Trump administration policy, also known as “Remain in Mexico,” has seen more than 47,000 asylum-seekers sent back to the country, straining local resources that help immigrants in the border communities. In addition to facing violence, kidnappings, and discrimination, some immigrants live on the streets and rely on donations to feed themselves.
If an immigrant receives an improperly addressed notice to appear, they can challenge whether it was legally serviced in court, Perez-Davis said, giving an immigrant the chance to reopen their case if they do not appear at their scheduled hearing and are ordered removed in their absence.
“It goes back to the issue of due process,” Perez-Davis said. “They can’t initiate proceedings without telling someone the details of the proceedings.”
Zoe Bowman, a law student who interned with Al Otro Lado, a binational border rights project and legal service provider, said she saw at least five immigrant NTAs that had “Facebook” listed as the known address. The first of which she saw in May or June of this year.
“It’s wild,” Bowman told BuzzFeed News. “Some wouldn’t have any addresses listed at all.”
The US asylum process is not set up for cases to be fought from Mexico, making the issue uncharted territory for the US government, immigrants, and attorneys, Bowman said.
“The issues with the NTAs is just one branch of that,” Bowman said. “People are having to make things up as they go along.”
Many of the other asylum-seekers returned to Mexico along with Gutierrez left for their home countries almost immediately. Gutierrez tried to wait for his court date, but only lasted three weeks in Tijuana. Facing a months-long wait for their first court hearing without money or space in a shelter, Gutierrez said he decided to go back to Honduras with his family.
“Tijuana is dangerous, I can’t be traveling with my family to the bridge at 4 a.m.,” Gutierrez said of the early hour he was expected to appear at a border crossing for his hearing. “We were in Mexico without money or a place to stay, I couldn’t make my daughter suffer through that.”
Yup! This won’t go down as one the finest moments for America, the Executive, the Article III Courts, or any of the folks involved in implementing what can only be termed a program of blatantly illegal and overt human rights abuses.
Those of us fighting for our Constitution, human life, and the true rule of law appear to be losing the battle for the time being, given the cowardly and inept performances of those few institutions like Congress, the Supremes, and Article III Appellate Courts who could put an end to these travesties and require reform and compliance with the Constitution and the rule of law respecting treatment of refugee applicants.
But, we are making a legal and historical record of who stood up for human rights and who planned, executed, and enabled what can only be termed “crimes against humanity.”
This week’s coveted “Five Clown Award” goes jointly to the Supremes and Congress for their joint catastrophic failure to put an end to this illegal nonsense and reestablish Due Process and the Rule of Law.
WASHINGTON—The union representing the nation’s more than 400 immigration judges filed a labor complaint against the Justice Department, escalating an already tense situation between the Trump administration and the judges carrying out its immigration policy.
The judges—who unlike most other jurists work for the Justice Department—based their complaint on two recent incidents.
The most recent occurred in late August, when the Executive Office of immigration Review, which oversees the judges, included a link to a blog post on a white nationalist website in its daily news briefing emailed to all employees. The blog post in question described immigration judges using several racial and ethnic slurs, angering judges around the country and prompting a formal letter to the office’s director.
The other incident came in April, when the union sought clarification from the Justice Department on whether the judges’ positions made them regular employees or managers in the course of contract negotiations. The Justice Department didn’t respond to the query but later filed a petition with the Federal Labor Relations Authority to decertify the union, on the basis it considered the judges managers.
The union’s complaint was filed with the Federal Labor Relations Authority, and could slow the Justice Department’s attempts to disband the union.
The judges’ union, known formally at the National Association of Immigration Judges, allows its leadership to fill a unique role as government employees empowered to criticize their employer and, by extension, the administration’s immigration policies.
The union has been outspoken about the government’s efforts to exert increasing political control over the nation’s immigration court system, narrowing the judges’ discretion around who can qualify for asylum.
Attorney General William Barr, for example, overruled the Board of Immigration Appeals in deciding people with family ties to gang targets or others with domestic violence claims couldn’t qualify for asylum. More recently, the administration has been temporarily allowed to enforce a rule disqualifying anyone for asylum if they traveled through a third country en route to the U.S. The rule faces further court challenges.
In its effort to move more quickly through a backlog of pending cases that has grown to more than one million, the Justice Department has also placed new quota requirements on the judges. It has pressed individual judges to move through cases faster, giving judges a one-year deadline to decide each case and setting a 700-case annual quota. Only about a third of judges are on track to meet that goal, according to A. Ashley Tabaddor, the union’s president.
The administration has also begun shifting cases to judges known to work quickly, sometimes handing cases to courts located far from where an immigrant is living. More recently, it has also begun diverting some judges from their normal duties to hear cases of the government’s “remain in Mexico” program, under which migrants who have claimed asylum must wait in Mexican cities while their cases make their way through the courts.
The government has set up makeshift tent courts at ports of entry to process these cases more quickly, and judges have been hearing cases using a videoconferencing tool. These courts, unlike most others in the country, aren’t open to the public or to journalists.
The union rebuked the tent courts’ closed conditions as “another glaring reason why the immigration courts have been deprived of key characteristics of what it means to be a court in the United States.”
The union has also argued that immigration courts should be given judicial independence, rather than answering to the Justice Department’s political leadership.
Thanks, Michelle, for bringing into the national spotlight this important story about the DOJ’s improper influence over the U.S. Immigration Courts and their outrageous attempts to suppress and punish truth and dissent.
We need an independent Article I U.S. Immigration court enacted by Congress. Until that happens, vulnerable individuals will continue to have their most important rights denied by this unconstitutional parody of a fair and impartial court system. In the meantime, the Article III Courts continue to ignore the glaring constitutional defects that must be addressed before approving any more defective “removal orders” and denials of asylum and other relief emanating from these fatally defective “captive courts” that have been “redesigned” to function as part of the DHS enforcement apparatus.
As more details emerge about Donald Trump’s whistleblower scandal, it’s clear the man standing in the way of any investigation into the president’s actions, once again, is Attorney General William Barr. The House’s now formal impeachment inquiry may be the last remaining tool that Barr cannot tamper with.
Barr has already successfully stymied one investigation of presidential misconduct: Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe. The attorney general released a misleading “summary” of the report before its publication, one that rankled Mueller himself. He also devised dubious legal standards to find insufficient evidence that Trump obstructed justice. Barr then prefaced the report’s release with an appalling press conference that painted Trump as the real victim. In congressional testimony, he trashed his own Justice Department to further defend Trump. Later, Barr took pains to hide the full Mueller report from Congress, deploying a baseless legal theory to conceal key redactions from lawmakers.
With each new development in the Ukraine scandal, we are seeing the Trump administration run the Barr playbook all over again. But there is an important difference. When Barr took the reins at DOJ, the Mueller investigation was near its end: Barr could not interfere with the probe itself; he could only run damage control once it concluded. This time, Barr has been in control from the start. And his Justice Department has blocked every avenue through which Trump might be held accountable.
Notes on the telephone conversation between Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky suggest Barr is implicated in Trump’s dirty work. (The memo is not a transcript, but rather a compilation of “notes and recollections” from officials listening in.) Trump mentions his attorney general six times as a resource for Zelensky. The president urges Zelensky to investigate his potential 2020 rival, Joe Biden—referring to unsubstantiated allegations that, as vice president, Biden used his position to quash a Ukrainian investigation into his son. “[W]hatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great,” Trump adds. He also told Zelensky that he would have his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani “give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it.”
Barr has been in control from the start.
The Justice Department released a statement Wednesday claiming that neither Trump nor Giuliani have spoken with Barr about pressuring Ukraine to investigate Biden and his son. But there is ample evidence that Barr played a substantial role in protecting Trump from a whistleblower complaint over the call. House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler has already insisted that Barr recuse himself “until we get to the bottom of this matter.” House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff also sent a letter to Barr Wednesday saying the DOJ’s involvement “raises the specter that the Department has participated in a dangerous cover-up to protect the President.”
Before Barr’s possible involvement in the Ukraine affair had even been made public, the DOJ stepped in to mute the whistleblower complaint over this call. Under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, or ICWPA, whistleblowers in a federal intelligence agency must send their complaint to Michael Atkinson, Intelligence Community inspector general. The law tasks Atkinson with deciding whether the complaint is credible and of “urgent concern.” If it is, Atkinson must send it to acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire. ICWPA states that Maguire, in turn, “shall … forward” the complaint to congressional intelligence committees within seven days.
This process worked as intended—until the DOJ stepped in. Atkinson received the whistleblower complaint and found it to be a credible allegation of “urgent concern.” So he sent it to Maguire. Instead of sending it to Congress, as he was legally obligated to do, Maguire asked the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel, which makes law that binds the executive branch. The OLC declared that he could not pass it on in an opinion later released to the public in modified form, holding that the whistleblower complaint did not pertain to a matter of “urgent concern.”
This opinion is bizarre, because the law does not allow Maguire—and, by extension, the OLC—to overrule Atkinson’s assessment of a whistleblower complaint. It tasks Atkinson with deciding whether the complaint meets ICWPA’s standards, not Maguire. OLC claimed a right, on Maguire’s behalf, to independently determine whether the complaint constitutes an “urgent concern.” No such right exists.
The OLC then followed a different law, which requires executive branch officials to notify the attorney general if they discover potential “violations of Federal criminal law involving Government officers.” So instead of going to Congress, the whistleblower’s complaint went to the DOJ and, apparently, to Barr himself. The DOJ then assessed whether Trump may have committed a campaign finance violation, since it is a federal crime for any person to “solicit” any “thing of value” from a foreign national in connection with an election.
On Wednesday, the DOJ released a statement announcing that the agency had determined that “that there was no campaign finance violation and that no further action was warranted.” It reached this finding by deciding that dirt on a political opponent is not a “thing of value”—disagreeing with Robert Mueller, who believed opposition research could qualify as a “thing of value.” The DOJ’s contrary conclusion theory of campaign finance law is far-fetched if not outright incorrect, ignoring the immense value that Trump and Giuliani evidently saw in a Biden investigation.
We don’t know for sure that Barr’s fingerprints are on this decision. But the OLC purported to follow a statute that required the whistleblower complaint to be “expeditiously reported to the Attorney General.” Thus, Barr was, at a minimum, presumably aware of the criminal referral. Moreover, there is no indication that Barr recused himself from the whistleblower matter, even though Trump invoked him on the call at the center of the affair.
In short, Barr’s Justice Department first manipulated ICWPA to prevent Maguire from sending the whistleblower complaint to Congress. It then manipulated campaign finance law to determine that Trump had committed no crime and refused to open an investigation. And the Attorney General himself, who appears to be implicated in the whistleblower’s complaint, almost certainly played a role in quashing any probe into the president.
Faced with this stonewalling at DOJ, House Democrats have no choice but to pursue impeachment if they want to get to the bottom of this scandal and punish Trump accordingly. Barr and his allies at the Justice Department certainly aren’t going to do it. To the contrary, the Justice Department seems eager to shield the president from any consequences. Under Barr, the DOJ has defended Trump’s refusal to comply with congressional subpoenas into his personal finances. It has even intervened on behalf of his former campaign chairman, convicted felon Paul Manafort, lobbying for him to receive special privileges behind bars. The Justice Department has all but announced that it will aide Trump’s allies and fight his enemies.
Barr will do whatever he can insulate Trump from federal law. We can certainly expect his DOJ to fight the House’s impeachment inquiry by attempting to stop executive officials from testifying, as ithas before. But there is one important power that Barr lacks: He cannot stop Congress from concluding that the president has committed high crimes and misdemeanors.
*************************************
Stern doesn’t even get into the equally serious problem of Barr’s “maliciously incompetent” mis-management, his intentional misconstruction of immigration law, and his promotion of biased, xenophobic, anti-asylum applicant decision making in the failing U.S. Immigration Courts which, despite their clearly unconstitutional structure, continue to operate as an appendage of DHS enforcement within the DOJ, as the Federal Appellate Courts disgracefully (and spinelessly) pretend to look the other way. History won’t be so kind to the “enablers” on the Federal Bench.
Asylum seekers I meet flee something even worse than Trump’s unethical immigration agenda
Our immigration policies seek to discourage border crossings by making life difficult for migrants. But almost nothing could be worse than going home.
Updated 8:38 am EDT Sep. 24, 2019
The Trump administration recently announced it intends to end the Flores settlement, an agreement that has been in place since 1997 and sets minimum standards for the treatment of children in detention. Under Flores, the detainment of children is restricted to a maximum of 20 days in order to limit their exposure to the harsh conditions and negative health impacts of detention. Overturning this agreement would allow children to be detained with their families indefinitely.
As a physician who works with adults seeking asylum in the United States, part of my role is to understand the magnitude of violence that a person has experienced and that has motivated their journey to our country. The stories I hear, and the physical and psychological scars that these asylum seekers bear, are a vivid portrayal of the forces driving migration.
The Trump administration has rationalized their decision to overturn Flores using the concept of deterrence. Ken Cuccinelli, acting director of Citizenship and Immigration Services, explained the decision this way:
“This is a deterrent, because they know that instead of rushing the border, which is what’s been going on for a number of years now, by using the massive numbers coming to the border and overwhelming our facilities and our capacity to hold folks and our court rulings, which is what the Flores rule was, that now they can and will to the extent we’re able to do so, hold them until those hearings happen.”
In other words, if migrant families know they face prolonged detainment in the United States, they might reconsider making the journey at all. This flawed logic exemplifies a fundamental misunderstanding of the context of migration to our southern border today.
‘Push’ and ‘pull’ — but especially ‘push’
Migration is driven by a combination of “push” and “pull” factors. In economic migration, migrants are being pulled to the USA by promises of better jobs or educational opportunities in the destination country.
But much of the record level of migration from Central America here has been driven, not by the allure of better opportunities, but by an epidemic of violence in the home countries — by push factors. In fact, a recent Doctors Without Borders report found that nearly 40% of migrants cited direct attacks or threats to themselves or their families as the main reason for fleeing their countries. The majority of these people originate from El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala — the Northern Triangle — one of the most violent parts of the world today.
The principle of deterrence is based on the idea that any act has associated positive and negative outcomes. If you are able to increase the associated negative outcomes, then you may ultimately reach a tipping point where it is no longer in the actor’s best interests to perform the act.
In the case of migration, if you can increase the negative consequences of crossing the border without legal status, then at some point the harm of doing so outweighs the potential benefit. But as I listen to the histories of asylum seekers — to the accounts of torture, of gang rape, of family members, including children, being murdered in front of you — deterrence seems not only morally dubious but futile. When this is the push, is there anything in the world that could deter you from running?
How cruel are we willing to be?
I recently met one asylum seeker fleeing years of imprisonment and brutal sexual violence by a gang in her home country in the Northern Triangle. After a harrowing escape and journey leading to our border, she presented herself to Customs and Border Patrol Protection agents and requested asylum. She was taken into custody and sent to a detention facility in California, where she had been awaiting her asylum hearing for months.
After sitting with her for hours, hearing her story and examining her scars, I asked her how she felt about being in detention. She shrugged. When she arrived at the U.S. border seeking safety, she certainly hadn’t expected to be put in jail. But she also told me that the detention center wasn’t all that bad — no one rapes her there.
Many of the asylum seekers I have met give a similar, stark assessment of the pros and cons of migrating to the USA. I have led clinics in New York, Massachusetts and California that conduct forensic medical evaluations for people seeking asylum, and the terror that they are fleeing is consistent.
Through my work with the Los Angeles Human Rights Initiative, I met another young woman who had been imprisoned by a gang and subjected to torture and gang rape before escaping and coming to the United States. She told me she would rather die in detention than be deported home to the Northern Triangle to face her former captors who awaited her there.
A third woman in California, who was applying for asylum on the grounds of domestic violence, was resolute when she spoke with me about her heart-breaking decision to leave her son behind with family when she fled her ruthless husband, a police officer in her town. When I asked whether she ever regretted her decision, she said no. Leaving her son had felt like dying, but the abuse her husband had subjected her to was worse than death.
Apart from being unethical, the human rights abuses generated by the Trump administration’s immigration policies will simply not accomplish their objective of stemming the tide of migration. The bleak reality is that, to deter people from seeking safety in our country, we would have to do so much worse than locking them up with their children indefinitely. Unless we are willing to be more cruel than what they are fleeing, deterrence is not an option.
Unfortunately, I think that Dr. Emery has underestimated the racism-fueled intentional cruelty of the Trump Administration as well as the cowardice and fecklessness of many Federal Judges, particularly at the appellate level.
Sending asylum applicants to Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, some of the most dangerous country in the world, plagued by corruption, and without functional asylum systems takes lawlessness, cruelty, complicity, and open mockery of our justice system to a new level!
I agree with her that it probably won’t be enough to stop refugees from coming. But, it might well be enough to stop them from using our legal system and to just take their chances with the smugglers and the extralegal immigration system that Trump and his courts have been working so hard to expand and enable.
As I have said numerous times, Trump and his immoral scofflaw DHS & DOJ sycophants are the “best friends” of professional smugglers, cartels, gangs, rapists, kidnappers, and extortionists. By diverting attention and resources from real law enforcement to punishing individuals who are trying to use our legal system, Trump and his cronies and enablers have been an amazing boon and “profit center” for criminals.
==========================================
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
==========================================
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The Immigration Court’s active backlog of cases just passed the million case mark. The latest case-by-case court records through the end of August 2019 show the court’s active case backlog was 1,007,155. If the additional 322,535 cases which the court says are pending but have not been placed on the active caseload rolls are added, then the backlog now tops 1.3 million.
During the first eleven months of FY 2019, court records reveal a total of 384,977 new cases reached the court. If the pace of filings continues through the final month of this fiscal year, FY 2019 will also mark a new filing record.
While much in the news, new cases where individuals have been required to “Remain in Mexico” during their court processing currently make up just under 10 percent (9.9%) of these new filings. These MPP cases comprise an even smaller share – only 3.3 percent — of the court’s active backlog.
As of the end of August, a total of 38,291 MPP cases had reached the court, of which 33,564 were still pending.
For the full report – including links to online query tools where readers can drill into countless additional details covering all 4.5 million court filings since FY 2001, the recent MPP component of these filings, and the court’s over 1 million active case backlog – go to:
Additional free web query tools which track Immigration Court proceedings have also been updated through August 2019. For an index to the full list of TRAC’s immigration tools and their latest update 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 U.S. federal government. To help support TRAC’s ongoing efforts, go to:
———————————————————————————
The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse is a nonpartisan joint research center of the Whitman School of Management (http://whitman.syr.edu) and the Newhouse School of Public Communications (http://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 http://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.
********************************
The futility of throwing more money into this badly broken system has become obvious. Without an independent, Article I U.S. Immigration Court, run by judges who direct the activities of the administrators rather than being run by politicos, there simply will not be any semblance of competent professional management of this system, certainly not under this Administration.
The Administration stubbornly refuses to take the necessary step of responsibly exercising “prosecutorial discretion” to reduce the backlog to a manageable size without “gimmicks.”
It’s equally obvious that Congress needs to enact some type of realistic legalization program that will remove cases of individuals with a period of productive residency and their families from the “active” docket and forestall the further mess that would be created by the absolute insanity of the “Gonzo plan” of restoring properly “administratively closed” cases to the active dockets.
The system is calling out for help. Unfortunately, those cries are being ignored by both Congress and the Article III Courts who are the only ones currently capable of fixing the system.
WASHINGTON — The nation’s immigration judges lost a key leader this week, the latest in a string of departures at the top of the system amid a backlog of cases and a migrant crisis at the southwestern border.
The official, David Neal, said that he would retire from his position as head of the judges’ appeals board effective Saturday. “With a heavy heart, I have decided to retire from government service,” Mr. Neal wrote in a letter sent to the board Thursday and obtained by The New York Times.
He gave no reason for his abrupt departure and asked his colleagues to “keep true to your commitment to fairness and justice.”
Follow National Security
Follow National Security to get the stories that matter most to you. Updated regularly in For You
.
FOLLOW
NATIONAL SECURITY
Success!You’re following National Security. See new stories in For You
.
FOLLOWING
NATIONAL SECURITY
No replacement has been announced, and a Justice Department spokesman declined to comment, citing a policy to not do so on personnel matters.
Mr. Neal’s decision follows a shake-up at the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the court system that adjudicates the country’s immigration cases, including asylum cases. It is part of the Justice Department, not the judicial branch.
Three of its senior career officials — MaryBeth T. Keller, the chief immigration judge; Jean King, the general counsel; and Katherine H. Reilly, the deputy director — all left their roles this summer. Ms. King stayed at the immigration office in a different post.
Mr. Neal’s departure also comes amid the backdrop of the Trump administration’s efforts to curb both illegal and legal immigration, which have taxed the immigration courts, the criminal courts and border patrols along the nation’s southwestern border and prompted long-running discontent among immigration judges that they are being used to expedite deportations.
As Mr. Trump has sought to suppress immigration and cut down on the number of people who claim asylum in the United States, he has notched two wins at the Supreme Court.
On Wednesday, justices said in an unsigned order that amid an ongoing legal battle, the administration could bar most Central American migrants from seeking asylum in the United States if they passed through another country and were not denied asylum there. That decision will allow the administration to effectively bar migration across the southwestern border by Hondurans, Salvadorans, Guatemalans and others who must travel through other countries to get to the United States.
And in July, the Supreme Court said that the Trump administration could use $2.5 billion in Pentagon money to build a barrier along the border with Mexico, which would help Mr. Trump fulfill a campaign promise to build a wall on the border to stop immigration.
Amid these hard-line policies, a vocal group of immigration judges — part of the larger total of about 400 judges and appeals judges — have been at loggerheads with the Trump administration for more than a year.
Leaders of the judges’ union have pushed back against the imposition of quotas that they have said would expedite deportations at the expense of due process. Under former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, they accused the Justice Department of trying to turn the immigration courts into a deportation machine.
Mr. Sessions treated the judges “like immigration officers, not judges,” said Paul Schmidt, a former judge in the immigration courts.
Some judges have also bristled at a recent Justice Department decision that handed over the power to rule on appeals cases to the director of the office, a political appointee. The judges saw the move as an attempt to undermine their authority.
That decision also directly impacted Mr. Neal, demoting him “in practice,” by transferring his authority to decide appeals cases to the director of the office, said Ashley Tabbador, the president of the union that represents immigration judges.
“This regulation upends the entire system created to decide these cases,” Ms. Tabbador said. Should the new system run into problems, “the chairman would have been held accountable. I would have quit, too, if I were in David’s position.”
Though they are part of the Justice Department, many immigration judges view themselves as independent arbiters of the law and believe they must act within the confines of existing immigration statutes.
They have long deliberated over whether they should be part of the Justice Department — a debate that has intensified under President Trump.
Last month, tensions increased when a daily briefing that is distributed to federal immigration judges contained a link to a blog post that included an anti-Semitic reference and came from a website that regularly publishes white nationalists.
After the episode, the immigration review office said that it would stop sending the daily briefing and would not renew its contract with the service that provided it.
**********************************
The farce taking place as the Trump DOJ politicos “remake” the Immigration Courts into a tool of DHS enforcement and repression of Due Process and fundamental fairness will go down as one of the darkest and most disturbing episodes in American legal history.
The inability or unwillingness of the other two branches of Government, Congress and the Article III Judiciary, to intervene and fulfill their Constitutional duties of protecting Due Process, fundamental fairness, equal protection, First Amendment rights of union members, and separation of powers show a catastrophic failure of American institutions that are charged with protecting and advancing all of our rights.
In the end, nobody including Trump’s tone-deaf supporters and enablers, will escape the adverse consequences of giving in to White Nationalist authoritarianism.
18 YEARS AFTER 09-11, THE “BAD GUYS” ARE WINNING THE BATTLE TO DESTROY AMERICAN JUSTICE & SPLIT THE COUNTRY! — Here’s The Disturbing Proof Of What Passes For “Justice” In America Today!
Immigration judge told 2-year-old to be quiet or a dog would ‘bite you’: report
An immigration judge reportedly threatened a Guatemalan child who was making some noise that a “very big dog” would “come out and bite you” if the undocumented immigrant did not quiet down, according to a report by Mother Jones.
The boy was in the courtroom with his mother for an immigration hearing in March 2016 when the threat happened, Mother Jones reported, citing testimony from an independent observer present at the court.
“I have a very big dog in my office, and if you don’t be quiet, he will come out and bite you,” Judge V. Stuart Couch reportedly told the child, according to an affidavit signed by Kathryn Coiner-Collier.
Coiner-Collier was a coordinator for a Charlotte, N.C.-area legal advocacy group that assisted migrants who could not afford attorneys.
“Want me to go get the dog? If you don’t stop talking, I will bring the dog out. Do you want him to bite you?” the judge continued to tell the boy during the hearing, according to Mother Jones.
Couch later asked Coiner-Collier to carry the boy out of the courtroom and sit with him, she told Mother Jones.
The judge reportedly told Coiner-Collier that he had threatened other children but that it appeared not to be working with this particular child.
Coiner-Collier said she immediately wrote the affidavit after the case, and in a message to the mother’s attorney in 2017, she wrote “I have never lost my composure like I did that day. … I was … red in the face sobbing along with [the boy’s mother.]”
Coiner-Collier also accused Couch of turning off the courtroom’s recording device as he threatened the child, whom she described as being 2 years old even though the judge said he was 5.
The child and her mother appeared again in front of Couch in August 2017, but the case was eventually reassigned. The new judge denied their asylum claim, according to Mother Jones. They are appealing the case.
Couch and five other judges were promoted in August to the Justice Department’s Board of Immigration Appeals.
The Hill has reached out to the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review for comment.
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, NBC News/AP Reports:
Rollout of ‘soul crushing’ Trump immigration policy has ‘broken the courts’
On the day she was set to see a U.S. immigration judge in San Diego last month, Katia took every precaution.
After waiting two months in Mexico to press her case for U.S. asylum, the 20-year-old student from Nicaragua arrived at the border near Tijuana three hours before the critical hearing was scheduled to start at 7:30 a.m.
But border agents didn’t even escort her into the U.S. port of entry until after 9 a.m., she said, and then she was left stranded there with a group of more than a dozen other migrants who also missed their hearings.
“We kept asking what was going on, but they wouldn’t tell us anything,” said Katia, who asked to be identified by her first name only for fear of jeopardizing her immigration case.
Bashir Ghazialam, a lawyer paid for by Katia’s aunt in the United States, convinced the judge to reschedule her case because of the transportation snafu. Later, staff at the lawyer’s office learned that at least two families in the group were ordered deported for not showing up to court.
Since it started in January, the rollout of one of the most dramatic changes to U.S. immigration policy under the Trump administration has been marked by unpredictability and created chaos in immigration courts, according to dozens of interviews with judges and attorneys, former federal officials and migrants.
The program – known as the “Migrant Protection Protocols” (MPP) – has forced tens of thousands of people to wait in Mexico for U.S. court dates, swamping the dockets and leading to delays and confusion as judges and staff struggle to handle the influx of cases.
In June, a U.S. immigration official told a group of congressional staffers that the program had “broken the courts,” according to two participants and contemporaneous notes taken by one of them. The official said that the court in El Paso at that point was close to running out of space for paper files, according to the attendees, who requested anonymity because the meeting was confidential.
Theresa Cardinal Brown, a former Department of Homeland Security official under presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush, said the problems are “symptomatic of a system that’s not coordinating well.”
“It’s a volume problem, it’s a planning problem, it’s a systems problem and it’s an operational problem on the ground,” said Brown, now a director at the Bipartisan Policy Center think tank. “They’re figuring everything out on the fly.”
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) estimated that 42,000 migrants had been sent to wait in Mexico through early September. That agency and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), which runs the nation’s immigration courts, referred questions about the program’s implementation to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which did not respond to requests for comment.
Huge surge, few courts
The disarray is the result of a surge in migrants, most of them Central Americans, at the U.S. southern border, combined with the need for intricate legal and logistical arrangements for MPP proceedings in a limited number of courts – only in San Diego and El Paso, initially. Rather than being released into the United States to coordinate their own transportation and legal appearances, migrants in MPP must come and go across the border strictly under U.S. custody.
Some migrants have turned up in court only to find that their cases are not the system or that the information on them is wrong, several attorneys told Reuters. Others, like Katia, have received conflicting instructions.
According to court documents seen by Reuters, Katia’s notice to appear stated that her hearing was at 7:30 a.m., while another paper she received said she should arrive at the border at 9 a.m., well after her hearing was set to start. She decided to show up at the border before dawn, according to staff in her lawyer’s office. Still, she wasn’t allowed into the border facility until hours later. Ultimately she was never bussed to the San Diego court and was told her case was closed – a fate she was able to avoid only after frantically summoning her lawyer, Ghazialam, to the border.
Most migrants in MPP – including the two families who were deported from her group at the port of entry – do not have lawyers.
In open court, judges have raised concerns that migrants in Mexico – often with no permanent address – cannot be properly notified of their hearings. On many documents, the address listed is simply the city and state in Mexico to which the migrant has been returned.
Lawyers say they fear for the safety of their clients in high-crime border cities.
A Guatemalan father and daughter were being held by kidnappers in Ciudad Juarez at the time of their U.S. hearings in early July but were ordered deported because they didn’t show up to court, according to court documents filed by their lawyer, Bridget Cambria, who said she was able to get their case reopened.
Adding to uncertainty surrounding the program, the legality of MPP is being challenged by migrant advocates. An appellate court ruled here in May that the policy could continue during the legal battle, but if it is found ultimately to be unlawful, the fate of the thousands of migrants waiting in Mexico is unclear. A hearing on the merits of the case is set for next month.
‘Unrealistic’ numbers
When the MPP program was announced on December 20, then-Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said one of its “anticipated benefits” would be cutting backlogs in immigration courts.
In the announcement, the agency said sending migrants to wait in Mexico would dissuade “fraudsters” from seeking asylum since they would no longer be released into the United States “where they often disappear” before their hearing dates.
But the immediate impact has been to further strain the immigration courts.
A Reuters analysis of immigration court data through Aug. 1 found judges hearing MPP cases in El Paso and San Diego were scheduled for an average of 32 cases per day between January and July this year. One judge was booked for 174 cases in one day.
“These numbers are unrealistic, and they are not sustainable on a long-term basis,” said Ashley Tabaddor, head of the national immigration judge’s union.
To reduce the backlog, DHS estimates the government would need to reassign more than 100 immigration judges from around the country to hear MPP cases via video conferencing systems, according to the attendees of the June meeting with congressional staff.
Kathryn Mattingly, a spokeswoman for EOIR, said that the rescheduling was necessary to deal with the substantial volume of recent cases.
All told, the courts are now struggling with more than 930,000 pending cases of all types, according to EOIR.
As of August 1, 39% of the backlog in the San Diego court and 44% of the backlog in the El Paso court was due to MPP case loads, Reuters analysis of immigration court data showed.
Despite concerns over the system’s capacity, the government is doubling down on the program.
In a July 26 notification to Congress, DHS said it would shift $155 million from disaster relief to expand facilities for MPP hearings, and would need $4.8 million more for transportation costs. DHS said that without the funding “MPP court docket backlogs will continue to grow.”
Tent courts are set to open this month in Laredo and Brownsville, Texas, and so far more than 4,600 cases have been scheduled there to be heard by 20 judges, according to court data.
In Laredo, 20 to 27 tent courtrooms will provide video conferencing equipment so judges not based at the border can hear cases remotely, said city spokesman Rafael Benavides.
Brownsville’s mayor Trey Mendez said last month that about 60 such courtrooms were likely to be opened, though he had few details. City manager Noel Bernal told Reuters that communication with the federal government about the plans has been “less than ideal.”
‘Desperate people’
At her next hearing in San Diego in mid-September, Katia hopes to tell a judge how her participation in student demonstrations made her a target of government supporters.
Meanwhile, she said, she is living with her parents and 10-year-old brother in a fly-infested apartment with broken plumbing outside Tijuana.
The whole group is seeking asylum because of their support for the protests, according to Katia, her mother Simona, her lawyers, as well as court documents.
Recently, family members said they witnessed a shootout on their corner and Katia’s brother is now waking up with night terrors.
“They are playing games with the needs of desperate people,” said Simona, 46, who like Katia requested the family’s last names be withheld to avoid harming their case. “It’s soul crushing.”
Of course, Judge Couch is already well-known for his bias and hostility toward asylum seekers, particularly abused women. Why else would he have been “promoted” to the position of “Appellate Immigration Judge” by “Billy the Sycophant” Barr? Obviously, the idea is to promote bias and “worst practices” as the “nationwide norm.”
And we never should forget the spineless ineptness and complicity of Congress and the Article III Courts who arewatching this travesty unfold every day while essentially looking the other way. Guess that as long as it’s somebody else “in the woodshed” these dudes can “tune out” the screams of the dehumanized. But, chances are when it’s finally their rights (or the rights of someone they “care about”) at stake, there will be nothing left of our legal and Constitutional system to protect them.
Indeed, the lawless and unconstitutional “Let ‘Em Die in Mexico Program” described here is largely the responsibility of the “above the fray” Judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals who have permitted this intentionally abusive and dehumanizing program to torment refugees and their representatives with impunity.
Disgustingly, these life-tenured judges and elected representatives are lining themselves up squarely with the forces of White Nationalism and overt racism, folks like Neo-Nazi Stephen Miller.
The judicial and Congressional complicity in the abuse and torment of the most vulnerable among us and their wanton disregard for the Constitution they swore to uphold will not go unnoticed by history. This, indeed, is how democracies die and the “bad guys of the world” win.
LAREDO, Texas — Workers climbed atop a massive new U.S. immigration tent court on the banks of the Rio Grande at dawn Monday, adding the last few nails to the white roof, as generators hummed.
A line of people snaked across the nearby border bridge, streaming into the U.S. from Mexico to travel, work and go to school, passing by the fenced walkway to the new 36,000-square-foot tent court complex.
Months after construction began, much about Homeland Security’s $25-million tent courts in south Texas remains a mystery, even to lawyers who expect to represent their migrant clients as soon as this week. What day the hearings will begin, where lawyers should file paperwork and even whether attorneys can meet their clients beforehand — all remain unanswered questions in this border town.
“The question is who’s going to have jurisdiction over these courts?” said Leidy Perez-Davis, Washington-based policy counsel for the American Immigration Lawyers Assn., whose members represent migrants scheduled to appear at the tents. “There’s not a lot of transparency. The confusion is large and wide.”
Tent courts were erected here and in Brownsville, Texas, during the summer by U.S. Customs and Border Protection at a cost of $25 million, so far. At least 20 courtrooms are expected to process 200 to 250 people a day, according to Laredo city spokesman Rafael Benavides. The tent court in Brownsville is expected to handle about 720 migrants a day, according to the federal contract.
The city had offered to lease Homeland Security an air-conditioned, 21,000-square-foot office building for 18 months for only $1, but Homeland Security officials declined the offer, they said, “because of the importance of having an operational hearing facility within the following two months to ensure timely hearings for migrants.” The city had told Homeland Security that the building would be ready in time, but the offer was still rejected.
While federal immigration courts are public, the tent courts are unique because they were built on Homeland Security land. Homeland Security facilities generally are not open to the public beyond occasional press tours, meaning the public and the media could potentially be prevented from observing the hearings.
Access became a concern this summer after migrant advocates and the office of the inspector general reported squalid conditions at migrant holding areas in several south Texas Border Patrol stations. Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials did not respond to requests from The Times to visit the tents or provide more information about how they will operate.
Immigration courts built inside other Homeland Security facilities, such as adult and family detention centers, are open to the public, though Homeland Security screens lawyers, reporters and other members of the public, in some cases banning them or requiring them to apply for access days in advance.
The tent courts are expected to exclusively host hearings for migrants who have been returned to Mexico to await the outcome of their asylum cases under the Trump administration’s “Remain in Mexico” program, which started in California in January and expanded to Laredo in July. The program has resulted in the return of more than 37,000 migrants to Mexico, many now stuck in overcrowded shelters or makeshift border encampments.
In recent days, the Border Patrol returned an average of 125 migrants daily to Nuevo Laredo. Borderwide, roughly 1,200 migrants are returned to Mexico daily, officials told Laredo Mayor Pete Saenz.
Immigration judges have been hearing Remain in Mexico cases in San Diego and El Paso for months, but in bricks-and-mortar courtrooms, open to the public as space allows.
Rep. Henry Cuellar, a Democrat who represents Laredo, and Saenz said they were told by Homeland Security officials that immigration judges in San Antonio would conduct the tent court hearings via videoconference starting Sept. 16, which is Independence Day, a national holiday in Mexico. Migrants’ attorneys said at least one person was scheduled to appear before that, on Thursday.
Adding to the confusion, attorneys said they have been unable to determine which federal agency controls access to the tents and whether they would be allowed to meet with asylum seekers there privately before a client’s hearing.
“It’s definitely going to affect the ability to represent clients and to help these asylum seekers. Attorneys have no idea where to file the paperwork necessary for these hearings; they don’t know what court will have jurisdiction; they don’t know if they’re supposed to go to the court where their client is or where the judge will be. We don’t know if there will be interpreters,” Perez-Davis said. “What we’re going to see is massive confusion.”
Denise Gilman, co-director of the immigration clinic at the University of Texas School of Law, said she has been visiting migrants in Nuevo Laredo, including one scheduled to appear at the tent courthouse this week. She said the clinic did not plan to represent them because the logistics made it impossible to meet migrants before their hearings.
“I just don’t want to partake of a system that is not set up to adjudicate but, rather, to exclude…. It is really just a mock-up of a court,” she said.
A spokeswoman for the federal immigration courts referred questions about the tent courts to Homeland Security. Spokesmen for Homeland Security and Border Patrol said they were still trying to clarify who would be given access.
A Homeland Security official said the agency “understands the need to protect the privacy and due process rights of individuals who will appear at these locations” and promised that the agency would quickly “determine how best to balance these rights with the special security issues that we must confront at an active port of entry.”
Cuellar, a former lawyer who toured the tents in July, said they sit alongside a dozen air-conditioned metal containers where he was told lawyers would be allowed to meet with their clients. He plans to tour the tent court on Tuesday. “I want to make sure we look at what’s the process there, where they meet with an attorney, where the videoconference is going to be.”
Cuellar said Homeland Security’s decision to reject the city’s offer of near-free use of a municipal building left him feeling cynical.
“It’s a waste of taxpayers’ money,” Cuellar said. “They’re trying to get visuals: tents, barbed wire, National Guard, wall…. They’re manufacturing a crisis.”
*******************************
Wasting taxpayer money, destroying Due Process, making a mockery out of the U.S. Justice system. Par for the course under the Trump Administration and its enablers.
When will Congress or the Article III courts put a stop to this illegal and unconstitutional “downward spiral” into “Third World Authoritarianism?”
In the meantime, join the New Due Process Army and fight for the restoration and improvement of our Constitutional rights and human decency.
The NAIJ has been particularly effective at arguing how such actions support the need for an independent Article I immigration court, outside of the control of the executive branch. The idea has been endorsed by numerous law groups, including the American Bar Association and the Federal Bar Association, and is now a common talking point among members of Congress. The move to decertify the NAIJ is clearly an effort to end such efforts.
A statement issued by Reps. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., and Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., chairs of the House Judiciary Committee and its Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship, recognized the decertification petition as “blatant retaliation for this opposition and an obvious attempt to shield immigration court operations from public view.”
The congressional leaders continued that “the Administration’s attempt to silence immigration judges by engaging in frivolous union busting tactics underscores why we need an immigration court system that is separate and independent from the Executive Branch. In the coming months, the Judiciary Committee will hold hearings to explore the current state of the U.S. immigration court system and develop a foundation for legislation to create an independent immigration court.”
. . . .
*****************************
Go on over to Jeff’s blog a the link to read the complete article, which originally appeared on Law360.
Under Trump, the Department of “Justice” clearly has become part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Under a future honest Administration, the DOJ is in need of a complete housecleaning and reorganization. We need some legislative safeguards to insure that the DOJ promotes, rather than undermines, the “rule of law.”
Of course, the problem starts — but doesn’t end — with corrupt leadership from folks like Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions and Bill “Trump’s Toady” Barr. But, it also takes some “go along to get along” amoral so-called “career bureaucrats” at DOJ to carry out these invidious policies.
Obviously, the need for an independent Article I U.S. Immigration court becomes more clear and pressing every day that the current farce operating within the DOJ is allowed to continue!
