"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
Appearing before EOIR courts can be highly stressful — not everyone survives the ordeal! Here, a 3-judge panel deliberates the fate of an asylum seeker using traditional methods.Jeremy McKinney, Esquire Greensboro, NC AILA President
As Congress returns to action after House Republicans were finally able to elect a speaker of the House following a weekslong impasse, one area they seem determined to address is border policy. Unfortunately, there seems to be much less interest in tackling one of the most important parts of our immigration system: immigration courts.
To put it mildly, there are a lot of misunderstandings about immigration court, and how things work or don’t work. As someone who’s been working in immigration courts for 25 years, I can say there are a myriad of ways things can and should be better.
First, the distances between immigration courts and the people who need to use them are often vast. My office is in Greensboro, North Carolina; my immigration court is in Charlotte. My clients typically travel from two to five hours to appear in court.
I once represented two children—a brother and sister from Central America—in immigration court proceedings. They had been sold by their father into domestic servitude and then abused by the people who trafficked them. The children escaped and reached the United States.
To prove they deserved asylum under our laws, they had to share what happened to them. The brother was so young, he struggled to articulate the horrors he experienced, while his older sister bore the deep scars of trauma, ones so severe that she had attempted to take her own life while her case in court was pending.
As horrifying and clear-cut as their stories seemed, the siblings faced a bewildering array of legal challenges. Their notices to appear lacked any hearing date, leaving them confused about when to appear. Immigration judges frequently order people removed for not appearing, despite the countless examples of ways in which the bureaucracy fails to inform people what their obligations are.
Before filing their asylum applications, I had to send a copy to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to trigger biometrics appointments for their criminal and security background checks. Some judges have ordered people removed for not having the biometrics done even though there isn’t anything they can do except request an appointment. Without a competent attorney working with you, it is impossible to make your way through all these pitfalls; errors at any of these stages could have resulted in them losing their asylum case—a devastating consequence and really a matter of life or death.
Prior to the hearing, I tried to contact the Immigration and Customs Enforcement attorney in their case to narrow down the legal issues. But the ICE attorney never responded, which is unfortunately common. In fact, ICE has recently instructed their attorneys that they don’t even need to appear in court. In any other court, if the trial attorney didn’t show up, the case would be dismissed. But not in immigration court.
Ultimately these siblings won their case because at the time, fear of persecution on account of kinship and domestic abuse was recognized as a valid basis for asylum. But several years after they won, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions changed asylum law using his unusual power to override immigration court decisions and tried to block kinshipand abuse cases as bases for gaining asylum.
The simple truth is that immigration courts are not real courts. The Executive Office for Immigration Review, or EOIR, is an arm of the Department of Justice headed by a political appointee, the attorney general. The attorney general has total authority over EOIR—including the power to hire the judges and re-adjudicate any case they decide. In an appeal, the attorney general represents the government in seeking to deport the person instead of remaining the neutral decision-maker. Given their very structure, the courts are not fair.
. . . .
*****************
Read the rest of the article at the link.
Notably, the notice issue, such as the lack of a hearing date, time, and place, as required by statute, has reached the Supremes for the third time. A better BIA would have followed the statute and held DHS accountable right off the bat.
This is just one of many problems that, in the absence of long-overdue Congressional action to establish an independent Article I Court, as urged by Jeremy and other experts, Garland has failed to address with administrative reforms and needed personnel changes within his sole authority!
WASHINGTON — An immigration judge and lawyer told a U.S. Senate Judiciary panel on Wednesday that an independent immigration court would help ease a backlog of more than 2 million pending cases.
Because the immigration court system is an arm of the U.S. Justice Department — the Executive Office for Immigration Review — each presidential administration has set immigration policy, and often those courts are subject to political interference, said Mimi Tsankov, an immigration judge, and Jeremy McKinney, an immigration attorney.
In the immigration court system, judges hold formal court proceedings to determine whether someone who is a noncitizen should be allowed to remain in the United States, or should be deported.
“Every administration has interfered with the courts. This undermines the courts’ integrity, and many of the executive branch’s manipulations of judges and their dockets simply backfire,” said McKinney, the former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
Tsankov, the president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, said in order to alleviate the backlog of immigration court cases, Congress should establish an independent immigration court under Article I of the U.S. Constitution.
. . . .
“An independent board will begin the process of healing this broken system,” she said.
The witnesses also argued that many people going through the immigration system lack legal representation, which can greatly impact their outcome.
The top Republican on the Senate panel, John Cornyn of Texas, argued that most cases are without merit, as opposed to asylum cases, which are based on a credible fear of death or harm. He said that people are “clogging the courts” and are aware the severe backlogs will allow them to stay in the country. Some courts have backlogs until 2027.
Sen. Mazie Hirono, Democrat of Hawaii, pushed back.
“People who have attorneys are 10.5 times more likely to be granted relief,” she said. “So it is when they have attorneys that they can proceed with their asylum claims.”
She added that another issue is that many children who are unaccompanied, even some toddlers, are expected to legally represent themselves.
“There is no guarantee that children will also have a lawyer, and this is alarming because children are some of the most vulnerable people in our immigration system,” she said.
Cornyn said he did not believe that “the taxpayer should be on the hook” for paying for legal fees and representation.
McKinney said that those who have representation and are not detained are five times more likely to gain relief. Immigrants who are detained and have legal representation are 10 times more likely to be granted relief than those who do not have representation.
“The point is that representation ensures due process,” he said. “It also makes the system more efficient when all the parties know the rules and know how to present a case. Cases move faster.”
***********
Read the full article at the above link. You can also check out the full video of the hearing here:
In his opening statement, ranking GOP Sen. Cornyn made it very clear that fixing the Immigration Courts is a nonstarter for the GOP.
Instead of engaging on this critically important initiative, he wasted much of his introduction disingenuously repeating the oft-debunked claim of a connection between asylum seekers and fentanyl smuggling. See, e.g., “Who is sneaking fentanyl across the southern border? Hint: it’s not the migrants,”https://www.npr.org/2023/08/09/1191638114/fentanyl-smuggling-migrants-mexico-border-drugs.
Obviously grasping at straws, in the absence of any empirical support for his nativist “scare scenario,” Cornyn went so far as to suggest — of course without a shred of evidence — that perhaps “go-arounds” were smuggling fentanyl.
This theory appears particularly questionable in light of evidence that most fentanyl is successfully smuggled through ports of entry by U.S. citizens and legal residents. Why would cartels abandon proven successful methods of port of entry smuggling to entrust their cargos to individuals who might not even survive the border crossing and, if apprehended, would certainly be searched? Cornyn had no answer.
What does seem likely is that by concentrating border law enforcement largely on “apprehending” and fruitlessly trying to “deter” those merely seeking to turn themselves in to exercise legal rights, the USG has diverted attention and resources from real law enforcement like an anti-fentanyl strategy. That almost certainly would require undercover infiltration of smuggling rings — dangerous and sophisticated law enforcement operations far removed from “apprehending” folks who WANT to be caught because they were forced to leave their home countries, are unsafe in Mexico, and can’t wait to schedule asylum appointments at ports of entry through the badly flawed and inadequate “CBP One App!” Building a fair and efficient asylum system should even help CBP apprehend more of Sen. Cornyn’s “go arounds!”
But, Cornyn’s misdirection isn’t just a distraction; it’s actually dangerous! As the GOP has shown over and over, if you repeat a lie or myth enough times, folks start to believe it. Witness the demonstrably totally frivolous claims of election interference that drive much of the GOP’s agenda and has become “truth” for their misguided “base.”
A case in point is the outrageous political boondoggle recently carried out by Virginia’s right-wing Governor Glenn Youngkin. In response to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s White Nationalist plea, Youngkin wasted two million taxpayer dollars on a bogus detail of the National Guard to the Texas border, ostensibly to “protect Virginians from the scourge of fentanyl.”
What if Youngkin had spent the same amount of money supporting NGOs in Virginia struggling to resettle and represent migrants aimlessly bussed to the DMV by Abbott and DeSantis as part of a political stunt? Community social justice NGOs generally use funds more carefully and efficiently than GOP blowhards like Youngkin and co.
The GOP claim that most asylum claims are frivolous also is misleading. For those who can actually get a merits hearing on asylum at EOIR — often in and of itself no mean feat given the prevalence of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” — TRAC statistics for FY 2022 show that 46% are granted. Seehttps://trac.syr.edu/whatsnew/email.221129.html#. And, this is in a system that is still heavily tilted against asylum seekers. EOIR still has many “holdover judges” from the Trump years who were hired not because of their expertise, qualifications, or reputations for fairness, but because their backgrounds indicated that they were likely to be unsympathetic to asylum seekers!
Admittedly, the manner in which EOIR keeps asylum statistics can make meaningful analysis difficult. For example, more than half of asylum “dispositions” are listed as “other” — which covers“abandoned, not adjudicated, other, or withdrawn,” a facially, at least partially, circular definition! Seehttps://www.justice.gov/media/1174741/dl?inline.
Moreover, since EOIR procedures generally require that all potential relief be stated at the time of pleading or presumptively be waived, prudence requires that the right to appply for asylum be protected, even if it is unlikely that the case will proceed to the merits on that application.
Also, it’s worth remembering that the Government already has a powerful tool for both identifying and quickly tossing frivolous asylum claims and expeditiously granting clearly meritorious claims to keep them out of the Immigration Court. It’s called the Asylum Office at USCIS! That despite much ballyhooed regulatory changes, DHS has failed to obtain “maximum leverage” from the credible fear/Asylum Office process is not a reason for eschewing EOIR reform!
What we can tell from the available data is that, rather than wasting more money on expensive and ineffective “deterrence gimmicks,” the best “bang for the buck” for the USG would be to invest in representation for asylum seekers and in a better, professionally-managed EOIR with better, independent judges, acknowledged experts in asylum law, who could “keep the lines moving” without denying due process or stomping on individual rights.They could also set helpful precedents for the Asylum Office. That’s what Congress and the Administration should be investing in.
Reforming the Immigration Courts and creating an independent Article I Court should be a high national priority. While no single action can bring “order to the border” overnight, fixing EOIR is an achievable priority that will support the rule of law and dramatically improve the quality and efficiency of justice at the border and throughout the U.S.
As Chairman Padilla (D-CA) said, this should be a bipartisan “no-brainer.” Just don’t look to today’s White-Nationalist-myth-driven GOP for help or rational dialogue on the subject.
EOIR HQ, Falls Church, VA (a/k/a “The Tower of Babel”) — EOIR and their DOJ handlers imposed designed-to-fail “dedicated dockets” on the public over the objections of advocates. Now they need the same experts they “blew off” to help them save their “due-process-denying rocket dockets!” By Pieter Bruegel The Elder Public Domain
Contact: Communications and Legislative Affairs Division Phone: 703-305-0289 PAO.EOIR@usdoj.gov
www.justice.gov/eoir @DOJ_EOIR
Oct. 17, 2023
EOIR to Host National Stakeholder Meeting Seeking to Increase
Pro Bono Representation for Immigration Courts with Dedicated Dockets
SUMMARY: The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) invites immigration law school clinical communities and pro bono organizations to attend a national stakeholder meeting for an open discussion on how to increase pro bono representation in immigration courts with Dedicated Dockets.
At this meeting, EOIR seeks input and recommendations on how the agency can better encourage and facilitate pro bono advocacy, either in person or remotely, at the following immigration courts with established Dedicated Dockets: Boston, Denver, Detroit, El Paso, Los Angeles – N. Los Angeles Street, Miami, New York – Broadway, New York – Varick, Newark, San Diego, San Francisco, and Seattle. See EOIR’s Policy Memorandum 21-23 for more details on this initiative.
EOIR continues to work to increase the representation rate and the number of practitioners available to represent noncitizens in immigration proceedings. Practitioners who volunteer their time to help those unable to afford counsel are a critical part of that effort.
Please join us for a targeted discussion with the goal of strengthening pro bono representation for the Dedicated Dockets.
DATE: TIME: LOCATION:
Oct. 26, 2023
1 p.m. – 2 p.m. Eastern Time
Live via Webex – Meeting Registration
All media inquiries should be directed to pao.eoir@usdoj.gov.
In reality, these ill-conceived and poorly-planned dockets have been “dedicated” to maximizing denials, minimizing due process, impeding effective representation, and developing an unfriendly atmosphere that will discourage asylum seekers from fully exercising their legal rights.
Some DOJ politicos and EOIR bureaucrats must belatedly be worrying about their “legacy,” future employability, or eventually being held accountable for plotting to deny due process to thousands of the most vulnerable humans! As usual, the immigration bureaucracy creates unnecessary problems, then leaves it to the NGO/advocacy community to bail them out!
It’s a deadly, counterproductive, wasteful, frustrating “downward cycle” that needs to stop! Why not “cut out the nonsense” by putting in charge those with the comprehensive knowledge, creative ideas, advanced skills, moral courage, and realistic foresight to solve these problems BEFORE they become self-created “crises?” Those needed leaders and judges are primarily OUTSIDE the USG right now. They need to be brought on board to solve the problems that are demonstrably beyond the ability, will, and skill set of the current immigration bureaucracy at DOJ and DHS!
Only those Immigration Judges granting at or above the (already substantially suppressed) national average should be allowed to hear asylum cases.
Reassign those BIA Appellate Judges who are not recognized asylum experts, and replace them with qualified asylum experts committed to providing and enforcing some positive guidance and best practices for asylum adjudication.
Identify and promptly grant the hundreds of thousands of meritorious asylum cases now moldering in the EOIR backlog (many victims of EOIR’s ADR) so that these refugees can get on with their lives and contribute fully to American society and our economy.
Dems have the power to reform EOIR — a huge “Federal Court system” that they exclusively control! Why are they afraid to use that power “to promote justice and resist evil?”
In the meantime, please take advantage of this chance to “enlighten” EOIR bureaucrats about what it’s really like to attempt to provide pro bono representation on “dedicated dockets” while dealing with their ADR on already-prepared cases that could and should have been granted long ago. Hopefully, some members of the media will also tune in to get a dose of the challenges of trying to fight for justice in America’s worst and least-user-friendly “courts!”
Honorable Mimi Tsankov U.S. Immigration Judge President, National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”)Hon. Samuel B. Cole Executive Vice President NAIJ PHOTO: NAIJ
Federal immigration judges Mimi Tsankov and Samuel B. Cole to address immigration courts backlog at Headliners Newsmaker, Oct. 18
October 16, 2023, 5:13 pm
WASHINGTON, Oct. 16, 2023 /PRNewswire/ — Judges Mimi Tsankov, a federal immigration judge in New York City, and Samuel B. Cole, a federal immigration judge in Chicago, will speak Wednesday, Oct. 18 at 10 a.m. at a National Press Club Headliners news conference about the pressures of the migrant crisis on the federal immigration court system.
NATIONAL PRESS CLUB LOGO. (PRNewsFoto/NATIONAL PRESS CLUB) (PRNewsfoto/National Press Club) (PRNewsfoto/National Press Club)
An unprecedented surge in migration has created a backlog of 2.6 million cases in the nation’s immigration courts resulting in long waits for hearings. Among other topics, the judges will address the recent assignment of judges to areas along the border. They will provide an update on the judges’ union efforts to restore rights lost during the previous administration.
Federal immigration judges are generally barred from speaking out on issues that affect their courts. Tsankov and Cole will speak in their capacity as president and executive vice president of the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), an affiliate of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE).
The National Press Club is located on the 13th Floor of the National Press Building at 529 14th St., NW, Washington, D.C.
PRESS CONTACT: Cecily Scott Martin for the National Press Club; cscottmartin@press.org; (202) 662-7525
Yet, the mainstream media, Democrats, Civil Rights organizations, and commentators often pay scant attention to the outrageous dehumanizing chaos in our Immigration Courts. One contributing factor is that the DOJ has “muzzled” Immigration Judges from speaking out publicly about what’s happening in their courts, a questionable 1st Amendment suppression that a Federal District Judge recently “shrugged off.” See, e.g., https://knightcolumbia.org/cases/naij-v-neal.
This is a rare opportunity for the public to get insights on this critically important yet “below the radar screen court system” from two sitting judges. They apparently have “sidestepped” the DOJ’s censorship by appearing “solely in their capacity as officers of the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”).” (Full disclosure: I am a retired NAIJ member.)
The NAIJ strives to provide professional training, encouragement of best practices, more independence, better working conditions, and more cooperation with parties appearing before the Immigration Courts. These positive efforts, among the few happening at EOIR, earned the NAIJ a “decertification” of their status as a union representing Immigration Judges during the Trump Administration.
Ironically, although the Biden Administration touts itself as the most “union-friendly Administration in history,” three years in, the NAIJ has yet to regain full recognition as a union.
In Immigration Court, the number one “internal” problem has probably been aimless docket reshuffling, where cases are repeatedly re-arranged depending on the priorities of different administrations. Other problems include inefficient Master Calendar Hearings and pre-trial conferences, insufficient guidance from the Board of Immigration Appeals, which leads to inconsistent decision-making, and not enough staff members to support the Immigration Judges. In addition, there is a shortage of DHS attorneys (the prosecutors), and those attorneys have insufficient power (or willingness) to resolve cases or narrow contested issues prior to the final hearing.
What does all this mean for asylum seekers? In court, cases are still being heard, though I expect that delays will increase and more cases will be rescheduled. We can also expect that more non-priority cases (i.e., people who do not have criminal or security issues) will be dismissed based on prosecutorial discretion. At the Asylum Office, nothing seems to be moving. You can try to expedite your case and if that fails, file a writ of mandamus to force the agency to adjudicate your application. Otherwise, I would not expect any progress any time soon.
Finally, we might as well end on a positive note. Having recognized that most asylum applicants will be stuck waiting for years and years, the government has recently increased the validity period of asylum-pending work permits from two years to five years. For asylum applicants, this change will save money and reduce stress, and for USCIS, it will reduce their workload and allow them to focus on other applications. I guess the lesson here is that every cloud has a silver lining–even a mushroom cloud.
***************************
Read Jason’s full analysis at the link.
As Jason acknowledges, some of the drivers are “world events” over which — contrary to GOP and other nativist blather, often fanned by the so-called “mainstream media” — receiving countries like the U.S. have relatively little effective control. This is particularly true in the short run.
We’ve notoriously tried “taking over” countries in conflict. It never works! Moreover, it can eventually create additional refugee situations rather than resolving them. See, e.g., Afghanistan.
Nor are border barriers, razor wire, dungeons, arbitrary deportations, stripping asylum rights, xenophobic rhetoric, criminal prosecutions, killing some migrants by forcing ever more dangerous crossings, and a host of other unilateral measures pushed primarily by the GOP (but also by some Dems) going to change the actions of Maduro, Ortega, Putin, Diaz-Canel or any of the other authoritarian autocrats whose policies drive folks to flee their native lands and seek refuge abroad.
So, rather than wringing hands about what we can’t change, why not change that which is under our control? Long overdue, common-sense reforms and improvements in asylum adjudication, reception, and resettlement, some mentioned by Jason, could be achieved.
They won’t necessarily halt the flow of refugees, nor are they guaranteed to eliminate backlogs, particularly in the short run. But, they will reduce the backlogs, contribute mightily to a better U.S. legal system, and comply with our international and domestic legal obligations. That, in and of itself, appears to be a worthy and achievable goal. But, nobody in charge seems to be interested in anything but “quick fixes” — which aren’t really “fixes” at all, since they have all been tried and failed.
Immigrant Defenders help humanity at the border, treating fellow humans with dignity, respect, kindness. PHOTO: Linkedin
Immigrant Defenders posted this on LinkedIn:
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) continues to inhumanely release asylum seekers onto San Diego streets, often with little more than the clothes on their backs. #TeamImmDef, Lindsay Toczylowski, Margaret Cargioli, Melissa Shepard and Jesús Contreras Barajas, continues to join various non-profit organizations, grassroots groups and community members to receive asylum seekers with respect and help them reach their friends and family members all over the United States. Our dedicated team, in collaboration with our remarkable San Diego-based partners, is tirelessly working to continue to welcome migrants with dignity. We have welcomed more than 8500 asylum seekers in 13 days.
We need all levels of government, local and federal, to provide infrastructure and financial resources to help NGOs welcome with dignity.
If you want to help, please consider donating airline miles to Miles4Migrants. Please see the link in our bio to donate. Or donate directly to ImmDef at Immdef.org/donate.
Scandalously, rather than looking to solve this humanitarian crisis, the GOP seeks to punish victims of Government dereliction of duty and their humanitarian responders for asserting well-established legal rights! Talk about a party of lawlessness! Sadly, it’s no surprise since they owe homage to an insurrectionist “leader” who is a notorious fraudster, con man, and criminal defendant in multiple cases!
While resisting the GOP’s worst racist/nativist nonsense, the Dems’ approach has been largely to avoid talking about immigration and human rights, apparently believing that pretending like they don’t exist will make them go away. But, migration isn’t going away!
While we can to some extent control, channel, and optimize migration, irresponsible “zero tolerance/uber deterrence” policies will do little to stop reality in the long run. It will, however, eventually force more migration underground and cede policy control to smugglers, cartels, and other criminals.
At the same time, obsessing over deterring and deporting those who merely seek refuge and a chance to contribute to America will actually diminish the harder work of focusing on criminals out to turn border disorder and misplaced priorities to their advantage.
Neither party appears to have a realistic plan for the border, and the GOP actively seeks to make things worse!Meanwhile, not for the first time, NGOs, local communities, and compassionate individuals are left to pick up the slack!
Recently, the San Diego County Board showed the potential for bipartisan cooperation on the border.
But, without a more realistic approach from the Feds — currently blocked by the GOP — local efforts are unlikely to succeed. And, that’s an avoidable humanitarian tragedy!
“Petitioner Srecko Pesikan argues that the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) erred in concluding that his 2018 Pennsylvania conviction for driving under the influence (“DUI”) of marijuana constituted an offense involving a “controlled substance,” as defined in the federal Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”), thereby rendering him removable under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a) (“INA”). We agree and will grant his petition for review. … In sum, because the identity of the specific controlled substance is not an element of the Pennsylvania DUI statute, the state statute of conviction is indivisible and cannot serve as the basis for Pesikan’s removal under the INA. … For the foregoing reasons, we will grant Pesikan’s Petition for Review in case number 21-1262 and will reverse the order for removal.”
These are important cases with high stakes! They deserve expert analysis from expert judges.
Eliminating unnecessary Circuit reversals and remands like this would also help address the backlog-building, due-process-denying phenomenon of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” at EOIR. Avoidable mistakes at the “retail level” are systemically costly to our justice system in more ways than one!
And, remember, that for every EOIR mistake that gets “caught” by the Article IIIs, dozens of these injustices probably go uncorrected! Circuit review is a luxury that isn’t available to most individuals who lose at the BIA level. Even here, Mr. Pesikan would have had no chance at the Circuit except for court-appointed pro bono counsel Stephen A. Fogdall and his team at Dillworth & Paxon, LLP, another luxury unavailable to litigants at the EOIR level.
Moreover, even when Circuit review does take place, the inappropriately deferential standards established by Congress allow (or even require) some Circuit panels to merely sweep glaring injustices under the rug without grappling with the overall constitutional implications of this shoddy, due–process-denying system. Why on earth would “deference” be given or review restricted over the “gang that can’t shoot straight” at EOIR?”
Would you give “deference” to these guys? Theatrical poster from Wikipedia
Some folks who should be applying for these jobs tell me they “couldn’t work with such an unfair law.” I say “poppycock.” To a large extent, the law and the unfair results are only as bad as EOIR judges choose make them.
But, it doesn’t have to be that way! For example, you can choose to:
Apply Cardoza-Fonseca, Mogharrabi, Kasinga, A-R-C-G-, and other precedents favorable to applicants fairly and robustly;
Honestly apply the presumption of future persecution set forth in 8 CFR 208.13 and actually put the burden on DHS to rebut it with evidence, not mere conjecture;
Carefully consider the possibility of a discretionary grant of asylum under the regulations (“so-called Chen grant”), even where the government rebuts the presumption of a well-founded fear;
Make realistic, practical, proper credibility determinations based on “the totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors;”
Require only “reasonably available” corroborating evidence;
Actually follow the legal principle that credible testimony, in an of itself, can be enough to grant relief;
Apply the “reasonableness of internal relocation” regulation set forth at 8 CFR 208.13(b)(3) honestly;
Fairly apply the properly generous interpretation of the “well founded fear” standard required by the Supremes in Cardoza and described by the BIA in Mogharrabi to cases where there is no past persecution;
Incorporate the latest scholarship on “country conditions,” rather than “cherry picking” DOS Country Reports looking for ways to deny;
Use the latest body of scholarship on “best interests of the child” in deciding cancellation of removal for non-LPRs;
Schedule cases in a reasonable manner, in consultation with both counsel, to eliminate endemic “aimless docket reshuffling;”
Take measures to promote and facilitate representation of individuals, rather than throwing up roadblocks;
Make ICE counsel do their jobs, rather than doing it for them, particularly in cases where ICE unilaterally declines to appear at the merits hearing;
Use all of your practical skills and knowledge of the law and practice to solve problems and promote efficiency;
Consider all interpretations available to you, not just “defaulting” to the one offered by ICE;
Make careful, analytical, findings of fact, rather than just glossing over facts favorable to the individuals and over-emphasizing or fabricating the facts most favorable to DHS;
Make your “courtroom a classroom” where exceptional scholarship, due process, fundamental fairness, teamwork, practical solutions to human problems, and best practices are promoted and institutionalized.
You might well find, like I did, that being guided by Cardoza and Mogharrabi, sticking to your guns, providing full due process, and faithfully following the law actually leads to grants of relief in the majority of individual hearings. Notably, ICE seldom appealed my grants, and I was rarely reversed by the BIA, no matter who appealed.
I actually did better with my former BIA colleagues as an IJ than I had during my eight years of service on the Board. Indeed, as I sometimes quipped, as an IJ, I finally got that which my colleagues often denied me during my tenure as BIA Chair and an Appellate Judge/BIA Member: deference!
Worried about “life after EOIR!” Yes, there is such a thing!
And, a quick survey of our Round Table of Former Immigration Judges and BIA Members 🛡⚔️would show everything from partners and of counsel in law firms, professors and educators, major NGO supervisors and attorneys, community activists, consultants and coaches, to those, like me, who claim to be “fully retired and just enjoying life.” The Round Table actually has great credibility with the Federal Courts and the media because, unlike sitting judges and their “handlers,” we can actually speak truth to power outside the courtroom!
Whether you serve for a year or the rest of your career, what you learn as an EOIR judge if you pay attention, will give you a “leg up” and otherwise unobtainable practical knowledge of how America’s most important, yet least understood, court system actually works (or not)!
Every week, almost every day in fact, we see in Federal Court reversals and remands to EOIR and reports from practitioners about unpublished successes the fundamental difference that great litigation and equally “great judging” can make in reaching correct results!Making it happen every day, in every court, at the “retail level,” rather than counting on the uncertainties and limitations of Circuit review, will save lives and change the delivery of justice throughout America!
NDPAers, the “EOIR train” is leaving the station. 🚅 As a nation, we can’t afford the “best and the brightest” of today’s legal profession not to be on board! So, get those “many applications” in for those “many jobs” and let’s see if we can fix this “life or death system” from both the inside and the outside! We won’t know if we don’t try!
Hon. Dana Leigh Marks Retired U.S. Immigration Judge San Francisco Immigration Court Past President, National Association of Immigration Judges, Member Roundtable of Retired Immigration Judges
From the Los Angeles & San Francisco Daily Journal:
The just published proposed regulation is a big deal. It begins with over thirty pages of introductory information debunking the misguided justifications for the previous version of this rule [enjoined by a Federal Court]. Point by point the flawed logic, counterproductive encroachment on judicial discretion, and unnecessary micromanagement [an endemic EOIR problem] is called out.
It appears that EOIR is slowly correcting some of the mistakes of the recent past. What’s disappointing and of great concern: 1) Should and could have been “day one stuff;” 2) Judge Dana Marks was on the EOIR payroll on Jan. 20, 2021, and she or a qualified expert like her could and should have been put in charge and empowered to kick tail, take names, clean house, bring in top judicial and administrative talent, and implement long-overdue, still absent, EOIR reforms!
Better late than never? Perhaps, we’ll see. But, I’m not betting the farm on it!
Harvesting the “low hanging fruit” — the many clearly grantable asylum cases — has proved remarkably elusive for EOIR — under Administrations of both parties! IMAGE: Creative Commons 2.0
That Mexico is one of the most dangerous countries in the world for journalists is hardly “rocket science.” 🚀 See, e.g.,https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/annihilating-journalism-mexican-reporters-work-attacks-killings-rcna14196. Yet, an EOIR Judge was allowed to twice wrongfully deny this “slam dunk” case —on specious grounds such as making the absurd finding that Mr. Gutierrez was not a journalist — over six years before the BIA finally ended the farce!🤡
So, let’s put this into a real world context. 15 years, two wrong IJ decisions, and two trips to the BIA to complete (actually it’s still not complete, because it was remanded for “background checks,” but that’s another saga), a case that should have taken a well-qualified Immigration Judge about 15 minutes to grant. So, what chance is there that without major leadership, personnel, structural, and substantive changes, EOIR could do “justice” on asylum cases put on an ”expedited docket.” Slim and none, as actual experience shows!
The necessary first step toward meaningful immigration reform is a complete overhaul of EOIR. Without that readily achievable administrative action, no attempt at legislative or regulatory reform can succeed. It’s not rocket science! 🚀 Just common sense, moral courage, and “good government.”
AG Merrick Garland thinks it’s fine to play “roulette” with human lives in his arbitrary, capricious, and dysfunctional EOIR. Those trying to help his victims obtain justice disagree! Is this REALLY the way things ran when Garland was on the D.C. Circuit? If not, why is it “good enough for Immigration Court?” IMAGE: tvtropesJennifer Scarborough, Esquire Law Firm of Jennifer Scarborough PLLC Harlingen, TX PHOTO: FirmHamed Aleaziz Staff Writer LA Times
Hamed Aleaziz & Tracy Wilkinson report for the LA Times:
WASHINGTON — Numerous Russians attempting to escape conscription onto the Ukrainian battlefield have made perilous journeys to the United States, trusting in the Biden administration’s declaration that the U.S. would “welcome” those fleeing the war and their forced participation in it.
Instead of winning asylum, however, some of these men have been detained and, in at least one case, deported back to Russia, where they could be thrown into the fight against U.S.-armed Ukraine — into “the meat grinder,” as the U.S. secretary of State recently put it.
The U.S. has deported nearly 190 Russians since the beginning of October 2022, almost three times as many as were removed during the entire prior year.
Some Russian conscripts have refused to board deportation flights, forcing U.S. immigration officers to return them to immigration detention and legal limbo.
Three Russians the U.S. detained and sought to deport told The Times that certain abuse awaited them at home, where draft dodgers are subject to imprisonment or swift dispatch to front lines. The three Russians said they felt bewildered — betrayed, even — bythe U.S. asylum system. The Times is withholding their identities because they fear retribution if they are returned to Russia.
“Death awaits me there if I go back,” said one Russian man in his 20s. He said he was slated to be deported but fainted when immigration officials loaded him onto the plane, which forced them to return him to detention.
Although Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky urged Russians who opposed the war to stay at home and fight to topple Russian President Vladimir Putin, the Biden administration has explicitly encouraged Russians who do not want to fight in Ukraine to seek asylum in the United States.
“There are people out there in Russia who do not want to fight Putin’s war or die for it,” White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in September. “We believe that, regardless of nationality, they may apply for asylum in the United States and have their claim adjudicated on a case-by-case basis.
“We welcome any folks who are seeking asylum, and they should do that,” she said.
But Russians who have taken the U.S. up on that offer have quickly discovered that seeking asylum is not the same as winning it. The U.S. government’s willingness to help people who flee Russia — even if doing so undermines Russia’s war effort — is limited.
In some cases, the government has argued that being called up to serve in the Russian military is not alone sufficient grounds for asylum. Jennifer Scarborough, the lawyer for the three Russians The Times interviewed, has countered that they qualify for asylum because they did not want to be involved with the war for political reasons and would face unreasonable repercussions for refusing to serve.
“They could be deported back to a regime that is committing gross human rights violations,” she said. “I don’t understand how we are denying Russians at all.”
The number of Russians crossing the southern U.S. border surged in November and December, shortly after Putin, facing massive casualties among his troops, ordered up a fresh army mobilization and drafted up to 300,000 reservists.
Russians crossed the southern border more than 5,000 times in November and nearly 8,000 times in December, a major increase from earlier months.
More than 8 million Ukrainians have fled their homeland since Putin launched his invasion of the former Soviet Republic on Feb. 24, 2022. Their escapes have involved trains and commercial flights and massive assistance, and they have largely been welcomed in other countries.
By contrast, many of those fleeing Russia for the U.S. have used the same difficult and at times treacherous route that disfavored refugees from all over the world use. A flight from Dubai or Istanbul gets them to South America, where they continue on flights, buses and by foot northward, sometimes trekking through jungle, to reach Mexico and the U.S. border.
One man who spoke to The Times was picked up by immigration agents in December near Tecate. The man made the weeks-long journey to the U.S. with his younger brother.
The man fled Russia when his call-up notice arrived.
“Even in childhood, I understood that, for me, America was a symbol of freedom,” he said in a telephone interview from a detention center in Pennsylvania. “And yes, there was a dream to move here one day. Because during your entire life in Russia, it is difficult; you’re discriminated against at every turn.”
“I went through war,” the man said. “I know what this entails. I saw the war. And now they are trying to force me to bring this to Ukraine.”
. . . .
*****************
Read the complete report at the link.
Jenn Scarborough asks the right question. In a functioning protection system, one would expect most cases like this to be granted in short order. However, the BIA generally has restrictive precedents on draft evaders and deserters stemming largely from a desire to deny protection to applicants fleeing civil wars in Central America decades ago. See, e.g., Matter of A-G-, 19 I & N Dec. 502 (BIA 1987).
As “Courtsiders” know, the endemic problem is lack of expert, progressive, dynamic, courageous intellectual leadership in a system now solely controlled and operated by a Dem Administration that often acts more like an “old school GOP” one on immigration and human rights! Administration of both parties live in perpetual fear that making good on promises of fair treatment and legal protection would actually motivate refugees to seek it!
That’s a particular problem at EOIR which should be the legal intellectual leader here! We need practical, scholarly, generous, common sense precedents focusing on what should be easily grantable protection claims!
Instead, we have a leaderless, bureaucratic, non-expert mess, still retaining too many elements of the anti-immigrant, anti-asylum, any reason to deny, go along to get along, court as a “deterrent” system constructed and promoted by the Trump Administration. That has continued to churn out both egregious inconsistencies and backlog-building inefficiencies in critical “life or death” cases!
FALLS CHURCH, VA – The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) today announced the appointment of Katharine E. Clark as a Board Member of EOIR’s Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
The BIA is the highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws, having nationwide jurisdiction to hear appeals of decisions by adjudicators, including Immigration Judges.
Biographical information follows:
Katharine E. Clark, Appellate Immigration Judge
Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Katharine E. Clark as an Appellate Immigration Judge in August 2023. Judge Clark earned a Bachelor of Arts, magna cum laude, in 2003 from Brown University and a Juris Doctorate in 2006 from Georgetown University Law Center. From 2022 to 2023, and 2007 to 2018, she served as a senior litigation counsel and trial attorney at the Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, Department of Justice. From 2019 to 2021, she was a managing attorney at Ayuda in Silver Spring, Maryland, where she also handled cases on a pro bono basis. From 2018 to 2019, she was counsel for the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. From 2006 to 2007, she served as a Judicial Law Clerk at the Boston Immigration Court, entering on duty through the Attorney General’s Honors Program. Judge Clark is a member of the Maryland State Bar and the Pennsylvania State Bar.
— EOIR —
*****************************
Proud to say Judge Clark is a graduate of not only Georgetown Law (where I am an Adjunct), but one of many distinguished alums of the Legacy Arlington Immigraton Court Internship Program, established by my good friend and colleague Retired U.S. Immigraton Judge Mario Christopher Grant. I later inherited the “Mentor Judge” position upon Judge Grant’s retirement. Judge Clark is the first, hopefully of many, of those we mentored to be appointed to the BIA.
I am also a member of the Advisory Board at AYUDA, where Judge Clark worked as a supervisory attorney from 2019-21.
Judge Clark’s experiences give her an exceptionally broad, varied perspective. She has seen the system from the inside, at EOIR, as an NGO advocate assisting those struggling to deal with EOIR’s dysfunction and institutional unfairness, as an OIL attorney defending EOIR’s work, and as a legislative aide attempting to address the system’s many shortcomings.
She is well positioned to help the BIA and EOIR move beyond the flawed decision-making, unrealistic guidance, and backlog-building “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” that has plagued the Immigration Court System over the past two decades. Hopefully she will be a force in returning EOIR to it’s proper (though long-abandoned) vision of: Through teamwork and innovation, becoming the world’s best administrative tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all!
It’s far away from that now! But, there are some judges at EOIR like Judge Clark qualified and capable of leading a “due process renaissance” at the beleaguered tribunals. Whether and to what extent they will be able to do so remains to be seen.
Congratulations again and good luck to Judge Clark!
BIA Asylum Panel In Action. It’s hard to ignore the BIA’s violent, deadly, abuse of asylum seekers, particularly those of color. But, somehow, Merrick Garland, Lisa Monaco, Vanita Gupta, Kristen Clarke, and other DOJ officials manage to look the other way, as do Congressional Dems! Too busy fecklessly complaining about Justice Clarence Thomas to look at their own house? Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
The panel granted a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of Francisco Reyes-Corado’s motion to reopen removal proceedings based on changed circumstances, and remanded.
The Board denied reopening based, in part, on Reyes- Corado’s failure to include a new application for relief, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). The government acknowledged that under Aliyev v. Barr, 971 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2020), the Board erred to the extent it relied on Reyes- Corado’s failure to submit a new asylum application for relief. Here, however, unlike in Aliyev, Reyes-Corado did not include his original asylum application with his motion to reopen. Consistent with the plain text of § 1003.2(c)(1) and various persuasive authorities, the panel held that a motion to reopen that adds new circumstances to a previously considered application need not be accompanied by an application for relief.
The Board also denied reopening after concluding that Reyes-Corado did not establish materially changed country conditions to warrant an exception to the time limitation on his motion to reopen. Reyes-Corado initially sought asylum relief based on threats he received from his uncle’s family members to discourage him from avenging his father’s murder by his uncle’s family. The Board previously concluded that personal retribution, rather than a protected
** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
REYES-CORADO V. GARLAND 3
ground, was the central motivation for the threats of harm. In his motion to reopen, Reyes-Corado presented evidence of persistent and intensifying threats.
As an initial matter, the panel explained that the changed circumstances Reyes-Corado presented were entirely outside of his control, and thus were properly understood as changed country conditions, not changed personal circumstances. The panel also held that these changed circumstances were material to Reyes-Corado’s claims for relief because they rebutted the agency’s previous determination that Reyes-Corado had failed to establish the requisite nexus between the harm he feared and his membership in a familial particular social group. The panel explained that the Board’s previous nexus rationale was undermined by the fact that the threats, harassment, and violence persisted despite the lack of any retribution by Reyes-Corado’s family against his uncle’s family for at least fourteen years after Reyes-Corado’s father’s murder, and where multiple additional family members were targeted, including elderly and young family members who would be unlikely to carry out any retribution. Thus, the panel held that the Board abused its discretion in concluding that Reyes-Corado’s evidence was not qualitatively different than the evidence at his original hearing.
The panel also declined to uphold the Board’s determination that Reyes-Corado failed to establish prima facie eligibility for relief because Reyes-Corado’s new evidence likely undermined the Board’s prior nexus finding, and the Board applied the improperly high “one central reason” nexus standard to Reyes-Corado’s withholding of removal claim, rather than the less demanding “a reason” standard.
4 REYES-CORADO V. GARLAND
The panel remanded for the Board to reconsider whether Reyes-Corado established prima facie eligibility for relief and to otherwise reevaluate the motion to reopen in light of the principles set forth in the opinion.
COUNSEL
David A. Schlesinger
(argued), Kai Medeiros, and Paulina
Reyes, Jacobs & Schlesinger LLP, San Diego, California, for Petitioner.
Enitan O. Otunla (argued), Trial Attorney; Bernard A. Joseph, Senior Litigation Counsel; Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice; Washington, D.C.; for Respondent.
OPINION
KOH, Circuit Judge:
********************************
Congrats to David A. Schlesinger & colleagues!
I’ve often discussed EOIR’s all-too-frequent use of bogus nexus determinations – basically turning normal legal rules on causation on their head – to deny protection to bona fide refugees, particularly those from Latin America and Haiti.
There is a growing body of evidence that EOIR is systematically unfair to Central American asylum applicants. But, Garland, his lieutenants, and Congressional Dems have basically looked the other way as this stunning, widespread denial of due process and equal protection under our Constitution continues to unfold in plain view on their watch! Why? Where’s the dynamic, values-based, expert, ethical leadership we should expect from a Dem Administration?
This particular example of substandard “judging” literally reeks of pre-judgement and “endemic any reason to denialism!”
Dems wring their collective hands about Justice Clarence Thomas, who is essentially unaccountable and untouchable! But, they have done little or nothing to address serious competence, bias, and ethical issues festering in a major “life or death” Federal Court System they totally control!
(1) Torturous conduct committed by a public official who is “acting in an official capacity,” meaning acting under color of law, is covered by the regulations implementing the Convention Against Torture, but such conduct by an official who is not acting in an official capacity is not covered. Matter of O-F-A-S-, 28 I&N Dec. 35 (A.G. 2020), followed.
(2) The key consideration in determining if an official’s torturous conduct was undertaken “in an official capacity” for purposes of CAT eligibility is whether the official was able to engage in the conduct because of his or her government position, or whether the official could have done so without connection to the government.
FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ethan R. Horowitz, Esquire, Lawrence, Massachusetts
SCHMIDT, RETIRED JUDGE OF THE ROUND TABLE, DISSENTING:
I dissent.
A far fairer, more logical, efficient, and uniformity-promoting solution is staring us in the face: An applicant who credibly establishes torture by a public official or officials should be entitled to a rebuttable presumption that the torture was inflicted “under color of law.” The DHS should then be required to establish by a preponderance of evidence that the official was acting in another capacity if it wishes to contest that presumption.
The information and evidence that might overcome a logical presumption that government officials act “under color of law” is much more likely to be available to the DHS than to the applicant. This is particularly true in the many cases where CAT applicants are detained, unrepresented, or both.
This rebuttable presumption would also, as a practical matter, close the gap between our interpretation and the rule in the Ninth Circuit which wisely recognizes no exceptions when torture is inflicted by government officials. See, e.g., Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 362 (9th Cir. 2017).
In adjudicating claims from individuals who have already suffered torture at the hands of government officials we must err on the side of protection, not rejection. The panel’s mushy guidance amounts to no practical guidance at all. It will certainly result in conflicting results, increased trial times and backlogs, arbitrary denials, and violations of due process. More backlog-promoting, avoidable Circuit Court remands are sure to follow.
U.S. asylum laws were designed to protect people fleeing harm. They were enacted in the decades following the Holocaust to ensure that the United States never again turned away people fleeing persecution. But now, many blame these laws for the chaos and inhumanity at the nation’s southern border.
The biggest blow to America’s commitment to asylum came during the pandemic, when former President Donald Trump invoked Title 42, an emergency measure that allowed border agents to turn away asylum seekers, under the justification of preventing the spread of the virus.
When Title 42 restrictions were lifted in May, President Biden enacted a carrot-and-stick approach aimed at deterring new asylum seekers from traveling by foot to the border. These new measures included a set of legal pathways, including a parole program that allows people from select countries, including Cuba and Haiti, to legally enter the country for at least two years, provided they have a financial sponsor in the United States. Doing so has discouraged would-be migrants from taking a dangerous trek with a smuggler, often through multiple continents.
This approach would have been a great step forward if it wasn’t paired with a counter measure that prohibits some asylum-seekers at the border from applying for protection in the United States. The vast majority of migrants must secure an appointment at an official port of entry, which are difficult to obtain, or else they will be subject to expedited removal if they cannot prove that they sought legal protection in another country along the way.
. . . .
If proponents of a secure border are serious about lowering border crossing numbers and decreasing unauthorized migration, they should support Mr. Biden’s attempts to create new legal pathways. Instead, a coalition of Republican attorneys general is challenging the president’s parole program. In Congress, Senate Republicans are trying to eliminate the same parole authority that allowed Afghans to temporarily resettle in the United States. There have been no challenges to the use of the parole authority to bring Ukrainians to the United States.
These actions reveal that our current fight over the border is not about the number of people trying to come here — it is about which should be allowed to come. American voters may not have strong opinions about the future of the asylum system or the legal pathways being created, but voters of both parties dislike the chaos and human suffering that have subsumed this issue for the past 10 years. Over a million American citizens have signed up to sponsor migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Venezuela and Nicaragua.
At a moment of record global displacement, we can’t keep waiting for Congress to modernize our immigration laws. Safe legal pathways are good for the people who use our immigration system. Mr. Biden has taken some critical steps to give migrants better options, but with no hope of congressional action in the near future, more is needed.
Andrea R. Flores is the vice president for immigration policy and campaigns at FWD.us.
****************************
Read the complete op-ed at the link.
Much of what Andrea says echoes what I have said over and over on Courtside and has been repeatedly recommended by experts, who are then largely ignored by the Biden Administration.
As I have argued before, the “low hanging fruit” here would be EOIR reform: A new BIA of “practical scholars;” better IJs with proven asylum and human rights experience; ending “Aimless Docket Reshuffling On Steroids” (which drives many poor policy and legal decisions); and getting some dynamic, fearless, expert leadership on human rights and immigration at the DOJ — which is either the driver or the facilitator of many of the problems at the border, depending on how you look at it.
We can also see how Garland’s lackluster performance on immigration affects other areas of justice such as civil rights, women’s rights, and LGBTQ rights, to name a few of the most obvious ones. Nobody at today’s DOJ appears to possess the “big picture” knowledge and experience to “connect the dots” on these critical issues.
As horrifying and clear-cut as their stories seemed, the siblings faced a bewildering array of legal challenges. Their notices to appear lacked any hearing date, leaving them confused about when to appear. Immigration judges frequently order people removed for not appearing, despite the countless examples of ways in which the bureaucracy fails to inform people what their obligations are.
