"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.
THE PROSTITUTION OF EYORE: Founded To Establish Independence, The Immigration Court Agency Puts Out Bogus Statistics To Support Sessions’s White Nationalist Agenda!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt (U.S. Immigration Judge, retired)
The Executive Office for Immigration Review, known as “EOIR” and pronounced “Eyore” as in the sad little donkey from Wininie the Pooh,was founded in 1983 to promote judicial independence and Due Process. Sadly, those have ceased to be the focus, as the beleaguered agency now develops and promotes bogus statistics to advance the White Nationalist xenophobic agenda of chief immigration “enforcer,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
Some might have noticed a new way of presenting so-called “asylum statistics.’ Recently, EOIR published the following so-called “statistical tables” on “defensive” asylum applications — that is, those filed by respondents as a defense to removal after they have been placed in proceedings before the Immigration Court. By contrast, applications filed with the USCIS Asylum Office before proceedings are instituted and thereafter “referred” to the Immigration Court if they are not granted are known as “affirmative” applications.
EYORE ROLLS OVER FOR SESSIONS
Here’s the chart:
Executive Office for Immigration Review
DefensiveAsylumApplications Fiscal Year
Filed
Granted
Defensive Receipts : Defensive Grants Ratio
2008
13,213
2,928
4.51:1
2009
12,258
2,458
4.98:1
2010
12,771
2,273
5.61:1
2011
17,988
2,807
6.4:1
2012
19,908
2,891
6.88:1
2013
23,372
2,620
8.92:1
2014
31,046
2,765
11.22:1
2015
45,960
3,388
13.56:1
2016
68,849
4,863
14.15:1
2017
120,094
6,995
17.16:1
2018 (as of 6/30/2018)
83,534
6,946
12.02:1
Anyone familiar with how immigration proceedings actually work immediately would see the problem with this presentation. However, few of those not familiar with EOIR and Immigration court would notice that glaring disconnect.
What’s the problem? This is a classic “apples and oranges”analysis. The number of “applications filed” in a particular year has little, indeed almost nothing, to do with the number granted. That’s because given the dockets at EOIR, applications are very seldom actually decided in the year that they are filed.The minority that are decided in the year filed are almost always applications by detained, usually unrepresented, aliens. Such applications are literally like “shooting fish in a barrel.” Detained unrepresented asylum applicants seldom receive anything even resembling Due Process and are therefore routinely denied asylum.
Moreover, because the system forces respondents to file all possible applications for relief before an “Individual Hearing” is scheduled, respondents who might actually be relying on cancellation of removal, adjustment of status, so-called “stateside waivers,” and other forms of relief must file the “backup” asylum application even if it might well never proceed to a final adjudication. Additionally, even respondents seeking only the lesser relief of withholding of removal or relief under the Convention Against Torture must file on the asylum application, Form I-589, and thus are counted as “asylum applicants” even if they never pursue asylum.
By artificially maximizing the number of “defensive filings,” while taking the grants out of context to minimize them, EOIR artificially creates a bogus picture of only a small number of asylum applications being granted on the merits. Moreover, EOIR compounds the error by presenting a totally bogus and highly pejorative statistic of “filings to grants” without correlating the year filed with the year granted.
No honest professional statistician would participate in such a hoax. The intent obviously is to create a false narrative of overwhelmingly non-meritorious asylum applications to support Sessions’s disingenuous fabricated scenario of “asylum fraud” infecting the system. For example, according the EOIR’s bogus numbers, the ratio of “applications to grants” in FY 2017 was 17 to 1, falsely suggesting very few meritorious asylum applications.
THE “REAL DEAL”
So, what are the only meaningful EOIR asylum statistics. The number of asylum applications granted and denied on the merits in a particular year. And, those statistics present a radically different picture. Let’s look at EOIR’s own Statistical Yearbookthrough 2016 (the last year for which it was published – the 2017 Statistical Yearbookshould have appeared in the spring of 2018 but, for some curious reason hasn’t) the last full year of the Obama Administration:
As recently as 2016, despite the Obama Administration’s ill-advised “Southern Border Initiative” that forced more unprepared individuals into the “defensive” system faster, and notwithstanding the overall politicized slant of asylum law against Central American Asylum seekers (even before Sessions), the grant rate was a very “robust” 31%, essentially one in three, rather than the bogus one out of every 14.5 put forth in EOIR’s Sessions-driven false narrative.
Let’s look a little further into what the real numbers show. Here are the overall grant rates for asylum and withholding of removal (by regulation, all asylum applications are also considered applications for protection under the withholding of removal provisions of the INA) for the five-year period ending in 2016 :
Immigration Court Asylum or Withholding of Removal Grant Rate
Asylum Grants
Withholding of Removal Grants
Denials of Both Asylum and Withholding of Removal
Grant Rate
FY 12
10,575
1,527
6,978
63%
FY 13
9,767
1,493
7,293
61%
FY 14
8,672
1,453
7,888
56%
FY 15
8,184
1,184
7,685
55%
FY 16
8,726
969
10,533
48%
While there is a remarkable drop in approvals in FY 2016, again, likely due to the Obama Administration’s ill-advised “Southern Border Initiative,” in FY 2016, 48% of asylum applicants whose cases were actually adjudicated on the merits received protection – essentially one-half of applicants.Again, this is a far cry from EOIR’s current misleading scenario which compares grants to both asylum applications that were not adjudicated on the merits during the year and asylum applications that have never been adjudicated and might never be adjudicated at all, as a result of Session’s mismanagement of the Immigration Courts.
Let’s dig a little further. Here is what happens to so-called “affirmative applications,” that is those made initially to the USCIS asylum Office, when they are “referred” to the Immigration court for a full hearing:
Immigration Court Affirmative Grant Rate
Grants Denials Grant Rate
FY 12 7,721 2,964 72%
FY 13 7,175 2,589 73%
FY 14 5,925 1,937 75%
FY 15 4,794 1,172 80%
FY 16 3,890 801 83%
As we can see, the overwhelming number of affirmative asylum applications not granted by the Asylum Office are eventually granted by the Immigration Courts – a huge majority, 83% in FY 2016. At a minimum, this suggests that the USCIS Asylum Offices should be granting many more affirmative asylum applications, thereby keeping them out of Immigration Court altogether.
ACCURATE STATISTICS LEAD TO BETTER CONCLUSIONS
Overall, the real numbers lead to some obvious conclusions that refute the bogus picture of asylum abuse being painted by Sessions and his EOIR accomplices:
About 50% of asylum applicants whose cases are decided on the merits by the Immigration Courts gain protection;
Asylum applicants who are given fair access to lawyers and time to prepare, generally those filing “affirmative” asylum applications, succeed at extremely high rates;
The USCIS Asylum Office could grant many more “affirmative applications” than they currently do.
All of this suggests that a much more logical approach to asylum adjudication would be:
Treating all asylum applicants applying at ports of entry or who are apprehended near the border and found to have a “credible fear” of persecution or torture as “affirmative applicants” whose cases can be initially adjudicated, and often approved, on the merits by the USCIS Asylum Office without bothering the already overloaded Immigration Courts;
Insuring fair access to counsel and adequate preparation time, preferably in a non-detained setting, to those seeking asylum at the border (significantly, represented asylum applicants show up for their court hearings at extremely high rates);
Encouraging “priority scheduling” for cases in Immigration Court where the documentation is compelling and the Assistant Counsel and private counsel have worked together to narrow the issues for a likely grantof protection (obviously, there are less likely to be Due Process issues with “expediting” grants as opposed to denials).
Exploring other forms of protection or legal status for those whose cases are now “stuck” in the Immigration Court backlog (many are now married to U.S. citizens and eligible for “stateside processing,” or have or will have viable claims for Cancellation of Removal as a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Pereira.)
Restoring a more realistic and generous “prosecutorial discretion” (or “PD”) policy along the line of that followed during the later years of the Obama Administration would also help reduce and restore some order to the Immigration Court dockets.
Of course, under Sessions, EOIR and DHS are moving in the opposite direction: seeking, without any probative evidence to support their claims, to falsely paint asylum applicants as de-humanized “numbers” who are “gaming” the system. There is “gaming” going on; but, it’s by Sessions and his “go alongs” at EOIR who intentionally are using bogus statistics to paint a false picture of our asylum system.
NO JUSTICE UNTIL BOTH SESSIONS AND EYORE RIDE INTO THE SUNSET
Asylum is an important part of our immigration system. It should and could be much more generously granted and with far less red tape and bureaucracy. Granting asylum is not only our legal obligation (with a moral foundation stemming from the disaster of World War II and its aftermath) but also benefits both our country and, of course, the individuals whose lives are saved.
Yes, there is so-called “asylum fraud.” But, by and large, it doesn’t involve those currently applying at our Southern Border. Indeed, the parts of ICE Investigations that perform reallaw enforcement work, in my experience, do an excellent job of taking apart large asylum fraud rings and “undoing” those asylum grants that were based on fraud. Several significant Chinese and Indonesian “rings” and at least one involving Cameroonian claims were exposed and prosecuted in that manner.
The U.N Convention and Protocol relating to refugees, implemented by our Refugee Act of 1980, was intended to inspire “a generous asylum policy”and actually to extend protection
to those in flight who might not fully satisfy all of the technical requirements of the “refugee” definition. The generous letter and spirit of the Convention and the Refugee Act of 1980 also are reflected in the leading U.S. Supreme Court case, INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, implementing the generous “well-founded fear” standard for asylum.
Jeff Sessions and his White Nationalist gang are moving to dismantle refugee and asylum protections at all levels. Part of their strategy depends on de-humanization of refugees, bogus statistics, and false narratives. Shamefully, “Eyore” has now become part of that effort, just proving again that Due Process and the rule of law won’t ever be totally restored to our country until we get an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court.
My friend and colleague, The Honorable Jeffrey Chase, also contributed to this article. The views expressed are mine, and mine alone.
Honorable Jeff Sessions Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530
Dear Attorney General Sessions:
We are scholars and teachers of immigration law and of administrative law. We write to express our alarm about the Department of Justice’s new performance metrics for immigration judges. We believe the Department’s performance metrics are unacceptable and fear they are a part of larger goal to undermine the independence of the immigration courts.
Longstanding problems with immigration adjudication have simmered through both Republican and Democratic administrations.1 These problems have manifested in a tremendous backlog of cases awaiting adjudication: over 700,000 cases.2 The wait for a removal hearing can last years.3 The status quo is not acceptable and actions to reform the system are imperative.
Reforms, however, need to enhance fairness by protecting individual rights. Whether the adjudicating body is the Environmental Protection Agency, the Internal Revenue Service, or the Department of Justice in a removal proceeding, how government power is used against a respondent should be scrutinized. This concern is amplified in immigration law because Congress has eliminated federal court review of some issues. For many, the agency hearing before the Department of Justice is the only opportunity to seek statutory protections.
1 Our comments here focus on the Department of Justice’s proposed performance metrics for immigration judges, but there are other issues facing the immigration adjudication system, including a lack of access to counsel and the many types of diversions used to prevent an individual from reaching immigration court. SeeIngrid V. Eagly & Steven Shafer, A National Study of Access to Counsel in Immigration Court, 164 U. PA. L. REV. 1 (2015); Jill E. Family, A Broader View of the Immigration Adjudication Problem, 23 GEO. IMMIGR. L.J. 595 (2009).2 Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, Backlog of Pending Cases in Immigration Courts as of May 2018,http://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/court_backlog/apprep_backlog.php.
3 Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, Average Time Pending Cases Have Been Waiting in Immigration Courts as of May 2018,http://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/court_backlog/apprep_backlog_avgdays.php.
Widener University Commonwealth Law School, 3800 Vartan Way, Harrisburg, PA 17110
t: 717-541-3911 f: 717-541-3966 e: jefamily@widener.edu w: commonwealthlaw.widener.edu
The concept of fair process in implementing the rule of law is one of the most fundamental American principles. It is a pillar of meaningful democracy. The idea that the government should not deprive any person4 of life, liberty or property without first providing fair process is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. The repercussions of a lack of fair procedure can be devastating. While it is incumbent on any federal administration to act efficiently, the adjudication process must be fair.
The fair process calculus demands an adjudicator who does not feel compelled to rule in a certain way due to unacceptable influences. The law itself may of course compel an adjudicator, but the scenario becomes very murky very quickly when an adjudicator has a personal stake in the outcome of a case.
Agency adjudicators are not Article III judges and never have had the full independence of federal court judges. Immigration Judges do not have even the job protections that other agency adjudicators enjoy, however.5 Immigration judges are attorney employees of the Department of Justice.6 The Department of Justice sets the conditions of employment, including location of employment and whether employment continues.7 A Department of Justice regulation, nevertheless, tells immigration judges to “exercise independent judgment and discretion” when making decisions.8 Also, the immigration judge position has evolved over time to make it more independent,9 even if it has not reached the ideal level of independence.10
Congress has tasked you, the Attorney General, with the management of the Department of Justice, including immigration adjudication. It is your duty to insist that fairness and independence are a part of the system. Agency adjudicators are by nature more accountable to the executive branch. But that does not mean that agency adjudicators should be mere vessels who fail to apply statutory standards or who apply the law subject
4 The Due Process Clause is not limited to citizens. U.S. CONST. amends. V, IV.
5 See Kent Barnett, Against Administrative Judges, 49 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 1643, 1647 (2016).
6 8 C.F.R. § 1003.10(a).
7 See Board of Immigration Appeals: Procedural Reforms to Improve Case Management,
67 Fed. Reg. 54,878, 54,893 (Aug. 26, 2002) (codified at 8 C.F.R. pt. 3).
8 8 C.F.R. § 1003.10(b).
9 Sidney B. Rawitz, From Wong Yang Sung to Black Robes, 65 INTERPRETER RELEASES 453 (1988).
10 There are proposals, for example, to recreate immigration adjudication as an Article I court with greater autonomy from the executive branch. Christine Lockhart Poarch, The FBA’s Proposal to Create a Federal Immigration Court, THE FEDERAL LAWYER (April 2014), available at http://www.fedbar.org/Image- Library/Government-Relations/CH16/Proposed-Article-I-Immigration-Court.aspx; American Bar Association,Reforming the Immigration System (2010) at E9, available athttps://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/media/nosearch/immigration_reform_executive_s ummary_012510.authcheckdam.pdf; American Immigration Lawyers Association, Resolution on Immigration Court Reform (2018), available at https://www.aila.org/File/DownloadEmbeddedFile/74919. See also Stephen H. Legomsky, Restructuring Immigration Adjudication, 59 DUKE L.J. 1635, 1640 (2010) (recommending that immigration judges become administrative law judges and be relocated from the Department of Justice to an independent tribunal within the executive branch).
2
to unfair influence or a conflict of interest. Independence and a lack of bias help to protect individual rights and to secure public confidence in the integrity of the process.
The Department of Justice should not conflate enforcement with adjudication. Immigration judges are not prosecutors. Immigration adjudication is different than other functions of the Department of Justice. Immigration judges hear cases initiated by the Department of Homeland Security.11 The Department of Homeland Security therefore decides who enters the immigration adjudication system. The Department of Justice is tasked not with enforcement, but rather with carefully evaluating another agency’s claims that an individual should be removed from the United States.12
The Department of Justice must adjust and rapidly respond to the work thrust upon it by the Department of Homeland Security. One tool to help improve the efficiency and operations of the immigration courts would be for the Department of Homeland Security to more carefully assess and vet the cases it chooses to bring forward. We urge you to work with the Department of Homeland Security to improve their procedures rather than expecting all management of enormous dockets to fall on the shoulders of the immigration judges.
Instead of providing adequate resources13 or implementing other case management tactics, the Department of Justice has proposed the case completion quotas. 14 We believe that these quotas show disregard for the importance of independence,15 including avoidance of a conflict of interest, in adjudication. The quotas seem to align with President Trump’s
11 Lenni B. Benson & Russell R. Wheeler, Enhancing Quality and Timeliness in Immigration Adjudication at 12 (2012), available at https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Enhancing-Quality-and-Timeliness- in-Immigration-Removal-Adjudication-Final-June-72012.pdf.
12 Congress has charged immigration judges with the duty to adjudicate charges of removal. 8 U.S.C. §1229a.13 The Administrative Conference of the United States has recognized the need for additional resources for immigration adjudication. See Administrative Conference Recommendation 2012-3 at 3, 5, available athttps://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2012-3.pdf. We recognize that the Department of Justice has been hiring more immigration judges, but the number of judges has not kept pace with the workload. In 2012, there were 264 immigration judges and now there are approximately 330. Lenni B. Benson & Russell R. Wheeler, Enhancing Quality and Timeliness in Immigration Adjudication at 6 (2012),available at https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Enhancing-Quality-and-Timeliness-in- Immigration-Removal-Adjudication-Final-June-72012.pdf; (reporting 264 immigration judges in 2012); U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Chief Immigration Judge, https://www.justice.gov/eoir/office-of-the- chief-immigration-judge (stating that there are approximately 330 immigration judges).
14 EOIR Performance Plan, available at http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2018/images/04/02/immigration-judges- memo.pdf.
15 We implore the Department of Justice to promote independence even outside the context of the quotas. A group of former immigration adjudicators recently objected to the Department’s removal of an immigration judge from a particular case and replacement with a supervisory judge who implemented the administration’s preferred outcome. Retired Immigration Judges and Former Members of the Board of Immigration Appeals Statement in Response to Latest Attack on Judicial Independence, July 30, 2018, available at,https://www.aila.org/infonet/retired-ijs-former-bia-mems-attack-on-jud-independ.
3
displeasure with the need for process in immigration cases. In response to a Republican proposal to add 375 immigration judges, he said, “We don’t want judges; we want security on the border.”16 He also characterized the Republican proposal as adding five or six thousand more judges (in actuality the legislation proposed adding 375 judges).17 He said that to add that many judges must involve graft.18 He also has claimed that there is something wrong with foreign nationals having lawyers represent them in immigration proceedings.19
Performance metrics for judges are not inherently objectionable. Careful data collection and analysis can be helpful for training adjudicators and for marshalling court resources. Immigration judges already are subject to qualitative evaluations of their work. These new quantitative performance metrics, however, appear to affect conditions of employment20such as salary and location of employment.21 This is unacceptable. These metrics will diminish independence in immigration adjudication as immigration judges will now have a personal stake in the outcome of cases. Meeting the performance metrics will become a powerful influence over immigration decision-making.
The metrics establish case completion quotas for immigration judges at 700 completions per year. This sets up many immigration judges to fail, or perhaps even worse, encourages immigration judges to cut corners to meet the quota.22 As far as we know, the Department has not introduced a case weighting system. Not every immigration court docket is the
16 Remarks by President Trump at the National Federation of Independent Businesses 75th Anniversary Celebration, June 19, 2018, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks- president-trump-national-federation-independent-businesses-75th-anniversary-celebration/.
17 Id; GOP Moves to End Trump’s Family Separation Policy, but Can’t Agree How, N.Y. TIMES, June 19, 2018,available at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/us/politics/trump-immigration-children-separated- families.html.
18 Remarks by President Trump at the National Federation of Independent Businesses 75th Anniversary Celebration, June 19, 2018, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks- president-trump-national-federation-independent-businesses-75th-anniversary-celebration/.
19 Id.
20 We are aware of your congressional testimony stating that an immigration judge would not be fired automatically for failing to meet the quota and that the Department of Justice would consider an explanation why a judge did not meet a quota. Department of Justice FY19 Budget: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies, 115th Cong., available at https://www.c- span.org/video/?444369-1/attorney-general-sessions-testifies-justice-department-budget#&start=1786(testimony of Attorney General Jeff Sessions at 31:20). The Department, however, has not clarified exactly how these performance metrics would be used, and immigration judges believe that a failure to meet a quota would be used punitively. See Letter from A. Ashley Tabaddor, President, National Association of Immigration Judges, to Hon. Jefferson B. Sessions, May 2, 2018, available athttps://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4452614/NAIJ-Letter-to-the-AG-5-2-2018.pdf.
21 Location of employment is valuable in a system with immigration courts in major cities and in extremely remote detention centers.
22 Russell Wheeler, Amid Turmoil on the Border, New DOJ Policy Encourages Immigration Judges to Cut Corners, June 18, 2018, available at https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/06/18/amid-turmoil-on- the-border-new-doj-policy-encourages-immigration-judges-to-cut-corners/.
4
same. Deciding 700 claims for asylum is not the same workload as deciding 700 cases where the only issue is whether a foreign national entered the United States without inspection. Asylum cases require careful consideration of evidence about country conditions and an applicant’s experiences in that country. Also, the unique characteristics of a particular judge’s caseload could prevent meeting the case completion goal. Some immigration courts have specialized dockets for vulnerable populations such as those with mental illness or juveniles. Judges assigned to these dockets have additional obligations to ensure minimum standards of fairness.23
The quota motivates judges to come up with coping mechanisms. 24 Efficiencies can come at too great of a cost. For example, what if an immigration judge decides to review paper records and then decide which cases to invite to provide live testimony? If a judge is worried about meeting a quota, a judge might only schedule those matters that could be handled quickly. That would leave more complicated cases to be decided on paper submissions alone.
The quota also sets up an incentive for immigration judges to deny applications for relief. Cancellation of removal provides just one example. By statute, the number of grants of cancellation of removal is limited to 4,000 per year.25 Once the cap is reached, immigration judges may delay a grant to the following fiscal year. If deferring a grant is not considered a completion, then the incentive is to deny the application for relief to earn a completion. This incentive exists even if an immigration judge sincerely believes that the individual is eligible for relief from removal. There are similar issues where the Department of Homeland Security must complete final security checks before a grant of asylum. The immigration judge knows that an asylum case requires multiple steps to complete, but a denial of a case shortens the completion time. Should the judge erroneously deny relief to maintain his or her conditions of employment?
In addition to the case completion quotas, the Department’s proposal calls for certain types of cases to be decided within a certain number of days. This further erodes an immigration judge’s independence to decide what cases need more attention or to allow a continuance to ensure fairness. For example, the plan calls for 95% of all individual merits hearings to take place on the originally scheduled date. The problem here is that there are many forces
23 The federal courts impose obligations on individual immigration judges. For example, in a recent decision on whether a juvenile must be appointed counsel, the Ninth Circuit held that the detailed questioning by the immigration judge was an adequate substitute for appointed counsel. C.J.L.G. v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 1122, 1137-42 (9th Cir. 2018) (noting the obligations of the immigration judge to develop the record). While many of us disagree with the lack of appointed counsel for indigent children, it is clear that federal courts mandate an active and inquisitorial role of immigration judges that requires time and patience.
24 Your own recent decision in Matter of Castro-Tum eliminated a docket management tool known as administrative closure. Now immigration judges must keep these cases active and open on their dockets. 27 I&N Dec. 271 (2018), available at https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1064086/download.
25 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(e).
5
at work that lead immigration judges to issue continuances. Because there is no right to government funded counsel in removal proceedings, foreign nationals may ask for a continuance to find a lawyer, or a newly hired lawyer may need time to prepare. Also, witnesses may not be available on a particular date, or testimony may run long, and the hearing may need to be continued to another day. The 95% goal encourages immigration judges to hold hearings without lawyers even when the foreign national desires one and provides incentive for immigration judges to cut hearings short. Moreover, a study conducted on behalf of the Administrative Conference of the United States revealed a significant percentage of the delays in cases were made at the request of the Department of Homeland Security, not the respondent.26 If the Department of Homeland Security is not ready to proceed and the immigration judge rushes to completion, the government may have to file more appeals. That would simply create more work somewhere else.
As we noted above, the priorities of the Department of Homeland Security directly and at times dramatically impact the work of the immigration courts. The case completion quotas have arrived at the same time that President Trump’s administration has changed its prosecutorial discretion policies to make more foreign nationals priorities for removal.27The administration has announced its plans to open more actions in immigration court.28
Also, the Department of Justice has announced that it is reviewing the Legal Orientation Program, which provides information about the removal process to immigration detainees in a group setting.29 This review is taking place despite previous reviews that have found the program to increase the efficiency of the immigration courts and to save the government money.30 Without an adequate increase in resources, putting more individuals in removal proceedings and/or ending the Legal Orientation Program will only magnify the negative effects of the performance metrics.
26 Lenni B. Benson & Russell R. Wheeler, Enhancing Quality and Timeliness in Immigration Adjudication at 73 (2012), available at https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Enhancing-Quality-and-Timeliness- in-Immigration-Removal-Adjudication-Final-June-72012.pdf (reporting that 11% of delays were because a Department of Homeland Security attorney was not ready to proceed and that 14% were because the Department of Homeland Security was missing a file).
27 Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States (Jan. 25, 2017), available athttps://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-enhancing-public-safety-interior-united- states/.
28 See, e.g., US Citizenship and Immigration Services, Updated Guidance for the Referral of Cases and Issuance of Notices to Appear (NTAs) in Cases Involving Inadmissible and Deportable Aliens (June 28, 2018), available at,https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2018/2018-06-28-PM-602-0050.1- Guidance-for-Referral-of-Cases-and-Issuance-of-NTA.pdf.
29 Sessions Backtracks on Pausing Legal Aid Program for Immigrants Facing Deportation, WASH. POST. (April 25, 2018), available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration/sessions-backtracks-on-pausing- legal-aid-program-for-immigrants/2018/04/25/c0d27a12-48cb-11e8-827e-190efaf1f1ee_story.html.
30ICE Praised Legal-aid Program for Immigrants that Justice Dept. Plans to Suspend, WASH. POST. (April 17, 2018), available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration/ice-praised-legal-aid-program-for- immigrants-that-justice-dept-plans-to-suspend/2018/04/17/c0b073d4-3f31-11e8-974f- aacd97698cef_story.html?utm_term=.8fa7c90bba02.
6
The Department’s performance metrics are a poor fit for the realities of immigration adjudication. Immigration law is extremely harsh and complex, and the consequences of the decisions of immigration judges are weighty. These decisions should not be made too quickly. An immigration judge must apply statutes that rival the tax code in complexity and must ensure the opportunity to be heard to a diverse and often poorly educated pool of respondents. The Supreme Court regularly hears immigration law cases that require it to resolve thorny questions. These Supreme Court opinions often leave many questions unanswered, as the Court only decides issues directly before it. Immigration judges need time to digest new interpretations and to think about how those new interpretations apply in a wide array of factual scenarios. For example, a recent Supreme Court decision holding certain Department of Homeland Security charging documents31 to be ineffective has created motions within the immigration courts to terminate proceedings and to reopen older cases. Finally, immigration judges are deciding cases with grave consequences. If an individual is removed, they may face death upon return to their country of nationality. Or an individual may be separated from children or other close family.
The immigration adjudication system needs more resources. More immigration judges need to be hired to guarantee that we do not sacrifice our cherished American values and our constitutional obligations. We also note that with the hiring of judges it is critical that the agency adequately provide support staff from law clerks to court administration. All immigration judges need more time to work through their cases fairly and efficiently. Immigration judges need to be given independence so that we all have confidence that their decisions are based on their judgment as adjudicators, and not influenced by what the adjudicators think best will guarantee positive conditions of employment.
We appreciate that you want to work to ensure efficiency in immigration adjudication. However, you are also charged with guiding our government to comply with the rule of law and to protect American legal values. Accordingly, we urge you to reconsider the new performance metrics.
Respectfully,
(Institutional affiliations are listed for identification purposes only.)
Jill E. Family
Commonwealth Professor of Law and Government Director, Law and Government Institute
Widener University Commonwealth Law School
31 Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S.Ct. 2105, 585 U.S. ___ (June 21, 2018).
7
Lenni B. Benson Professor of Law New York Law School
Matthew Hirsch
Attorney/Adjunct Professor of Immigration and Nationality Law Delaware Law School, Widener University
Huyen Pham
Professor
Texas A&M University School of Law
Jacqueline Stevens
Professor and Director, Deportation Research Clinic Northwestern University
Anju Gupta
Professor of Law and Director of the Immigrant Rights Clinic Rutgers School of Law
William Brooks
Clinical Professor of Law Touro Law Center
Maria Isabel Medina
Ferris Family Distinguished Professor of Law Loyola University New Orleans College of Law
Jennifer Moore
Professor of Law University of New Mexico
Dina Francesca Haynes Professor of Law
New England Law
Nickole Miller
Clinical Teaching Fellow
University of Baltimore School of Law, Immigrant Rights Clinic
Estelle M McKee Clinical Professor Cornell Law School
8
Daniel M. Kowalski
Editor-in-Chief
Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)
Marisa Cianciarulo
Professor of Law, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs Chapman University Fowler School of Law
Lucy E. Salyer
Associate Professor
History Department, University of New Hampshire
Deborah M. Weissman
Reef C. Ivey II Distinguished Professor of Law UNC School of Law
Carrie Rosenbaum
Adjunct Professor
Golden Gate University School of Law
Emily Robinson
Co-Director, Loyola Immigrant Justice Clinic Loyola Law School Los Angeles
Fatma Marouf
Professor of Law
Texas A&M School of Law
Karen Musalo Professor U.C. Hastings
Miriam Marton
Assistant Clinical Professor University of Tulsa College of Law
Helena Marissa Montes Co-Director
Loyola Immigrant Justice Clinic
Alan Hyde Distinguished Professor Rutgers Law School
9
Stephen H. Legomsky
John S. Lehmann University Professor Emeritus Washington University School of Law
Erica Schommer
Clinical Associate Professor of Law St. Mary’s University School of Law
Renee C. Redman
Adjunct Professor
University of Connecticut School of Law
Linda Bosniak Distinguished Professor Rutgers Law School
Jonathan Weinberg Professor of Law Wayne State University
Denise Gilman
Clinical Professor
University of Texas School of Law Immigration Clinic
Kayleen R. Hartman Clinical Teaching Fellow Loyola Law School
Lynn Marcus
Director, Immigration Law Clinic
University of Arizona Rogers College of Law
Elizabeth McCormick
Associate Clinical Professor University of Tulsa College of Law
Christopher N. Lasch
Professor of Law
University of Denver Sturm College of Law
John Palmer Tenure-Track Professor Universitat Pompeu Fabra
10
Julie Ann Dahlstrom
Clinical Associate Professor Boston University School of Law
Susan Gzesh
Senior Lecturer University of Chicago
Violeta Chapin
Clinical Professor of Law University of Colorado
Jon Bauer
Clinical Professor of Law
Richard D. Tulisano ’69 Scholar in Human Rights University of Connecticut School of Law
Rachel E. Rosenbloom
Professor of Law
Northeastern University School of Law
Caitlin Barry
Assistant Professor of Law
Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law
Dr. Richard T. Middleton, IV
Adjunct Professor of Law; Associate Professor of Political Science St. Louis University School of Law; University of Missouri-St. Louis
Anna Welch
Clinical Professor
University of Maine School of Law
Charles Shane Ellison
Director of the Immigrant and Refugee Clinic Special Assistant Professor
Creighton University School of Law
Yolanda Vázquez
Associate Professor of Law
University of Cincinnati College of Law
11
Claire R. Thomas
Director, Asylum Clinic; Adjunct Professor of Law New York Law School
Laura A. Hernandez Professor of Law Baylor Law School
Kate Evans
Associate Professor of Law University of Idaho College of Law
Stella Burch Elias
Professor of Law
University of Iowa College of Law
Rachel Settlage Associate Professor Wayne State Law School
Hiroko Kusuda
Clinic Professor
Loyola New Orleans University
Sabi Ardalan
Assistant Clinical Professor Harvard Law School
Joshua I. Schwartz
E.K. Gubin Professor of Law
The George Washington University Law School
Florence Wagman Roisman
William F. Harvey Professor of Law and Chancellor’s Professor Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law
Richard J. Pierce Jr.
Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law George Washington University
12
Michael Sharon
Adjunct Professor of Law
Case Western Reserve University School of Law
Susan Rose-Ackerman
Henry R. Luce Professor of Law and Political Science, Emeritus Yale University
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
I. Herman Stern Research Professor Temple Law School
Michael Asimow
Visiting Professor of Law Stanford Law School
Natalie Gomez-Velez
Professor of Law
City University of New York (CUNY) School of Law
Adell Amos
Associate Dean & Clayton R. Hess Professor of Law University of Oregon
Harold J. Krent
Dean & Professor of Law Chicago-Kent College of Law
Aila Hoss
Visiting Assistant Professor
Indiana University McKinney School of Law
Richard Reuben
James Lewis Parks Professor of Law and Journalism University of Missouri School of Law
Morell E. Mullins, Sr. Professor Emeritus
UALR Bowen School of Law
Bernard W. Bell
Professor of Law and Herbert Hannoch Scholar Rutgers Law School
13
Rose Cuison Villazor Professor of Law Rutgers Law School
Lauris Wren
Clinical Professor of Law
Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University
Victor Romero
Maureen B. Cavanaugh Distinguished Faculty Scholar Associate Dean for Academic Affairs & Professor of Law Penn State Law (University Park)
David Baluarte
Associate Clinical Professor of Law Washington and Lee University School of Law
Michelle N. Mendez
Adjunct Professor, Immigrant Rights Clinic University of Baltimore School of Law
Jeffrey A. Heller
Adjunct Clinical Professor Emeritus Brooklyn Law School
Seton Hall University School of Law
Susan M. Akram
Clinical Professor and Director, International Human Rights Law Clinic Boston University School of Law
Laila L. Hlass
Professor of Practice
Tulane University School of Law
Joanne Gottesman Clinical Professor of Law Rutgers Law School
Jennifer Lee Koh
Professor of Law
Western State College of Law
14
Geoffrey Hoffman
Director
Univ. of Houston Law Ctr. Immigration Clinic
Ingrid Eagly Professor of Law UCLA School of Law
Jason A. Cade
Associate Professor of Law University of Georgia School of Law
Peter M. Shane
Jacob E. Davis and Jacob E. Davis II Chair in Law Ohio State University
Anna Williams Shavers
Cline Williams Professor of Citizenship Law University of Nebraska College of Law
Stewart Chang
Professor of Law
UNLV Boyd School of Law
Margaret H. Taylor
Professor of Law
Wake Forest University School of Law
Elora Mukherjee
Jerome L. Greene Clinical Professor of Law Columbia Law School
Michael J. Churgin
Raybourne Thompson Centennial Professor in Law The University of Texas at Austin
Kathleen Kim
Professor of Law
Loyola Law School Los Angeles
15
Ming H Chen
Associate Professor
University of Colorado Law School
Anil Kalhan
Professor of Law
Drexel University Kline School of Law
Shruti Rana
Professor
Indiana University Bloomington
Hilary Evans Cameron Instructor
Trinity College
Fernando Colon
Professor
Thurgood Marshall School of Law
Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia
Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar and Clinical Professor of Law Penn State Law – University Park
Blake Close Nordahl Clinical Professor McGeorge Law School
Kaci Bishop
Clinical Associate Professor of Law
The University of North Carolina School of Law
Craig B. Mousin Adjunct Faculty DePaul University
16
Joel A. Mintz
Professsor of Law Emeritus
C. William Trout Senior Fellow in Public Interest Law Nova Southeastern University College of Law
Raquel E Aldana
Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Diversity and Professor of Law UC Davis
Lindsay M. Harris
Assistant Professor of Law
Co-Director of Immigration & Human Rights Clinic
University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law
Sheila Hayre
Visiting Associate Professor Quinnipiac University School of Law
Andrew Moore
Associate Professor of Law
University of Detroit Mercy School of Law
Krista Kshatriya Lecturer
UC San Diego
David B. Thronson
Professor of Law
Michigan State University College of Law
Mary Holper
Associate Clinical Professor Boston College Law School
Amelia McGowan
Adjunct Professor
Mississippi College School of Law Immigration Clinic
17
Maryellen Fullerton Professor of Law Brooklyn Law School
Renée M. Landers
Professor of Law and Faculty Director, Health and Biomedical Law Concentration Suffolk University Law School
Leti Volpp
Robert D. and Leslie Kay Raven Professor of Law UC Berkeley
Alexander Vernon
Director, Immigration Law Clinic Detroit Mercy School of Law
Irene Scharf
Professor of Law
University of Massachusetts School of law
Seymour Moskowitz Senior Research Professor Valparaiso Law School
Veronica T. Thronson
Clinical Professor of Law
Michigan State University College of Law
Elissa Steglich
Clinical Professor
University of Texas School of Law
Mariela Olivares
Associate Professor of Law Howard University School of Law
Barbara Hines
Retired Clinical Professor of Law University of Texas School of Law
18
Richard T. Middleton, IV
Associate Professor of Political Science Adjunct Professor of Law
University of Missouri-St. Louis
St. Louis University School of Law
Deborah Gonzalez
Director of the Immigration Clinic Associate Clinical Professor Roger Williams University School of Law
Alizabeth Newman
Int. Dir. Alumni Engagement & Initiatives CUNY School of Law
Juliet Stumpf
Robert E. Jones Professor of Advocacy & Ethics Lewis & Clark Law School
Bijal Shah
Associate Professor of Law
Arizona State University, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law
Niels W. Frenzen
Sidney M. and Audrey M. Irmas Endowed Clinical Professor of Law Univ. of Southern California, Gould School of Law
Jon Michaels Professor of Law UCLA School of Law
Kit Johnson
Associate Professor of Law
University of Oklahoma College of Law
Nina Rabin
Director, UCLA Immigrant Family Legal Clinic UCLA School of Law
Karen E. Bravo
Professor
IU McKinney School of Law
19
****************************************
Not likely to make any difference with Sessions & Co. But, Sessions is rapidly driving an already crippled and demoralized system into collapse. If Congress doesn’t fix it soon, which almost nobody thinks will happen, the Article III Federal Courts will eventually have to sort out (not for the first time — witness child separation, sanctuary cities, Travel Ban 1&2, violation of stays of removal, DACA termination, etc.) this self-inflicted mess created by the Department of Justice under the last three Administrations and accelerated by Sessions and his White Nationalist agenda.
And, NO, the answer isn’t to blame the victims: the respondents, their courageous, hard-working counsel, and the judges and their dedicated staff. The answer is to hold the “perps,” in this case Sessions and his gang, accountable and place them under strict judicial supervision until Due Process and order are restored to our Immigration Courts.
It’s been six weeks since a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to fix the crisis it created when it separated more than 2,500 children from their parents under a heartless policy designed to deter desperate families from entering the United States illegally. But the job of reunification still isn’t done, in part because the government failed to devise a system to track the separated families.
Some 400 parents reportedly have already been deported without their children, and the government apparently has no idea how to reach them. It’s a colossal snafu that is as appalling as it is inexplicable. Among the many inhumane immigration enforcement policies adopted in the first two years of the Trump reign, history may well regard this bit of idiocy as the worst.
Or perhaps not; the competition hasn’t closed yet. In fact, the Pentagon is working on plans, at Trump’s direction, to house 20,000 detained immigrants — including children this time — in secured areas of military bases while they await deportation proceedings. Yes, the Obama administration did something similar when it tried to deal with the inflow of unaccompanied minors from Central America. It was a bad idea then, and it’s a bad idea now; kids don’t belong in prisons on military bases. Under a court order, the government cannot hold minors for more than 20 days before releasing them to the custody of their parents, other relatives or vetted guardians.
When it comes to immigration, there has been such a flood of bad policies and ham-handed enforcement acts since Trump took office that it can be hard to keep it all straight.
First there was the ban on travel of people from mostly Muslim countries and then the effort to eliminate protections for so-called Dreamers who have been living in the country illegally since arriving as children. Hard-line Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions has inserted himself in the immigration court system and overridden previous decisions over who qualifies for asylum; not surprisingly, the number of people granted protection has dropped as a result. President Trump also has throttled the flow of refugees resettled here; last year, for the first time since the passage of the 1980 U.S. Refugee Act, the United States resettled fewer refugees than the rest of the world, a significant step away from what had been an area of global leadership. (Over the last 40 years, the U.S. has been responsible for 75% of the world’s permanently resettled refugees.)
Then there’s this: The White House is reportedly drafting a plan that would allow immigration officials to deny citizenship, green cards and residency visas to immigrants if they or family members have used certain government programs, such as food stamps, the earned income tax credit or Obamacare.
And this: The now largely abandoned“zero tolerance” policy of filing misdemeanor criminal charges against people crossing the border illegally led to a surge of cases in federal court districts along the Southwest border as non-immigration criminal prosecutions plummeted, according to an analysis by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. In fact, non-immigration prosecutions fell from 1,093 (1 in 7 prosecutions) in March to 703 (1 in 17 prosecutions) in June, suggesting that serious crimes are taking a back seat to misdemeanor border crossing.
Meanwhile, a Government Accountability Office report this week questions how U.S. Customs and Border Patrol set priorities in planning where to build Trump’s border wall, and said the agency failed to account for wide variations in terrain in estimating the cost — which means that extending the existing border walls and fences another 722 miles could cost more than the administration’s $18-billion estimate. And while the president crows that the wall will secure the border, it won’t, experts say. People will still find a way around, over or under it. And most drug smuggling already comes hidden in motor vehicles passing through monitored ports of entry. At best, Trump’s wall — if Congress is insane enough to approve funding — would be little more than a symbol of his arrogance, and of this country’s determination to seal itself off from the world.
Trump’s immigration policy has been characterized by unnecessary detention and inadequate monitoring that has allowed for abuses at detention centers — including sexual assaults and forced medication of children. The immigration court system is now overwhelmed by a backlog of 733,000 cases.
In short, it’s been a disaster. And through all of these fiascoes, there have been zero serious efforts in Congress or by the president for comprehensive reform of a system everyone acknowledges is broken.
*******************************
Regime change is the only answer, beginning this November and continuing until Trump and his toxically incompetent White Nationalist Cabal are removed from office!
America is a great country that could reach its full potential and regain both economic and moral leadership among the world’s nations. But, it’s never going to happen while the majority of us are being governed by short-sighted, incompetent White Nationalists bent on letting their racist agenda destroy our country. Oh, and they are corrupt grifters too, never a good sign in leadership!
The union for the nation’s immigration judges is fighting a government decision to strip a Philadelphia judge of his authority over 87 cases, arguing that the move sidelines judicial independence as President Trump seeks to ramp up deportations.
Immigration judges work under the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review, though they have independent authority to determine whether the thousands of undocumented immigrants who come before them every year can remain in the United States through asylum or some other form of relief.
In a labor grievance filed this week, the National Association of Immigration Judges says the office undercut that authority when it removed Judge Steven A. Morley from overseeing juvenile cases that he had either continued or placed on temporary hold amid questions over whether federal prosecutors had adequately notified the subjects to appear in court.
The Justice Department said in a statement Thursday that “there is reason to believe” Morley violated federal law and department policy in those cases, but it did not offer any specifics. The statement said an investigation is ongoing.
Trump alarmed immigration judges in June by tweeting that anyone caught at the border, presumably including those seeking asylum, should be deported without a trial.
“When somebody comes in, we must immediately, with no Judges or Court Cases, bring them back from where they came,” the president wrote.
In its grievance, the judges’ union focused on a case involving Reynaldo Castro-Tum, a Guatemalan national who arrived in 2014 as a 17-year-old unaccompanied minor.
Castro-Tum’s current whereabouts are unknown, and he had not responded to recent court summonses. Morley temporarily closed his case in 2016, ordering the Justice Department to ensure that Castro-Tum was receiving the notices. He did the same with other similar cases.
Prosecutors appealed Morley’s decision, and the case eventually came to the attention of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who chose to review it in January.
Sessions concluded that Morley was wrong to close Castro-Tum’s case and ordered it resolved within two weeks.
Amiena Khan, a New York-based immigration judge who is the union’s vice president, said the intervention further raised suspicions that the administration is looking to circumvent the judicial process and move to deport people faster amid a backlog of some 600,000 cases.
“This is another transparent way, surprisingly transparent in this instance, for the agency to come in and re-create the ideology of this whole process more towards a law enforcement ideology,” Khan said.
The system “is based on our ability to look at the facts and adjudicate the claim before us to our best ability and then render a decision,” Khan said. “Not being told by someone else how to rule.”
The union, which represents 350 judges, argues that Morely should get his caseload back. It is asking the Justice Department to assure all immigration judges that their independent authority won’t be undermined.
Immigrant advocates say the dispute highlights a fundamental flaw in immigration courts, where the judges work under the same department that is tasked with prosecuting cases. Several legal groups have renewed a push for federal legislation to overhaul the system so judges can operate more independently, either through a different branch of the Justice Department or as a separate tribunal court.
“We’re very concerned the immigration judges are simply being turned into law enforcement officers,” said Laura Lynch, senior policy counsel for the American Immigration Lawyers Association, which launched a national campaign this month to lobby members of Congress to support such legislation.
************************************
When he isn’t busy praising hate groups, covering for police violence against the African-American community, disenfranchising minority voters, promoting the establishment of religion, using bogus stats to fabricate a connection between immigrants and violent crime, abusing brown-skinned children, forcing transgender kids to pee in their pants, thumbing his nose at Federal Judges and their orders, briefing his attorneys on how to mislead courts, mounting unconstitutional attacks on cities, ignoring environmental laws, dissing Dreamers, shilling for racist legislation, deconstructing our refugee, asylum, and legal immigration systems, filling court dockets with minor misdemeanants to the exclusion of felons, imposing deportation quotas, shafting brown-skinned refugee victims of domestic violence, huddling with fellow neo-Nazi Stephen Miller, blocking migrants from getting abortions, or hiding under his desk from Trump, one of Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions’s favorite pastimes is interfering with the independence of U.S. Immigration Judges while purposely jacking up the backlog in the U.S. Immigration Courts.
It remains to be seen whether our country can survive this one-man Constitutional wrecking crew and his reign of indecency and intellectual dishonesty.
In the first two quarters of fiscal 2018, the immigration court only completed 92,009 cases. At this rate, the immigration court will have completed only 184,000 cases when fiscal 2018 ends on Sept. 30.
Even if DHS stopped arresting deportable aliens, it would take the immigration court four years to eliminate its backlog.
To reduce the backlog, Trump will have to pull aliens from the immigration court’s backlog and put them in expedited removal proceedings, and presumably this is why he is planning to expand the use of expedited removal proceedings.
In January, Trump instructed the DHS to apply expedited removal proceedings to the fullest extent of the law. This would extend it to include undocumented aliens who were not admitted or paroled into the United States and cannot prove that they have been here for two years.
It will be extremely difficult to help aliens who are caught up in this expansion. Congress has severely limited federal court jurisdiction over expedited removal proceedings.
The courts cannot consider expedited removal orders on a petition for review.
Review is available in habeas corpus proceedings, but it is limited to determinations of whether the petitioner is an alien; whether his removal has been ordered in expedited removal proceedings; and whether he has been lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or has been granted refugee or asylum status.
Other provisions permit challenges to the constitutionality of the system and its implementing regulations, and claims that the written policies and procedures issued under it are in violation of law. These challenges must be brought in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia within 60 days of when the challenged policy or procedure is implemented.
The expansion should greatly reduce the backlog, but it will not eliminate it. Too many of the aliens in removal proceedings have been physically present for two years.
Go on over to The Hill at the link to read the rest of Nolan’s article.
Even assuming that the vastly expanded use of expedited removal were upheld by the Article III Courts (I think it’s unconstitutional), cases couldn’t be “pulled from the backlog.” The Immigration Court backlog is made up almost entirely of cases where the individuals have already been here more than two years. Thus, expedited removal wouldn’t apply.
Interesting that notwithstanding the attention given to immigration, the DHS hasn’t gotten around to publishing the necessary regulatory change to expand expedited removal. That might suggest that “cooler, smarter heads” within DHS might actually be pointing out why that would be stupid.
The real “take away” here is that under Sessions’s gross mismanagement of the Immigration Courts more Immigration Judges produce fewer completed cases and more backlog. Basically, what I had predicted. And that’s with all sorts of pressure to churn out orders, cutting Due Process, unnecessary wasteful coercive detention, “aimless docket reshuffling,” some politicized personnel actions, and other “pedal faster gimmicks” by Sessions.
What that really shows is that Immigration Court cases are difficult cases and that even with Sessions’s shameless gaming of the system against migrants, Due Process has a certain largely irreducible minimum time for hearings.
Given that, increasing so-called “expedited removal” to reduce the existing backlog clearly would be irrational and present severe Constitutional difficulties under the Due Process clause.
Like it or not, a substantial legalization program combined with an independent Article I Immigration Court, more rational DHS enforcement priorities, and a healthy dose of prosecutorial discretion is the only way of getting the Immigration Courts back on track.
And, while I’ve said before that Democrats bear a fair share of the blame for the current Immigration Court dysfunction, Sessions has certainly made it immeasurably worse; the current barrier to reasonable immigration reform is clearly Trump and the GOP restrictionists, not the Democrats.
Indeed, the Trump-led GOP’s inability to accomplish the “no brainer” of DACA relief shows that it’s going to take “regime change” to solve this problem.
That means that things are likely to continue to get worse before they improve — that is, unless the Article IIIs step in and take control of the Immigration Courts away from Sessions as an act of Constitutional self-preservation.
Drastic action? Sure. Likely? Maybe not. But, the Article IIIs might eventually have to do it, since Sessions’s scofflaw actions on immigration are starting to run the entire Article III system into the ground, just like he is destroying the Immigration Courts.
As some of you may know, today is my last day at EOIR. I just want to thank everyone at the court for your friendship and a very rewarding and fruitful time, I will certainly miss you.
I’d like to share a few thoughts before bidding farewell.
To the Civil Servants (IJs, AAs, Legal Assistants, Interpreters, Administrators, etc.): I commend you for choosing to serve your country.I have only the greatest respect for each and everyone of you, and there is not a doubt in my mind that your heart is in the right place. I just want to remind you that before being government employees, you are Citizens of the United States of America: the most extraordinary country in world’s history. That as Civil Servants, you don’t work only for the administration in power—as administrations change, but most of you remain, having chosen to dedicate your lives to serve your country.Instead, you work for “the People.” That you have a voice and your opinion matters, this is your country too.So when an administration plans to do something you suspect is wrong or unconstitutional you can, and should, ask questions.You are the backbone of our government, and for some people you are the only face of the government they’ll ever see. Finally, you’re not alone in this. Talk to each other, you’d be surprised to discover how many others share your same concerns. So organize, share thoughts and ideas, because with unity comes strength.
If Civil Servants are so great why are you leaving then, you may ask? Like you, I take pride in the work I do, and I consider serving my country as the highest form of secular calling, and a way to give back to this country that has been so generous to me.At the same time, we are the results of our experiences.I was born and raised in XXXX, a great country in many respects, but also the country that bears an indelible and shameful scar—the birth and spreading of fascism.An ideology that, through its different permutations, almost brought the world as we know it to an end. Sadly, history has taught me that good countries do bad things—sometimes indescribably atrocious things.So I have very little tolerance for authoritarianism, extremism, and unilateral and undemocratic usurpations of Constitutional rights. I believe that DOJ-EOIR’s plan to implement individual annual numerical performance measures—i.e., quotas—on Immigration Judges violates the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the DOJ’s own mission to “ensure the fair and impartial administration of justice.”This is not the job I signed up for. I strongly believe in the positive value of government, and that the legitimacy of our agency—and any other governmental institution for that matter—is given by “the People’s” belief in its integrity, fairness, and commitment to serve “the People.” But when the government, with its unparalleled might and coercive force, infringes on constitutionally enshrined rights, I only have two choices: (1) to become complicitous in what I believe is a flagrant constitutional violation, or (2) to resign and to hold the government accountable as a private citizen. I choose to resign because I cannot in good conscience continue serving my country within EOIR.[1]
To the Political Appointees: Civil Servants are not part of the problem, they are part of the solution.They are not mercenaries or hired guns paid to merely execute orders, they are United States Citizens and they care about their country as much as you do. So talk to them, engage with them and come up with synergetic plans and solutions. Civil Servants have invaluable insight on what kind of processes and improvements can be implemented because they experience the problems in these processes on a daily basis. And it is also no secret that cooperation and dialogue lead to improved morale. So engaging with Civil Servants is clearly a win-win. Finally, for what it’s worth, I haven’t heard one single Civil Servant who thinks that the imposition of quotas on the Immigration Judges is a good idea. On the other hand, many Civil Servants—if only they had a meaningful chance to be heard—have excellent ideas that, if implemented, would improve efficiency without violating due process.It’s not too late to prevent being on the wrong side of history.[2]
Thank you for your time. I wish you all the best.
[1] Omitted.
[2] Before becoming the United States of America, this land served as refuge for the social outcast, who fled the persecution and the rejection of their native countries in search for survival and a fresh start in life. Their descendants declared independence and founded the United States of America. They too had experienced what an oppressive government does to “the People,” so they created a system of government that included checks and balances—with “separation of powers” paramount among them—to prevent tyranny. A renowned application of separation of powers provides that “prejudice against discrete and insular minorities may be a special condition, which tends seriously to curtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect minorities, and which may call for a correspondingly more searching judicial inquiry.” United States v. Carolene Prod. Co., 304 U.S. 144, 153 n. 4 (1938) (emphases added). So while it is probably true that no other country offers trials and judges to immigrants, this is in fact an unmitigated positive, as the greatness of a civilization is measured by how it treats its weakest.This is also what makes America special: the Rule of Law is sovereign upon everyone.
[“REDACTED” VERSION PUBLISHED WITH PERMISSION]
***************************************
Pretty easy to see why Due Process is failing in our Immigration Courts. Short answer: It’s not a priority for the politicos in the DOJ who pull the strings. Actually, Due Process has become an anathema for Sessions and his White Nationalist cabal.
What kind of “court system” would impose arbitrary “performance quotas,” developed by non-judicial officials responding to political pressure over the objections of and without even consulting the Immigration Judges who actually are doing the work? Loss of control over dockets, scheduling, and policies affecting court procedures is a major problem in this system. In the past, it has led to the travesty of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”).
Now, a blatantly biased, anti-asylum, anti-immigrant, anti Due Process agenda has been added to the totally out of control ADR.
That’s why the key to restoring a functioning Immigration Court System is 1) an independent, Article I Court outside of Executive control; and 2) professional court administration controlled by and responsible to the JUDGES who actually decide the cases, rather than to politicos in Washington.
Like the writer of the above message, I believe that there are lots of good ideas on how to improve the system and restore Due Process within the judiciary that are being suppressed. Additionally, the judges should be working with respondents’ counsel, NGOs, the Article III Courts, Court Administrators, and the DHS Chief Counsel to develop systems that serve everyone’s needs and capabilities.
That would be an essential improvement over the present system which is being run by Sessions and his cronies solely for the benefit of one party: DHS Enforcement. How would YOU like to appear before a judge who essentially is working for the opposing party? Not fair, right? But, that’s exactly what today’s Immigraton Court system is! And, that’s why it’s failing our country.
We need an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court that operates with Due Process as its one and only mission. Until that happens, all of our Constitutional rights will be in jeopardy. Because, as the writer above perceptively states, “the greatness of a civilization is measured by how it treats its weakest.” Harm to one is harm to all!
Thanks again to the writer of he above message for agreeing to share!
Dear Paul,I hope you saw the new “Frontline” episode, Separated: Children at the Border, last night on PBS. The episode provides an in-depth, factual look at the Trump administration’s “zero-tolerance” policy and the treatment of families seeking safety at the border.
I was interviewed about the work of the Women’s Refugee Commission (WRC) on behalf of women and children seeking asylum and what I witnessed on a recent monitoring visit to a processing center at the border.
We want you to know that WRC is unyielding in our commitment to hold the Trump administration accountable for its cruel policies — we will not stop until families seeking safety at the U.S. border are treated humanely and have their human rights respected.
The Trump Administration specializes in avoiding accountability. The masters of the lie always blame the courts, the victims, the Democrats, the press, lawyers, everybody but them. That was on display this week during Senate oversight hearings where nobody took responsibility for the child separation policy that everyone agreed was a bad idea. Of course, missing from the hearing lineup was the unapologetic and disingenuous “mastermind” of the “zero tolerance policy” Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions.
The video also shows how badly the Obama Administration screwed up the treatment of arriving asylum applicants with counterproductive policies like the abominable “family detention.” Not much acceptance of responsibility there either. Indeed, this is when the policy of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” by the DOJ and White House politicos went into high gear sending the Immigration Court backlog careening out of control.
César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández writes in HuffPost:
When President Barack Obama announced Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, his administration’s policy of pushing young unauthorized migrants to the bottom of the immigration law-enforcement priority list, Republicans complained that focusing on some legal violations over others was equivalent to not enforcing the law. When Obama used his discretion to extend similar protections to parents of U.S. citizens, Republican legislators successfully took to the courts to block him.
Within days of entering the White House, President Donald Trump issued an executive order proclaiming, “We cannot faithfully execute the immigration laws of the United States if we exempt classes or categories of removable aliens from potential enforcement.” To Republicans, prosecutorial discretion subverts the rule of law. Or so they say.
Government data about the Trump administration’s zero tolerance policy toward border crossers reveal that it, too, is picking and choosing whom to target. In May, at the height of its policy of tossing parents into criminal proceedings while their children were hauled to government-run prisons, Border Patrol agents sent 9,216 people to prosecutors. That is about 1,000 more than in April and over 5,000 more than the same month a year earlier. The increase was especially noticeable in the family separation epicenter of McAllen, Texas, where I was born and where my law firm is based. Lawyers in my hometown saw 841 prosecutions in April jump to 2,079 in May.
That is a lot of people, but it’s not everyone. In May, Border Patrol agents stationed across the southwest border caught almost 29,000 adults clandestinely entering the United States. Eighty-five percent had no children; the rest are the parents whose anguish has been heard across the world.
Of all the adults apprehended that month, most were not prosecuted criminally. Only one-third were charged with a federal immigration crime. The rest presumably ended up in the civil immigration court system or in fast-track legal proceedings in which immigration officials deport people without taking them in front of a judge. Zero tolerance apparently didn’t mean zero exceptions.
It makes complete sense that the government did not go after everyone. The federal courts can’t handle that many cases. Picking and choosing is a part of every big law enforcement system. The important question isn’t whether that happens ― despite Republican insistence, it always does. The important question is why law enforcement officers choose to target some people over others.
. . . .
When it comes to taking a child from her parent, nothing is simple. And when it comes to prosecuting immigration laws, it’s never not a choice.
Of course separating children from parents has always been a choice driven by Sessions’s racism, White Nationalism, and xenophobia and having nothing whatsoever to do with sound law enforcement policy.
Indeed, studies have shown that so-called “zero tolerance” enforcement programs are failures across the board from a law enforcement standpoint. And, low level immigration prosecutions such as those promoted by Sessions have no documented deterrent effect. But, they have been shown to reduce the amount of time that Federal prosecutors and Federal Judges have to spend on “real” law enforcement, such as drug trafficking, human trafficking, organized crime, and fraud.
(CNN)The number of pending cases in US immigration courts hit a record high this year and the trend shows no sign of slowing down.
With more than 700,000 open cases as of May, judges face a heavy case load. To alleviate the burden, two retired federal judges have proposed a solution: bring jurists like them back to the bench.
“We certainly have the expertise. We’ve handled heavy dockets of cases and we’re accustomed with having to get up to speed very quickly in various areas of the law,” retired US District Court Judge Marilyn Hall Patel said.
Patel and retired Judge D. Lowell Jensen sent a letter with the recommendation earlier this month to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and James McHenry, director of the DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review. The Department of Justice did not respond to a request for comment on Thursday night.
“We are aware that at this time there are extraordinary burdens and backlogs faced every day by the country’s immigration judges, particularly along the southern border. We believe retired federal judges are a valuable untapped resource who could be called into service to assist in handling the immigration caseload fairly and efficiently,” the pair wrote in a letter dated July 12.
Retired judges have been vetted before so the process for obtaining security clearances wouldn’t take as long as it would for new appointees, the letter said. And because federal judges receive an annuity from the government, they could potentially “volunteer” their time without drawing a salary, Patel added.
Retired US District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel in 1992.
They also bring experience in immigration law from their time on the bench and other chapters of their career, Patel said. She worked as a DOJ attorney for the Immigration and Naturalization Service from 1967 to 1971. She served as district court judge for 32 years before retiring in 2012.
Like many federal judges, especially those in large metropolitan areas or near ports of entry, Patel said she handled various immigration matters: asylum cases, deportations, removals and petitions for release, or habeas corpus. None in particular stand out — “they sort of merge all together,” she said. But one of her cases resurfaced after she retired, through the Trump administration’s travel ban.
In 1983, Patel overturned Japanese-American Fred Korematsu’s criminal conviction for disobeying government orders during World War II to leave his Bay Area home and enter an internment camp. But the infamous 1944 Supreme Court decision that blessed the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II remained intact — until Chief Justice John Roberts announced that the court was overruling it in its ruling upholding the travel ban.
Otherwise, Patel said she has kept a relatively low profile, with a few speaking engagements and some consulting work here and there. But as controversy and caseloads grew along the southern border, she felt compelled to act, she said. She contacted Jensen, who served on the federal bench for 28 years, who agreed to co-sign the letter.
“We urge you to utilize this considerable resource since we know that vetting and appointment of new [immigration judges] will take some time, and time is of the essence to meet the crushing burden of pending and new cases,” the letter said.
Patel said she had yet to receive any response from the government.
“I’m not holding my breath,” she said. “I know federal judges are perceived as being very independent and that may not be to the liking of the attorney general or the Department of Justice at this time.”
**********************************
Interesting!
Sounds like a great idea! I think it would be an eye opener for both the Article IIIs and the IJs.
Suspect, though, as suggested in the article, the “real judges” would be too independent for Sessions & McHenry.
How DOJ & EOIR respond to this offer will tell us lots about whether they genuinely desire to resolve the Immigration Court backlog in a fundamentally fair manner, consistent with Due Process, or whether the backlog is purposely being “jacked up” and used as a “bludgeon” by Sessions to eliminate Due Process and otherwise push for draconian changes in the law.
CHRISTINA JEWETT AND SHEFALI LUTHRA, REPORT FOR KAISER HEALTH NEWS IN THE TEXAS TRIBUNE:
The Trump administration has summoned at least 70 infants to immigration court for their own deportation proceedings since Oct. 1, according to Justice Department data provided to Kaiser Health News.
These are children who need frequent touching and bonding with a parent and naps every few hours, and some were of breastfeeding age, medical experts say. They’re unable to speak and still learning when it’s day versus night.
“For babies, the basics are really important. It’s the holding, the proper feeding, proper nurturing,” said Shadi Houshyar, who directs early childhood and child welfare initiatives at the advocacy group Families USA.
The number of infants under age 1 involved has been rising — up threefold from 24 infants in the fiscal year that ended last Sept. 30, and 46 infants the year before.
The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.
The Justice Department data show that a total of 1,500 “unaccompanied” children, from newborns to age 3, have been called in to immigration court since Oct. 1, 2015.
Roughly three-fourths of the children involved are represented by a lawyer and they have to make their case that they should stay in the United States.
Officials who review such deportation cases say most children under 1 cross the border with a parent and their deportation cases proceed together.
But some of the infants were deemed “unaccompanied” only after law enforcement separated them from their parents during the Trump administration’s “zero-tolerance” immigration policy. The children were sent to facilities across the U.S. under the supervision of the Department of Health and Human Services.
“This is to some extent a … crisis of the creation of the government,” said Robert Carey, who previously headed the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which takes custody of unaccompanied minors. “It’s a tragic and ironic turn of events.”
Younger children are also considered unaccompanied if they enter the United States with an older family member who is not yet 18. The data do not clarify which children arrived that way or which were separated from their parents.
The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.
The Justice Department did not respond to a request for further data about where the children are housed. They could be in a foster care home, in a group home, with a relative or sponsor, or reunited with a parent. HHS, which operates the refugee resettlement office, did not provide comment by publication time.
In previous statements, the government has argued that separation — and its consequences — are unfortunate but unavoidable under the law.
“There is a surefire way to avoid separation from your children. Present yourself legally … or stay back at your home country, and go through the process others do,” HHS Secretary Alex Azar said on a media call earlier this month. “None of us want children separated from their parents. I want no children in our care and custody.”
The number of unaccompanied children called in to court since Oct. 1, 2015, swells to 2,900 if kids up to 5 are included. The total will rise between now and Sept. 30, when the fiscal year ends, noted Susan Long, a statistician at Syracuse University and director of TRAC, a repository of immigration and federal court data. There’s also an ongoing backlog in entering the data.
In June, a district judge in San Diego ordered the government to reunify families within a month, specifically directing them to unite children younger than 5 with parents by July 10.
HHS reunited about half of those children by July 12 — 57 out of 103. Others, the government said, could not be placed with a parent, citing in some cases “serious criminal history” or parents currently being in jail.
In 12 cases, those children’s parents had already been deported. In another, the government had failed to figure out where the child’s parent was located, and in another, the parent had a “communicable disease,” HHS said.
The Department of Homeland Security, which issues the court orders, also did not respond to a request for comment.
The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.
In the removal cases, children have no right to an appointed lawyer, but rather to a list of legal aid attorneys that the child’s current caregiver can contact.
And young children rarely know the details of why they fled their home country, especially without a parent present, noted Eileen Blessinger, a Virginia-based immigration lawyer who has been aiding parents she was connected with through advocates on the Texas-Mexico border.
“Think about it as a parent. You’re not going to tell your child they might be killed, right?” she said. “A lot of the kids don’t know.”
Immigration court, which is an administrative unit of the Department of Justice, is different from typical courts. It handles “respondents” who may be too young to speak, but has no social workers or legal remedies focused on the best interest of a child.
Lenni Benson, a New York Law School professor and founder of the Safe Passage Project, which provides legal services to migrant youth, said she was recently at a large family detention center in Dilley talking to families. She said it’s rare for the families fleeing violence in Central America to bring infants, given the dangers of the journey, which include risks of abduction and a lack of clean water.
“There are people who do that because they are terrified for their child” in the home country, she said.
Benson recounted being in immigration court in 2014 when a judge asked for a crying baby to be removed from the courtroom. She said she paused to inform the judge that the baby was the next respondent on the docket — and asked that the child’s grandmother stand in.
The stakes for the babies, and any migrant fleeing violence, are high, said Paul Wickham Schmidt, a former immigration judge who retired in 2016 after 13 years on the bench in Arlington, Va.
“Final orders of deportation have consequences,” he said. “For something that has a very serious result, this system has been described as death penalty cases in traffic court.”
Ashley Tabaddor, president of the National Association of Immigration Judges and a judge specializing in juvenile cases in Los Angeles, acknowledged that the Trump administration narrowed a directive on how much judges can assist juveniles in court. Still, she said, judges do their best to ensure that young children get a fair hearing.
Justice Department data show that asylum denials are at a nearly 10-year high at 42 percent, and the Associated Press reported that the administration has raised the bar for making a successful case.
At the same time, children can be strapped for resources, Blessinger said.
She described one client whose 7-year-old daughter received legal support from a New York-based charity. Even in that case, she said, the organization acted simply as a “friend of the court” — rather than a full-fledged attorney — requesting delays in proceedings until the child and mother could be reunited. That finally happened Tuesday night, she said.
“It’s the saddest experience. These people are not going to be recovering anytime soon,” she said. “The parents are crying even after they’re reunited.”
Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
KHN’s coverage of children’s health care issues is supported in part by a grant from the Heising-Simons Foundation.
*******************************************
Stupid policies driven by biased White Nationalist restrictionists squander judicial time, waste resources, make America look dumb!
Contrary to what HHS Secretary Alex Azar says, presenting oneself at a Port of Entry and applying for asylum has been a guarantee neither of prompt and professional processing of asylum applications nor that there will be no family separation. Indeed, the “credible fear” process has now been “gamed” by Sessions and USCIS so that many legitimate asylum applications are summarily denied and the individuals subjected to expedited removal without appeals. And, to date, several “real” Article III Courts (in particular, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals) have “twiddled their thumbs” and failed to intervene to prevent the gross abuses of Due Process and our international obligations being carried out on a daily basis by this Administration.
Infants in court, real substantive asylum claims rejected without hearings — no wonder the U.S. Immigration Court system is broken and there is no time for “real”cases. The long-term solution might well involve more Immigration Judges and staff. But, at this point, that would be “throwing good money after bad.”
Before there can be expansion, the U.S. Immigration Court system needs to be fixed and returned to its original Due Process focus with Immigration Judges in change and empowered to remove cases like this from the active docket and to sanction Government Attorneys (as well as private attorneys) who waste valuable court time with frivolous litigation. Indeed, Congress did provide Immigration Judges with authority to hold attorneys from both sides in contempt. However, the DOJ has thumbed its nose at that statutory authorization over several Administrations and has never implemented the statute. (This is a good example of what the “rule of law” really means in the USDOJ!)
Removing the Immigration Court system from the Executive Branch is a necessary first step in reforming it to serve its original (and only) purpose: guaranteeing Due Process and fairness for all!
Meanwhile, as pointed out by Christina and Shefali, the damage to the health and welfare children and families might be irreparable.
Henry Gass reports for the Christian Science Monitor:
In a federal courtroom in the border city of McAllen, Texas, two weeks ago, 74 migrants waited as Judge J. Scott Thacker confirmed their names and countries of origin. Tired and nervous, the migrants were wearing the clothes they had been arrested in, translation headsets, and ankle chains that clinked as some of them fidgeted.
After having their rights and potential punishments explained to them to them, Judge Thacker asked the seven rows of migrants – mostly from Honduras, El Salvador, or Guatemala – how they wanted to plead. “Culpable,” they all answered. Judge Hacker sentenced almost all of them, row by row, to time already served and a $10 fine.
At one point, a man from Honduras separated from his son explained why they had traveled to the United States. Thacker listened, then addressed the whole room.
“Ladies and gentlemen, I am not a [specialist] immigration judge; I am not in the immigration system,” he said. “Once you enter the immigration system you can explain your situation to them.”
In immigration court in San Antonio, a few hours north, Judge Charles McCullough is working through cases from the summer of 2017.
Over three hours, he moves smoothly through hearings for a dozen people. One man accepts voluntary departure to Mexico, but then things get complicated. One case has to be postponed because of irregular paperwork. Another sparks a brief debate over whether a US Supreme Court decision last year means it can be thrown out. His final hearing is a mother and two children from Colombia, accused of overstaying their visas. He schedules their next hearing for September.
Staff shortages and an ever-increasing caseload have been problems for years, compounded by successive administrations using the courts to achieve political and policy goals. Cognizant of the burden the immigration court system is under, and the additional strain its stated goal of having zero unauthorized immigration into the US would represent, the Trump administration is going to great lengths to try and streamline immigration court proceedings.
Unlike every other court in the country, immigration courts are part of the executive, not judicial, branch. And the judges who staff those courts are not judges in the common sense, but are employees of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), a wing of the Justice Department. Thus, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has significant authority to reshape how the courts operate.
The changes the Trump administration is engineering, however, have experts and former immigration judges concerned that the immigration court system could be even more burdened.
“All those weaknesses, those weak points, are being highlighted by the measures this administration is taking,” says Ashley Tabaddor, an immigration judge in Los Angeles and president of the National Association of Immigration Judges.
“The immigration court system is designed to protect the … founding principles of our American democracy,” she adds. “If you don’t care, then that’s the first brick that’s being taken out of the foundation.”
One example of how that system is being strained further is the estimated 3,000 children still separated from the their families by the “zero tolerance” immigration policy. Trump administration officials told a judge Friday they couldn’t comply with a June court order to reunite children under 5 with their families by Tuesday. (Children over 5 are to be reunited by July 26.) At least 19 parents of those children already have been deported without them, according to reports.
“[A] guy that shows up here every day and does this every day has to find hope somewhere…. I’m hoping that maybe the moral outrage associated with what’s happened will be the thing that finally — the catalyst that finally makes us look hard at this immigration system that we all agree needs to be fixed,” Judge Robert Brack of the US District Court of New Mexico told “PBS Newshour.”
720,000-case backlog
On the day he retired, June 30, 2016, Paul Schmidt was scheduling cases through the end of 2022. In a system with a roughly 720,000-case backlog, according to Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Clearinghouse, it wasn’t an unusual situation. The backlog has been steadily growing for decades, something Mr. Schmidt blames on recent administrations using the courts to respond to urgent political crises.
For example: When thousands of unaccompanied minors from Central America traveled to the border in 2014, the Obama administration told immigration judges to prioritize those cases.
“Each administration comes in and moves their priority to the top of line and everything else goes to the back,” he says. “You have aimless docket reshuffling, and the whole system after a while loses credibility.”
The Trump administration is now doing the same thing, telling immigration courts to prioritize the cases of detained families. But what concerns Schmidt and other former immigration judges even more are changes Mr. Sessions is making to how immigration judges can hear and resolve the cases before them.
. . . .
*******************************************
Read the rest of Henry’s article at the link. It contains quotes from my retired colleagues Judge Carol King, Judge Eliza Klein, and Judge Susan Roy, who are also key members of our “Gang of Retired Judges” who file amicus briefs in support of Due Process in the Immigration Courts.
This quote from Judge Ashley Tabaddor, President of the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”) (I am a retired member), says it all:
“The immigration court system is designed to protect the … founding principles of our American democracy,” she adds. “If you don’t care, then that’s the first brick that’s being taken out of the foundation.”
Depressing fact: Far too many Article III Courts — particularly the U.S District Courts at the border participating in the “Kangaroo Court Operation Streamline” — are kowtowing to Sessions and failing to push back against his outrageous misuse of our legal process. Those “go along to get along” judges might discover that life tenure without integrity is a hollow benefit.
Surprised by vehement public reaction, President Donald Trump has decreed an end to the policy of separating arriving asylum seekers from their children. But what now? Not what will Trump do — his latest pronouncements simply up the ante on mean-spiritedness, with little clarity on a specific policy direction. But what asylum reforms should progressives push for to build a humane, workable, and sustainable program?
The policy problem is real. The flow of asylum seekers from Central America has not noticeably abated even during the administration’s imposition of cruelties. The current adjudication system has been overwhelmed — both the asylum officers in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the immigration judges in the Department of Justice (DOJ). Claims in both venues, from all nationalities, have seen sharp rises over the past five years, and backlogs have mushroomed.
DHS, which was keeping up with asylum claims as recently as 2011, now has more than 300,000 pending cases. Immigration judges, whose ranks number roughly 350 at present, have an astounding backlog of 700,000 cases. The resulting picture of dysfunction provides continual fodder for anti-immigration demagogues.
Progressives need to pay close attention to that last observation, because we are in danger of overplaying the righteous reaction to the horrors of child separation. Our nation needs to remain firmly committed to the institution of political asylum. But opportunistic or abusive claims are unfortunately numerous in the current caseload, particularly among people who seek asylum after having been in the United States for a while.
And any realistic migration management regime will have to keep in its toolbox the selective detention of asylum seekers, especially in times of high influx. We need to figure out what form our detention and release system will take.
So, yes, we need to call attention to the cruelty of the Trump administration’s policies. But we also need to bring the system back under control. Control is a precondition for regaining durable public support for the institution of political asylum in a world characterized by unprecedented migration pressures. Extreme-right politicians are exaggerating the scale of illegal immigration and unwarranted asylum seeking, and not just in the US. Getting this right will help take away from the authoritarians one of their most potent rhetorical weapons: immigration alarmism.
A precedent for a solution
Fortunately, we do have a solid model for how to repair our system: Today’s overload is surprisingly similar to an administrative meltdown faced in the early 1990s. Regulatory and operational reforms in 1995 brought that asylum situation under control, while preserving due process and avoiding widespread detention. The result was 15 years of reasonably efficient operation and blessedly few hot political controversies over asylum. We can rebuild that system; doing so won’t resolve all the problems we face, but it is an indispensable ingredient.
We still face some tough questions — notably about how far our asylum system can go in protecting against private violence in Central America, including from gangs and abusive family members. As a polity with a proud history of providing refuge, we face some hard choices. But however those choices are resolved, we can and should immediately expand aid designed to reduce violence in the source countries. That would go some way toward reducing refugee flows.
How our two-track asylum system works
To understand the history of reform successes and failures, we need first a map of the rather complex structure of agencies involved in asylum processing, and of the two primary pipelines by which applications are received. Bear with me, because the differences, though technical, are important as we think about reforms.
A person already in the United States, legally or illegally, who fears persecution back in the home country, can file for asylum directly with the Department of Homeland Security. These “affirmative claims,” so-called because the person takes the initiative to file without any enforcement action pending, are initially heard in an office interview conducted by expert asylum officers, housed in eight regional offices.
Based on the completed application and a nonadversarial office interview, asylum officers can grant or deny asylum, but when asylum is denied, they have no authority to issue a removal order.
That step requires an immigration judge — a specially selected DOJ attorney, appointed by the attorney general, who conducts removal proceedings. Until 1995, there was no routine for putting unsuccessful affirmative applicants into immigration court. It was up to the district field office of the immigration agency to file charges; many offices didn’t see these cases as a priority, at a time when the enforcement system had far lower funding than today. If the district office did serve a charging document, the person could renew the asylum claim in immigration court, and the judge would decide it afresh.
Now for the second main pipeline. People who are already in removal proceedings when they first seek asylum — people apprehended after crossing the border, for instance, or picked up by DHS after a local arrest for disorderly conduct — cannot file with the asylum office. Instead, they present their applications directly to the immigration court. A successful claim there constitutes a defense to removal; hence these applications are known as “defensive claims.”
For both defensive claimants and those affirmative claimants who have renewed their claims in court, the immigration judge considers the case through a formal courtroom procedure. He or she can grant asylum, but if asylum is denied, the judge normally issues a removal order — the kind of document needed for DHS to put the applicant on a bus or plane home (though appeal opportunities exist).
Border cases, as mentioned, are almost all heard as defensive claims, assuming applicants pass an initial, speedy “credible fear” screening done by an asylum officer, which is meant to weed out clearly meritless cases. (Over the past eight years, between 15 and 30 percent have been screened out this way.)
In the 1990s the system was also overwhelmed. We brought it back under control.
Back to the dysfunction I mentioned in the early 1990s. The expert corps of asylum officers, which had been created only in 1990, was overwhelmed by an accelerating volume of asylum claims, many of them containing near-identical boilerplate stories about threats, mostly crafted by high-volume “immigration consultants.” At the time, the regulations provided that nearly all asylum applicants received authorization to work in the US shortly after filing.
That created an incentive to file a false asylum claim — as did the slim chance, during that period, that an applicant would end up in immigration court. The system’s obvious disorder and vulnerability to escalating fraud worried refugee assistance organizations, who rightly feared that Congress, then beginning to consider tough immigration enforcement bills (ultimately enacted in 1996), would impose draconian limitations on asylum unless the administration brought the situation under control.
Government agencies worked closely with NGOs to analyze the situation and draw up a balanced solution. (I worked on the design and implementation of the reforms as a consultant to the Justice Department and later as general counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, a.k.a. INS.) Two key changes in asylum regulations were the result. The first made it virtually automatic that affirmative asylum claimants whose claims were rejected by the asylum officer would be placed into removal proceedings.
Under the 1995 regs, when applicants return to the asylum office a few weeks after their interview to get the result, nearly all receive either an asylum grant or a fully effective charging document placing them in removal proceedings, normally with a specific date to appear in immigration court.
Second, the reform decoupled the act of filing for asylum from work authorization. The applicant would get that benefit from the asylum officer only if granted asylum. Those applicants who failed and were referred on to immigration court would similarly have to prove their asylum claim on the merits to gain permission to work.
But as a mechanism to minimize hardship and induce timely decisions, applicants would also receive work authorization if the immigration judge did not resolve the case within six months of the initial filing. (Applicants could also request delays, for example to gather more evidence, but such a request would suspend the running of the “asylum clock” and thus extend the six-month deadline for the issuance of work authorization).
To meet that processing deadline, the Clinton administration secured funding to double the number of immigration judges, from roughly 100 to 200, and also built up the asylum officer corps. New target timetables were established, and the new system met them with few exceptions: An asylum officer decision within 60 days, and an immigration judge decision within six months from initial filing (the latter also applies to purely defensive claims).
Finally, to maximize the immediate impact, the asylum offices and immigration courts adopted a last-in, first-out scheduling policy for judging claims. That sent the signal that new bogus claims would not slip through and get work authorization under the six-month rule, simply because of case backlogs. The older filers, already carrying a work authorization card, would take lower priority.
These reforms dramatically changed the calculus of potential affirmative applicants. Weak or opportunistic filings would no longer lead to work authorization; additionally, they would mean a quick trip to immigration court and a likely removal order. People responded to the new incentives. Asylum filings with the immigration authorities declined from more than 140,000 in 1993 to a level between 27,000 and 50,000 for virtually every year from 1998 through 2013. That annual filing rate was a manageable level, logistically and politically.
Congress had been poised to crack down on asylum in 1996 as part of a general tightening of immigration laws but, impressed by the already visible reductions, rejected most of the restrictive asylum proposals and instead made the administrative changes permanent by enacting them into law.
The seeds of the current crisis were planted around 2012, in a period of budgetary contraction. Neither Congress nor the executive branch appreciated how crucial it was to reach decisions in immigration court within six months and thereby prevent work authorization to unqualified asylum applicants. That had been the system’s main (and highly effective) deterrent to opportunistic, weak, or bogus claims. Hiring slowed even as caseloads and duties expanded, including the beginnings of the Central American surge. As more and more applicants began to receive work authorization without an asylum grant on the merits, affirmative applications poured in.
With the added filings, immigration court docketing fell further behind, reaching four-year delays in some locations. Much as in 1993, it was a vicious circle. Unscrupulous “consultants” could once again guarantee work authorization to their clients based just on filing, albeit after six months, with no immigration judge hearing expected for years. In 2017, affirmative filings with the asylum office climbed back above 140,000.
A 1995-style fix today would help us mainly to deter weak affirmative asylum claims. But it would still be quite relevant to the Central American applicants reaching our borders, even though they will normally file defensively. This is because so much of the paralyzing immigration court backlog stems from the massive increase in affirmative applicant numbers over the past five years. Reducing overall intake is central to getting both tracks of the asylum process under control.
Concrete steps to fix the problems
Undocumented immigrants released in El Paso, Texas pending an asylum hearing, June 24. All had been separated from their children.Joe Raedle/Getty Images
There are four primary components in a realistic strategy to restore our asylum machinery to health. We should:
1) Rebuild the capacity for prompt asylum decisions by strategically deploying existing staff and urgently adding more. It is obvious that the system needs a major influx of new asylum officers and immigration judges. Hiring is underway and budgets are growing significantly, though not fast enough. The administration still feels a need for more dramatic immediate deterrents, apparently believing that a full catch-up to the existing caseload will take years.
But a here-and-now impact can be had by following the last-in, first-out rule that served the US so well in 1995. Rejection of new filers is more important as a deterrent than processing old cases. In fact, DHS’s asylum office returned to last-in, first-outscheduling five months ago, and affirmative claims have already dropped by 30 percent.
This excellent change will not have the needed impact until the immigration courts complete comparable revisions to their scheduling system and thus assure the six-month decision timetable. We also need to be systematic about removing unsuccessful asylum seekers with a final order.
This would return us to a system where prompt denial on the merits after a fair hearing, not cruelty to applicants, serves as the main deterrent to weak or abusive claims.
2) Make smart use of detention, including family detention as needed, plus alternative measures to avoid flight. Some critics hope that the public revulsion against child separation will lead to ending virtually all detention of asylum seekers. Others theorize that Trump’s planners adopted the separation strategy just to get courts to end constraints they now impose on family detention — because family detention would look so much kinder than separation.
Detention, however, is an inescapable part of the immigration enforcement process, at least when people first arrive at the border and claim asylum. (It’s also essential later, to facilitate or carry out removals of those with a final order.) The judicious use of detention can help reassure skittish publics in times of truly high flow of asylum seekers.
In such times, centralized facilities housing asylum seekers also hold other potential benefits, as was recognized in a 1981 report by a blue-ribbon commission on immigration reform, chaired by Father Theodore Hesburgh from the University of Notre Dame. (The Hesburgh commission issued its report a year after the Mariel boatlift from Cuba brought 125,000 asylum seekers to US shores within a few months.)
Such facilities provide a centralized location for prompt asylum interviews and court hearings. Run properly, which requires constant and committed monitoring, they also can facilitate regular and efficient ongoing access to counsel — particularly when, as is typical in a high-influx situation, most representation comes from organized pro-bono efforts.
The Trump administration has sent unclear and confusing signals about its overall plans while now trying to persuade courts to allow more room for family detention. As a matter of policy, we need to keep family detention available in the toolbox but we should not see it as an early or primary option — especially since the administration has not exhausted other methods, and the Central American flow is not as massive as officials paint it.
Critics today often argue that detention is unnecessary, pointing to high attendance rates by asylum seekers at court hearings. That observation is true, but incomplete. A well-functioning system needs released respondents to show up not just for hearings where a good thing might happen, but also for removal if they lose their asylum cases.
Good data are not available, but intermittent government snapshot reports tend to find that fewer than a sixth of the nondetained are actually removed after the issuance of a final removal order. Policymakers and advocates who want to reduce the use of detention need to attend to that latter statistic, and improve it.
To be sure, detention should not be used routinely. Alternatives to detention — such as intensive release supervision or ankle-bracelet monitoring — are generally more cost-effective. When actual detention is employed, conditions of confinement must be humane and must fully accommodate access to counsel. The Obama administration made headway toward those ends, including creating better family facilities.
3) Think hard about the realistic range of refugee protection, and be more rigorous about “internal protection alternatives.” Advocates for asylum claimants from Central America today have been working to expand the conceptual boundaries of protected refugee classes. Few of those applicants are claiming classic forms of persecution — by an oppressive government, based on the target’s race or religion or political opinion.
A great many claims today are based on domestic violence or risks from murderous criminal gangs, in the context of ineffectual government. Our whole system faces a challenge to determine whether and how such claims fit within the refugee laws and treaties.
The asylum seekers’ cases are highly sympathetic, but they also prompt concerns about figuring out workable boundary lines on any such protection commitment. Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a highly restrictive ruling in June. It held that private crimes, including gang retribution and domestic violence, can rarely serve as the basis for a valid asylum claim. Expect a wide variety of reactions from reviewing courts over coming months and years.
But while that interpretive struggle proceeds, an immediate practical step can be taken to alleviate the dilemma. Adjudicators need to pay more systematic attention to the availability of what are known as “internal protection alternatives.” Asylum applicants who can find reasonable safety within the home country, even at the cost of moving to a new city or region — for example, because that region has a good network of domestic violence shelters — should be required to return to those regions, rather than relocate to the US.
Though this “internal protection alternatives” concept is already part of US and international law, it is understandable why many people balk at taking a firm line on it. The applicant would almost surely face lower risks in the United States than back in the home country, and real hardships can be incurred by moving to a new city where the person may not know anyone.
But that objection has to be kept in perspective. We are talking about protection in another part of one’s homeland, for someone who has already shown the resourcefulness to venture thousands of miles to a distant country, with an unfamiliar culture and language. Asylum should not be thought of as a prize for a person who has endured harm or threats, no matter how much sympathy or admiration he or she may deserve for weathering that past. Asylum is a forward-looking last-resort type of measure to shelter those who cannot find adequate protection other ways.
US Vice-President Mike Pence (L) and Guatemalan President Jimmy Morales at a joint press conference in Guatemala City on June 28 — a stop on the vice president’s recent Central American trip. The asylum crisis was high on the agenda.Orlando Estrada/AFP/Getty Images
4) Work with other countries to address root causes and expand potential refuge elsewhere. This brings us directly to the fourth primary measure, of particular relevance to the Central American crisis. The United States should greatly expand assistance, through bilateral aid, multilateral efforts, or the funding of NGO initiatives, toward reducing the violence that sends people in search of protection.
It’s easier in theory to address root causes when the threat is private violence, since the US can expect support rather than resistance from the government. But real effectiveness on the ground demands ongoing diplomacy, implementation skill, vigilance against corruption, and, above all, consistent funding year to year.
In Central America, past US assistance has had some visible impact in helping to reduce gang violence and murder rates. The Central American Regional Security Initiative has provided more than $1.4 billion to this effort since its start in 2008. The Trump administration, with typical short-sightedness, is moving to cut this funding. And Vice President Mike Pence’s meeting with heads of state in Guatemala City last week was a giant missed opportunity. According to press accounts, he basically just badgered those governments to stop sending people.
That message would have been so much more effective toward changing conditions on the ground if it had been joined with significantly increased aid for the security initiative. We should also expand funding to enhance police responsiveness to domestic violence in Central America and to support shelter networks.
These steps are obviously worthy in their own right, helping potential victims of all sorts, not just potential migrants. But they also can reduce the felt need to migrate and generate a more extensive menu of “internal protection alternatives” to be considered by adjudicators ruling on asylum claims.
The Obama administration also had some success in working with Mexico to discourage dangerous unauthorized travel, through information campaigns and interdiction — and to open up a modest possibility that Central Americans could find refuge in Mexico itself. President Trump’s unending insults directed at our southern neighbor have torpedoed such cooperation, but a future administration should revive it.
Revulsion at the current administration’s border practices is fully deserved. And the current administration exaggerates the crisis. But in an era where tolerance for asylum protection has become a politically scarce resource, we still need realistic and determined asylum reform measures in order to restore public confidence that migration is subject to control.
Our country’s 1995 experience shows such a change is possible, while retaining a firm commitment to refugee protection. Repeating that success will require well-targeted funding and tough-minded administrative resourcefulness to succeed.
David A. Martin is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia School of Law. He served as general counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1995 through 1997, and as principal deputy general counsel of the Department of Homeland Security, 2009 through 2010.
MY RESPONSE TO PROFESSOR DAVID A. MARTIN’S MOST RECENT ASYLUM PROPOSAL
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
As I tell my law students, my good friend Professor David A. Martin is undoubtedly one of the most brilliant legal minds of our era. I first met David in the Carter Administration when I was the Deputy General Counsel of the “Legacy INS,” and he was the Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of State for Humanitarian Affairs, Patt Derian. David, Alex Aleinikoff, who then was in the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel, the late Jack Perkins, who was then Legislative Counsel at the DOJ, the late Jerry Tinker, Legislative Assistant to Sen. Ted Kennedy, and I, along with many others, worked closely together on the development and passage of the Refugee Act of 1980.
David and I have remained friends and kept in close touch ever since. Later, during the Clinton Administration, David appeared before me in the famous Kasinga case when I was Chair of the BIA. He invited me to be a guest lecturer at his class at UVA Law on a number of occasions, and I used the textbook that he, Alex, and others authored for my Refugee Law and Policy Class at Georgetown Law.
David has been a “life saver,” particularly for refugee women. The position that he took for the INS in Kasinga helped me bring a near unanimous Board to protect women who faced the horror of female genital mutilation (“FGM”).
Later, the famous “Martin brief,” written while David was serving as the Deputy General Counsel of DHS in the Obama Administration, urged the recognition of domestic abuse as a form of gender-based persecution. It saved numerous lives of some of the most deserving asylum applicants ever. It also supported those of us in the Immigration Judiciary who had been granting such cases ever since the BIA’s atrociously wrong majority decision in Matter of R-A-was vacated by Attorney General Reno.
The “Martin brief,” of course was the forerunner of Matter of A-R-C-G-, recognizing domestic violence as a form of gender based- persecution. Sadly, as noted by many commentators, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has recently attacked refugee women by overruling Matter of A-R-C-G-and reinstating the long-discredited bogus reasoning of the R-A-majority!
With that bit of history in mind, Here are my reactions to David’s proposal for another “bureaucratic rescue” of the asylum system.
Don’t Blame The Victims.
With acknowledgement and credit to my good friend retired Judge Carol King, we need to stop blaming the refugees who are fleeing the human rights disaster in the Northern Triangle (that we helped cause). They are actually the victims. There is no “crisis” except the one caused by the cruel and incompetent policies of the Trump Administration directed at refugees compounded by the gross mismanagement of the U.S. Immigration Court system over the last three Administrations including, of course, this Administration.
Let Judges Run The Courts.
The idea that bureaucrats sitting in Washington and Falls Church, no matter how well-intentioned (and I’m not accusing anyone in the Trump Administration of being “well-intentioned”) can keep redesigning the Immigration Court System and manipulating dockets without any meaningful input from the judges actually hearing the cases is absurd. It’s a big part of the reason that the Immigration Court system is basically in free fall today. The key to running any good court system is to have judges in charge of the system and their own dockets. Judges should hire bureaucrats, when necessary, to work for the judges and help them, not the other way around. A court system run as a government agency, such as EOIR, is “designed to fail.” And, not surprisingly, it is failing.
Protection Not Rejection.
Refugee and asylum laws are there to protect individuals in harm’s way. But, you wouldn’t know it from most recent BIA asylum precedents and the disingenuously xenophobic and racist statements of this Administration. No, from the BIA and the bureaucrats one would think that the purpose of asylum law was to develop ever more creatively inane and nonsensical ways NOT to protect those in need – hyper-technical, often incomprehensible requirements for “particular social groups;” bogus “nexus” tests that ignore or pervert normal rules of causation; “adverse credibility” findings that are more like a game of “gotcha” than a legitimate evaluation of an applicant’s testimony in context; denial of representation; coercive use of detention; politicized “country reports” often designed to obscure the real problems; misuse of the in absentia process; hiring judges who have little or no understanding of asylum law from an applicant’s standpoint; intentionally unrealistic and overwhelming evidentiary standards; misapplications of the one-year deadline; cultural insensitivity, etc. That’s not the direction the Supreme Court was pointing us to when they set forth a generous interpretation of the “well-founded fear” standard for asylum in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca back in 1987.
Gender-Based Claims Fit Squarely Within “Classic” Refugee Law.
No, claims based on domestic violence and/or resistance to gangs aren’t “non-traditional.” What might be “non-traditional” is for largely male-dominated bureaucracies, legislatures, courts, and law enforcement authorities to recognize the true situation of women. In fact, gender is clearly immutable/fundamental to identity, particularized, and socially distinct. Moreover, there is a clear political element to gender-based violence in patriarchal societies. And in countries like those of the Northern Triangle where gangs have infiltrated and intimidated the governments and in many areas are the “de facto” government, of course resistance to gangs is going to be viewed as a political statement with harsh consequences. As Sessions recently proved in Matter of A-B-and the Third Circuit confirmed in S.E.R.L. v. Att’y Gen., it takes pages and pages of legal gobbledygook and linguistic nonsense to avoid the obvious truths about gender-based violence and how it is, in fact, a “classic” form of persecution well within international protections.
Detention Isn’t The Answer.
Civil immigration detention is the problem, not the answer. How perverse is this: Under Sessions’s “zero tolerance” policy, hapless asylum applicants are “prosecuted” for “misdemeanor illegal entry.” The “criminal penalty?” One or two days in jail.
Then, they can apply for asylum as they are legally entitled to do under our laws. The civil penalty for exercising their legal rights? Potentially indefinite detention in substandard conditions that in many cases would be illegal if they were applied to convicted criminals.
I’ve been involved with immigration detention for most of my professional career, primarily from the Government side. I’ve witnessed first-hand its coercive, de-humanizing effect on those detained, mostly non-criminals.
But, that’s not all. Immigration detention also corrodes, corrupts, and diminishes the humanity of those officials who participate in and enable the process. It also is wasteful, expensive, and ineffective as deterrent (which it’s not supposed to be used for anyway). It diminishes us as a nation. It’s time to put an end to “civil” immigration detention in all but the most unusual cases.
No, I Don’t Have All the Answers.
But, I do know that it’s time for us as a country to begin living up to our national, international, and moral obligations to refugees and asylum seekers. We owe these fellow human beings a humane reception, a fair processing and adjudication system that complies completely with Due Process, a fair and generous application of our protection laws, and thoughtful and respectful treatment regardless of outcome. We haven’t even begun to exhaust our capacity for accepting refugees and asylees. Studies show that refugees are good for the United States and vice versa.
But, if we really don’t want many more here, then we had better get busy working with UNHCR and other countries that are signatories to the 1952 Refugee Convention to solve the problems driving refugee flows and to provide durable refuge in various safe locations. And, a great start would be to reprogram the huge amounts of money we now waste on purposeless, ineffective, and inhumane immigration enforcement, needless immigration detention, inappropriate prosecutions, scores of government lawyers defending these counterproductive policies, and more bureaucratic “silver bullet” schemes that won’t solve the problem. We could put that money to far better use assisting and resettling more refugees and developing constructive solutions to the problems that cause refugees in the first place.
It’s high time to put an end to “same old, same old,” repeating and doubling down on the proven failures of the past, and “go along to get along” bureaucracy and judging. We need a “brave new regime” (obviously the polar opposite of the present one) focused on the overall good and improvement of humanity, not promoting the biased and selfish interests of the few! And, who knows? We might find out that by working collectively and cooperatively and looking out for the common interests, we’ll also be improving our own prospects.
ERO shouldn’t terrorize anyone, but it has to be able to arrest deportable aliens where they can be found.
The main reason for wanting to abolish ICE is likely to prevent undocumented aliens who are here for a better life from being deported.
But if ICE were to be abolished, its responsibilities would be assigned to another agency and Trump would require the new agency to implement the same policies.
Trump’s enforcement policies
President Barack Obama focused his immigration enforcement programprimarily on aliens who had been convicted of crimes in the United States, had been caught near the border after an illegal entry, or had returned unlawfully after being deported.
Once an undocumented alien had succeeded in crossing the border without being apprehended, he did not have to worry about being deported unless he was convicted of a serious crime. He was home free.
This created a “home free magnet” which encouraged more undocumented aliens to come and do whatever they had to do to cross the border.
“We cannot faithfully execute the immigration laws of the United States if we exempt classes or categories of removable aliens from potential enforcement.”
He directed DHS “to employ all lawful means to ensure the faithful execution of the immigration laws of the United States against all removable aliens.”
Nevertheless, he prioritized removing aliens who are inadmissibleon criminal and related grounds, on security and related grounds, and for misrepresentations, or who are deportable for criminal offenses or on security and related grounds, and removable aliens who:
Have been convicted of any criminal offense;
Have been charged with any criminal offense, where such charge has not been resolved;
Have committed acts that constitute a criminal offense;
Have engaged in fraud or willful misrepresentation in connection with any official matter or government application;
Have abused any program related to receipt of public benefits;
Are subject to a final order of removal but have not left the United States; or
In the judgment of an immigration officer, otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national security.
Sanctuary policies prevent local police departments from turning inmates over to ERO when they are released from custody, so ERO is spending more of its time looking for deportable aliens in communities. This resulted in arresting 40,000 noncriminal aliens in FY 2017.
But ERO should not be engaging in improper behavior to make these or any other arrests.
If you see an ICE officer doing something improper, report him. This is far more likely to improve the situation than calling for the abolishment of ICE.
*****************************************
Go on over to The Hill at the link for Nolan’s complete article.
I agree with Nolan that ICE isn’t going anywhere under Trump.
I also agree that the essential functions of ICE will still need to be performed, regardless of the ultimate fate of the organization.
I think it’s great that the “Abolish ICE Movement” has focused more attention on the cruel, unnecessary, and highly counterproductive enforcement and prosecutorial policies of ICE under Trump.
Indeed, the counterproductive nature of the Trump/Sessions immigration enforcement is a major reason why a group of Senior ICE Agents who actually perform real law enforcement functions — anti-smuggling, anti-human trafficking, immigration fraud, anti-terrorism — want to ditch the ICE label, because they know it’s inhibiting cooperation with other agencies and communities and thereby diminishing real law enforcement.
Most true law enforcement professionals that I have known don’t want to be associated with a group that glorifies cruelty and de-humanizes ordinary people. Having ICE on your resume today wouldn’t be a plus for most folks interested in a legitimate law enforcement career.
While the “essential functions” of ICE will continue, lots of today’s ICE enforcement has little to do with “essential enforcement.” The latter would be targeted at criminals, fraudsters, spouse abusers, traffickers, and recent arrivals who don’t have applications pending.
The lack of any semblance of common sense and responsibility in ICE’s abusive refusal to exercise prosecutorial discretion and actually putting properly closed cases back on the docket is a major contributor to the absolute mess in today’s Immigration Courts.
It’s also a reason why the Immigration Court mess is unlikely to be solved until Congress, the courts, and/or some future Executive force some fundamental changes in ICE enforcement and prosecutorial policies to reflect the same type of prudent, respectful, and realistic use of judicial time and prosecutorial discretion that is employed, to some extent, by every other major law enforcement agency in the U.S.
It never hurts to complain. I’m a big fan of making a “running record” of misconduct.
But, in the Trump Administration a record is about all you’ll get. Nothing is going to be done to correct misconduct because misconduct comes from the top.
My experience with ICE Chief Counsel’s Office in Arlington was highly positive. The attorneys were overwhelmingly fair, smart, responsive, respectful, and part of the “team” with the private, bar, the courts, and the interpreters that made the justice system work in Arlington in the past.
Indeed, working with the Arlington Chief Counsel’s Office made me proud to have led the major reorganization that established the forerunner to the “Modern Chief Counsel System” at the “Legacy INS” during the Carter and Reagan Administrations. The Arlington Chief Counsel’s Office was exactly what former General Counsels Dave Crosland, Mike Inman, Regional Counsel Bill Odencrantz, and I had envisioned when we planned and carried out the reorganization (over considerable internal opposition, I might add).
My overall experiences with the officers of ICE and it’s forerunner INS Investigations were positive. I found and worked with plenty of capable, dedicated, professional, and humane officers during my decades of dealing with immigration enforcement in some form or another.
All of that suggests that the major problems in ICE have arisen almost entirely under the Trump Administration. That’s because of truly horrible leadership from the top down.
ICE won’t improve until we get “regime change.” When that happens, ICE will have to be reorganized, reinvented, and “rebranded.” Professional management — one that pays particular attention to its relationship to local communities — must be reestablished. Sane enforcement and prosecutorial discretion policies will have to be reinstated.
My experiences with ICE suggest that the right people to lead an “ICE-type” agency in the future are likely already somewhere in ICE. They just aren’t in the right leadership and management positions. Maybe they will all quit before the end of the Trump Administration If not, they could serve as a “professional core” for rebuilding and reforming ICE.
I’m skeptical that so-called “Catch and Release” has a significant effect on what’s happening on the Southern Border.
In the first place, the current situation is “a self-created crisis” initiated by Trump & Sessions. Otherwise it’s pretty much normal migration.
Seeking asylum at the border isn’t “illegal migration” at all. It’s asserting an internationally recognized right. Detention and family separation are not appropriate responses to individuals seeking in good faith to exercise their rights.
In any event, the primary drivers of migration outside the visa system are: 1) unmet needs of the U.S. labor market, and 2) political, social, and economic conditions in foreign countries. So-called “Catch and Release” has no established effect on either of these “drivers.” See, e.g.,https://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/crisis-border-not-numbers.
Perhaps Trump’s “no due process” approach is the best solution if persecution claims can be considered outside of the United States.
Letting them apply here isn’t working well.
As of April 2017, the average wait for a hearing was 670 days, and the immigration court backlog has increased since then. It was 714,067 cases in May 2018.
It isn’t possible to enforce the immigration laws if deportable aliens can’t be put in removal proceedings, and the judges are being pressed to spend less time on cases, which puts due process in jeopardy.
We need a politically acceptable way to reduce the number of asylum applicants to a manageable level.
******************************************
Go on over to The Hill at the link to read Nolan’s complete article!
I agree with Nolan’s observation that pushing Immigration Judges to schedule more cases and spend less time on them puts due process in jeopardy. I also can see that Sessions intends to reduce asylum grant rates to about 0% by totally distorting the system until it is impossible for virtually anyone actually needing protection to get it.
As I have stated before, the problem isn’t the asylum law. The problem is the way Trump and Sessions have distorted and perverted asylum law and the Constitutional right to Due Process.
Asylum law is designed to protect individuals fleeing from persecution. We haven’t even begun to test the limits of our ability to give refuge. Indeed, at the time of the world’s greatest need, and our own prosperity, we have disgracefully turned our backs on accepting anything approaching a fair share of the world’s desperate refugees. We should be ashamed of ourselves as a nation! Refugees of all types bring great things to our nation and help us prosper. But, even if they didn’t, that wouldn’t lessen our moral and humanitarian obligations to accept our fair and more generous share of the world’s refugees.
And never forget that the backlog and the waiting times have little or nothing to do with fault on the part of asylum applicants.Many of them have also been unfairly screwed by the mess that Congress, the DOJ, DHS, and politicos have made of the Immigration Court system.
The backlog is almost entirely the result of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” which has been kicked into high gear under Sessions, exceptionally poor choices in docket management and bad prosecutorial decisions by DHS, and years of neglect and understaffing by Congress, as well as stunningly incompetent management of the Immigration Courts by the DOJ under the last three Administrations.
Here’s the truth that Trump and the restrictionists don’t want to deal with:
SOLVING THE SOUTHERN BORDER: It’s Not Our Asylum Laws That Need Changing — It’s The Actions Of Our Leaders Who Administer Them That Must Change!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
U.S. Immigration Judge (Ret.)
Contrary to what White Nationalist liars like Trump & Sessions say, our U.S. asylum laws are not the problem. The politicos who misinterpret and misapply the law and then mal-administer the asylum adjudication system are the problem.
The current asylum laws are more than flexible enough to deal efficiently, effectively, and humanely with today’s bogus, self-created “Southern Border Crisis.” It’s actually nothing more than the normal ebb and flow, largely of refugees, from the Northern Triangle.
That has more do with conditions in those countries and seasonal factors than it does with U.S. asylum law. Forced migration is an unfortunate fact of life. Always has been, and probably always will be. That is, unless and until leaders of developed nations devote more time and resources to addressing the causation factors, not just flailing ineffectively and too often inhumanely with the inevitable results.
And the reasonable solutions are readily available under today’s U.S. legal system:
Instead of sending more law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and judges to the Southern Border, send more CBP Inspectors and USCIS Asylum Officers to insure that those seeking asylum are processed promptly, courteously, respectfully, and fairly.
Take those who turn themselves in to the Border Patrol to the nearest port of entry instead of sending them to criminal court (unless, of course, they are repeat offenders or real criminals).
Release those asylum seekers who pass “credible fear” on low bonds or “alternatives to detention” (primarily ankle bracelet monitoring) which have been phenomenally successful in achieving high rates of appearance at Immigration Court hearings. They are also much more humane and cheaper than long-term immigration detention.
Work with the pro bono legal community and NGOs to insure that each asylum applicant gets a competent lawyer. Legal representation also has a demonstrated correlation to near-universal rates of appearance at Immigration Court hearings. Lawyers also insure that cases will be well-presented and fairly heard, indispensable ingredients to the efficient delivery of Due Process.
Insure that address information is complete and accurate at the time of release from custody. Also, insure that asylum applicants fully understand how the process works and their reporting obligations to the Immigration Courts and to DHS, as well as their obligation to stay in touch with their attorneys.
Allow U.S. Immigration Judges in each Immigration Court to work with ICE Counsel, NGOs, and the local legal community to develop scheduling patterns that insure applications for asylum can be filed at the “First Master” and that cases are completed on the first scheduled “Individual Merits Hearing” date.
If there is a consensus that these cases merit “priority treatment,” then the ICE prosecutor should agree to remove a “lower priority case” from the current 720,000 case backlog by exercising “prosecutorial discretion.” This will end “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and insure that the prioritization of new cases does not add to the already insurmountable backlog.
Establish a robust “in-country refugee processing program” in the Northern Triangle; fund international efforts to improve conditions in the Northern Triangle; and work cooperatively with the UNHCR and other countries in the Americas to establish and fund protection programs that distribute refugees fleeing the Northern Triangle among a number of countries. That will help reduce the flow of refugees at the source, rather than at our Southern Border. And, more important, it will do so through legal humanitarian actions, not by encouraging law enforcement officials in other countries (like Mexico) to abuse refugees and deny them humane treatment (so that we don’t have to).
My proposed system would require no legislative fixes; comply with the U.S Constitution, our statutory laws, and international laws; be consistent with existing court orders and resolve some pending legal challenges; and could be carried out with less additional personnel and expenditure of taxpayer funds than the Administration’s current “cruel, inhuman, and guaranteed to fail” “deterrence only” policy.
ADDITIONAL BENEFIT: We could also all sleep better at night, while reducing the “National Stress Level.” (And, for those interested in such things, it also would be more consistent with Matthew 25:44, the rest of Christ’s teachings, and Christian social justice theology).
As Eric Levitz says in New York Magazine, the folks arriving at our border are the ones in crisis, not us! “And those families aren’t bringing crime and lawlessness to our country — if anything, we brought such conditions to theirs.”
That warrants a much more measured, empathetic, humane, respectful, and both legally and morally justifiable approach than we have seen from our Government to date.The mechanisms for achieving that are already in our law. We just need leaders with the wisdom and moral courage to use them.
PWS
06-23-18
I also take note of how EOIR under Sessions has disingenuously manipulated the asylum adjudication numbers to support a false narrative that most asylum claims are meritless.
The only “real ” number is a comparison of asylum grants to denials, not grants to the total number of cases involving asylum applications including the substantial number that were never decided on the merits. The fact that a case is disposed of in some other manner does not mean that the asylum application was meritless; it just means that the case was disposed of in another way.
Here are the “real” numbers from EOIR’s own Statistics Yearbook, before they were dishonestly manipulated under Sessions’s instructions to support his false claims about asylum seekers:
Asylum Grant Rate
Grants
Denials
Grant Rate
FY 12
10,575
8,444
56%
FY 13
9,767
8,777
53%
FY 14
8,672
9,191
49%
FY 15
8,184
8,816
48%
FY 16
8,726
11,643
43%
In 2016, the “real” grant rate was 38%. Even under Sessions in the partial FY 2018, the merits grant rate is 35%. That’s by no means negligible — one in three! And, remember folks, this is with asylum law that was already badly skewed against applicants, particularly those from the Northern Triangle with potentially bona fide claims. (But, admittedly, before Sessions recent rewriting of asylum law to improperly deny asylum and essentially impose death sentences or torture on vulnerable women fleeing from the Northern Triangle.)
And, in my experience, the vast majority of denied asylum seekers had legitimate fears of harm upon return that should have entitled them to some protection; they just didn’t fit our unrealistically and intentionally restrictive interpretations. By no means does denial of an asylum claim mean that the claim was frivolous!
The real question we should be asking is that with the refugee situation in the world getting worse and with continually deteriorating conditions in the Northern Triangle, how do asylum merits grant rates drop from 56% and 53% as recently as FY 2011 & 2012 to 35% in 2018? What those numbers really suggests is large-scale problematic behavior and improper influence within the DOJ and the Immigration Judges who are denying far, far too many of these claims. Some of that includes use of coercive detention in out-of-the-way locations and depriving individuals of a fair opportunity to be represented by counsel, as well as a number of BIA decisions (even before Sessions’s Matter of A-B- atrocity) specifically designed to promote unfairness and more asylum denials.
There is no “southern border crisis,” other than the unnecessary humanitarian crisis that Trump and Sessions created by abusing children. Nor is there a problem with our asylum laws except for the intentional failure of our Government to apply them in a legal, fair, and Constitutional manner. But, there is a White Nationalist, racism problem clearly manifesting itself in our immoral and scofflaw national leadership.
Everyone committed to fairness, Due Process, and maintaining America as a country of humane values should fiercely resist, in every way possible, suggestions by Trump, Sessions, and some in the GOP to further abuse Due Process and eliminate the already limited rights of the most vulnerable among us!
We need to say focused on the real threats to our national security and continued existence as a democratic republic: Trump, Sessions, and their cohorts and enablers!
:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/11631193/GettyImages_983050074.jpg)
:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/11631215/GettyImages_986622846.jpg)
