"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
Professor Kate Shaw Cardozo Law PHOTO: Cardozo Law WebsiteProfessor Leah Litman University of Michigan Law PHOTO: Michigan Law Website
Kate and Leah were live from the University of Pennsylvania in Strict Scrutiny’s first live show of 2023! Penn Law Professor Jasmine E. Harris joined the hosts to recap arguments in a case that could impact disability rights. Kate and Leah recap two other arguments, in a case about immigration law and another about the ability to criminally prosecute corporations owned by foreign states. Plus, a major update about the Supreme Court’s “investigation” into who leaked the draft opinion of Dobbs last spring. And Temple University Law School Dean Rachel Rebouche joined the hosts to talk about some concerning updates in abortion access– an unfortunately commemoration of the 50th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.
• Here’s the report summarizing the Supreme Court’s investigation into who leaked the Dobbs opinion. (TLDR: they still don’t know who did it, but they tried their best? Former United States Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff said so.)
To hear the comments on our amicus brief “tune in” at 14:00 (lots of other “interesting commentary” on other cases if you listen to the entire program):
“With the highest possible human stakes,” amen, Kate!I get that, you get that, those stuck in the “purgatory of EOIR” get that! But, sadly, Biden, Harris, Garland, Mayorkas, their too often bumbling bureaucrats, and a whole bunch of Federal Judges at all levels DON’T “get” the dire human consequences and the practical impact of many of their decisions. That’s particularly true of those that give EOIR a “pass” on bad interpretations, opaque procedures, and a “super-user-unfriendly” forum that all too often defies logic and common sense! If they did “get it,” EOIR wouldn’t be the dystopian, likely unconstitutional, and life-threatening mess that it is today!
All you have to do is imagine yourself to be an unrepresented individual, who doesn’t speak English, on trial for your life in this messed up and unaccountable “court” system that holds millions of lives in its fumbling hands! Seems like a “modest ask” for those who have risen to the Federal Bench. But, for many, it’s a “bridge too far!” Let’s just hope that the Court does the “right thing” here!
Thanks to Round Table Maven Judge “Sir Jeffrey” Chase for spotting this!
Knightess of the Round Table — “Primed and ready to keep fighting dysfunction @ EOIR until due process, fundamental fairness, best practices, and equal justice for all prevail!”
Introduction and Summary of Argument
This brief presents amici’s practical perspective on why the Immigration and Nationality Act’s provision for removal based on a conviction for a “crime involving moral turpitude” is void for vagueness. Section 1227(a)(2)(A) combines the imprecision of the phrase “moral turpitude” with the indeterminacy of applying that phrase to a hypothetical set of facts
1 Counsel of record for all parties received notice of amici’s intent to file this brief at least ten days before its due date. The parties have consented to this filing. No counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part, and no person other than amici or their counsel made a monetary contribution to the preparation or submission of this brief.
2
under the categorical approach. The result is a provision so vague that adjudicators cannot agree on how to conduct the inquiry and frequently reach inconsistent results.
The Act charges immigration judges with determining which crimes involve “moral turpitude.” Though the statute provides no definition, in 1951, this Court held that the “language conveys sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct.” Jordan v. De George, 341 U.S. 223, 231-32 (1951). But time has disproved that understanding. The usual “consistency [that] can be expected to emerge with the accretion of case law,” S.E.R.L. v. Att’y Gen., 894 F.3d 535, 550 (3d Cir. 2018), has not materialized. Indeed, the typical sources of clarity—the Board of Immigration Appeals and the courts of appeals—have produced more questions than answers. Whose morals matter? How should judges discern what those morals are? What course should judges follow when moral views conflict? How do they account for changes in views over time? Immigration judges have no way to know. And the uncertainty that the statute’s vague words create left amici with no guide except their own moral intuitions.
To this ambiguity, add that, under the categorical approach, immigration judges do not evaluate the actual conduct engaged in by the noncitizen before them. Instead, they must assess the moral implications of a theoretical set of facts—the “least culpable” means of committing the crime in question. The hypothetical nature of this mode of analysis exacerbates the underlying vagueness of the statutory phrase “crime involving moral turpitude.”
3
Recently, this Court has struck down statutory provisions that suffered from analogous uncertainty, holding each unconstitutionally vague. See Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015); Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018); United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019). Section 1227(a)(2)(A) should suffer the same fate.
The real-world effects of Section 1227(a)(2)(A)’s vagueness confirm this conclusion. Attempts to curtail the provision’s arbitrariness by articulating standards have failed. The Board and the courts of appeals have repeatedly but unsuccessfully tried to craft a workable set of rules for identifying which crimes involve moral turpitude. Their efforts have instead produced a series of non-dispositive, ad hoc tests that generate inconsistent and arbitrary results. Confusion abounds in immigration courts and in Article III courts alike, with widespread disagreement over whether a given crime involves moral turpitude. Among other unexplainable outcomes, the courts of appeals part ways on whether crimes such as making a terroristic threat or deceptively using a social security number involve moral turpitude. Amici were required to sort through this morass, unsure of which of the growing list of ad hoc tests applied or how to deal with the conflicting results. Their experiences confirm that the phrase “moral turpitude” is too vague to govern the “particularly severe ‘penalty’” of removal. Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 365 (2010) (quoting Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698, 740 (1893)).
For these reasons, this Court should grant review and reverse.
For over 70 years, Federal Judges from the Supremes on down have turned a “blind eye” to our Constitution and substituted their subjective views on morality and immigrants for the rule of law. Our Round Table says it’s high time to stop! ⚔️🛡
Madeline Meth ESQUIRE Deputy Director and Staff Attorney – Georgetown Law Appellate Courts Immersion Clinic PHOTO: Linkedin — “She’s training tomorrow’s lawyers to fix today’s failing courts!“
Thanks again to the superstars Esthena L. Barlow, Brian Wolfman, Counsel of Record Madeline Meth, and the rest of the “Youth Brigade of the NDPA” over @ Georgetown Law!
If he survives Garland’s EOIR, this guy faces more torture if wrongfully removed to torture elsewhere. “Justice” Star Chamber Style
“Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports on H.H. v. Garland, a case in which the RoundTable filed an amicus brief in behalf of the respondent. Many thanks to our friends Adam Gershenson, Zachary Sisko, Marc Suskin, Valeria M. Pelet del Toro, Samantha Kirby, and Cooley LLP on the brief for amici curiae Former Immigration Judges and Former Members of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
For the reasons detailed above, we conclude that the BIA erred by: (1) applying the incorrect standard of review to uphold the IJ’s denial of CAT relief as to Honduras, in a misguided effort to accommodate the IJ’s error of law in requiring a showing of willful acceptance rather than willful blindness; (2) improperly failing to address H.H.’s argument that he would likely be tortured by or at the instigation of Honduran officials; and (3) failing to meaningfully address H.H.’s argument that MS-13 members may act under color of law.21 Accordingly, we grant the petition for review, vacate the BIA’s decision insofar as it denied H.H. deferral of removal to Honduras, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
************************************
Meanwhile, Dan Kowalski at LexisNexis Immigraton Community reports on another CAT rebuke from the 9th Circuit.
“Risvin Valdemar De Leon Lopez (“De Leon”), a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for relief under the Convention Against Torture. We conclude: (1) the record in this case compels the conclusion that two of De Leon’s attackers were police officers during a July 2011 incident; (2) De Leon showed acquiescence on the part of the Guatemalan government with respect to that incident because government officials— namely, the two police officers—directly participated in the incident; and (3) the record indicates that the IJ and BIA’s conclusion that De Leon is not likely to be subjected to torture with government acquiescence if returned to Guatemala disregards several important circumstances pertinent to evaluating the likelihood of future torture. In light of these errors, we grant the petition and remand for the agency to reconsider De Leon’s application for relief.”
These aren’t “minor bureaucratic matters,” no matter how much Garland and his “clueless crew” over @ DOJ might want to treat them that way and hope they will go away! They won’t! Not if the thousands of us involved in the due process, fundamental fairness, and racial justice for all movement have anything to say about it (e.g., the “NDPA”)!
And we will continue to speak out against the parody of justice @ Garland’s EOIR! It’s a disingenuous and disgraceful performance by a Democratic Administration that will have “down the line” consequences!
While the Trump Administration admittedly left EOIR in complete shambles, that doesn’t excuse the Biden Administration’s failure to fix it. It’s not “rocket science!”But, there is no way that the “Clown Show” 🤡 that Garland has chosen to run and staff EOIR (many inexplicably “held over” from the Sessions/Barr debacle) can fix it!
These are literally life and death cases in which Garland’s “faux expert” BIA “pretzels” the law, misconstrues facts, and “selectively reads” records to reach wrong results that deny protection and decree deportation! How is this acceptable performance from any tribunal, let alone one that is supposed to insure justice for those whose lives are on the line? How is this acceptable performance from a Democratic Administration that claimed fealty to human rights and racial justice, but takes neither seriously when it comes to EOIR?
There are plenty of “practical scholar experts” out here in the non-governmental sectors who would make much better appellate and trial judges, and administrators, than many of those Garland is inflicting on migrants and their attorneys.
What’s wrong with the Biden Administration? What’s “right”about failed justice @ Justice?”
The poor performance of Garland as the “steward” of the Immigration Courts at EOIR is a threat to humanity, democracy, and a colossal waste of judicial and litigation resources at all levels of our justice system!
Maybe Merrick Garland SHOULD worry about running “America’s worst courts” and inflicting life-threatening injustice on his fellow humans! PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
Hon. Ilyce Shugall U.S. Immigraton Judge (Retired) Member Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
A criminal conviction vacated due to a substantive or procedural defect does not qualify as a “conviction” establishing a noncitizen’s removability under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). By the statute’s plain language, vacatur under section 1473.7(a)(1) conclusively establishes that the underlying conviction rested on a substantive or procedural defect: It allows people no longer in criminal custody to seek vacatur of convictions that were “legally invalid due to prejudicial error damaging the moving party’s ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of a conviction or sentence.”
Even though a California court vacated the conviction of petitioner Jose Adalberto Arias Jovel under section 1473.7(a)(1), the BIA declined to sua sponte
2 Further statutory references are to the California Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
-2-
RESTRICTED Case: 21-631, 07/05/2022, DktEntry: 35.1, Page 12 of 34
reopen Mr. Arias’ removal proceedings because it held that, as a noncitizen,
Mr. Arias had the burden to show that his conviction under section 1473.7(a)(1) was vacated on the merits, and Mr. Arias failed to meet that burden. If affirmed, the BIA’s holding creates several problems.
First, the holding requires IJs to second-guess a state court’s determination under section 1473.7(a)(1), despite the statute allowing vacatur only for prejudicial defects. The plain language of section 1473.7(a)(1) requires “prejudicial error” that renders the conviction “legally invalid,” and IJs should accept that the state court must have vacated the conviction due to a substantive or procedural error of law. Precedent requires IJs to apply the INA to a section 1473.7(a)(1) vacatur without second-guessing the state court’s ruling.
Second, even if a section 1473.7(a)(1) vacatur doesn’t conclusively establish a substantive or procedural defect, the burden is not on noncitizens like Mr. Arias to demonstrate their convictions were vacated on the merits. IJs are bound by Ninth Circuit precedent, which holds that the government bears the burden of proving whether a vacated conviction can still form the basis for removal. To shift the burden of proof to noncitizens (who do not have a constitutional right to counsel, may be detained, and often have limited English proficiency) is contrary to the law and will inevitably increase the likelihood of due process violations.
-3-
RESTRICTED Case: 21-631, 07/05/2022, DktEntry: 35.1, Page 13 of 34
Third, the government’s interpretation of section 1473.7(a)(1) will exacerbate the growing backlog of immigration cases and the enormous pressure that IJs face to eliminate the backlog. Given the severe time and resource constraints applied to the immigration court, deviating from the established law governing vacated convictions will greatly hinder the fair and efficient administration of immigration proceedings.
Many thanks to NDPA Superstar 🌟 Judge Ilyce Shugall for taking the lead on this!
*************************
Here’s a nice “thank you” from respondent’s counsel Tomo Takaki at Covington & Burling, LA Office:
Dear former IJs and BIA members and GMSR Counsel,
Apologies for the delayed email, but thank you all again for your excellent and powerful brief. It was truly invaluable to get the perspective of former IJs and BIA members on this important issue, especially regarding the unworkability of the BIA’s decision here. It was particularly helpful to get GMSR’s appellate expertise on board here with such well-written advocacy. Our client, and many like him, I’m sure deeply appreciate your efforts on their behalf.
Best,
Tomo Takaki
Covington & Burling LLP
And, of course many, many thanks to our all-star 🌟 pro bono counsel Stefan C. Love and Tina Kuang ofGREINES, MARTIN, STEIN & RICHLAND LLP in Los Angeles. Couldn’t do it without you guys and your excellence in appellate advocacy!
Garland’s DOJ inexplicably defends a bad BIA decision, unworkable and slanted against immigrants! Why don’t we deserve better from the Biden Administration?
Why are scarce pro bono resources being tied up on wasteful litigation when Garland could appoint a “better BIA” dedicated to due process, fundamental fairness, practical scholarship, and best practices? Why not get these cases right at the Immigration Court level? Why not free up pro bono resources to represent more respondents at Immigration Court hearings? What’s the excuse for Garland’s poor leadership and lack of vision on immigration, human rights, and racial justice?
Sure, there have been a few modest improvements at EOIR. But, it’s going to take much, much more than “tinkering around the edges” to reform a broken system that routinely treats individuals seeking justice unfairly, turns out bad law that creates larger problems for our legal system, and builds wasteful and uncontrolled backlogs.
Accountability and bold progressive reforms don’t seem to be politically “in” these days.But, they should be! Responsibility for the ongoing mess at EOIR and the corrosive effects on our justice system rests squarely on Garland and the Biden Administration.
Hon. Susan G. Roy Law Office of Susan G. Roy, LLC Princeton Junction, NJ Member, Round Table of Former Immigration JudgesHon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports:
The attached is the final “as filed” version of our latest brief in Chavez-Chilel v. Garland, in support of the motion for rehearing/rehearing en banc. This one is very “all in the family,” as Sue Roy is our counsel, Sue and I drafted the brief, and decisions from Miriam Hayward and Charles Honeyman are attached as exhibits.
There is also an amicus brief by law school professors, and joining NJ attorney Ted Murphy as petitioner’s counsel is Paul Hughes, who argued Kisor v. Willkie before the Supreme Court (as well a Nasrallah v. Barr, a Supreme Court victory in which we were amici).
For the reasons provided above, in absentia orders involving proceedings commenced through a defective NTA are rendered invalid by Niz-Chavez. This is true whether the Board ultimately determines that the decision impacts the Immigration Courts’ jurisdiction, or is in the alternative a claim-processing rule.
**************************
Thanks so much, “Sir Jeffrey,” my friend and colleague!
Unfortunately, the recent practice of the BIA has been to construe Supreme Court decisions favoring respondents narrowly against them in Immigration Court. Thus, the BIA has needlessly protracted litigation, produced conflicting results, and lessened justice, all while dramatically increasing backlogs. We’ll see whether that practice, apparently designed to appease and please DHS Enforcement and litigators at the DOJ, holds true here.
This WashPost headline and Post Supreme Court reporter Robert Barnes’s summary say it all!
Supreme Court rules against immigrants claiming safety fears after deportation and for pipeline builders
By Robert Barnes
June 29 at 5:22 PM ET
. . . .
In the immigration case, the court was considering the rights of a relatively small subset of immigrants: those who were deported once before but reentered the United States illegally because they say they faced threats at home.
At issue was a complex federal law that authorizes the government to detain immigrants and which section of it applies to these types of cases.
One piece of the law says, “the alien may receive a bond hearing before an immigration judge” and thus the chance to be free while proceedings continue, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the majority. In the other, the immigrant is considered “removed,” and indefinite detention is warranted.
Alito and his fellow conservative justices said it was the second that applied, and the detainees do not get a bond hearing. The court’s three liberals objected.
The case involved people who an immigration officer found had credible fears of danger or persecution in their home countries. For instance, Rodriguez Zometa said he was threatened with death by the 18th Street Gang when he was removed to his home country of El Salvador.
The question of whether the government could hold the immigrants without a hearing before an immigration judge had divided courts around the country. The case was argued before President Biden took office, and lawyers for the Trump administration told the court immigrants were not entitled to a hearing.
Alito said Congress had good reason to be more restrictive with those who came back into the country after being deported. “Aliens who reentered the country illegally after removal have demonstrated a willingness to violate the terms of a removal order, and they therefore may be less likely to comply with the reinstated order” that they leave, he said.
He was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.
The court’s liberals, Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, saw it differently and would have affirmed the victory the plaintiffs won at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond.
“Why would Congress want to deny a bond hearing to individuals who reasonably fear persecution or torture, and who, as a result, face proceedings that may last for many months or years?” Breyer wrote. “I can find no satisfactory answer to this question.”
Nice summary, Robert! You can read the rest of Barnes’s report at the link. Indeed, Justice Breyer’s cogent question quoted in the articleremains unanswered by the wooden legal gobbledygook in the majority decision, devoid of much understanding of how the dysfunctional Immigration Courts and the DHS “New American Gulag” actually operate and dismissive of what it actually means to be a refugee seeking to exercise legal rights in today’s world.
At issue: The right of non-criminal foreign nationals who have established a “reasonable fear” of persecution or torture if deported to apply for bond pending Immigration Court hearings on the merits of their cases. Getting a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge does not in any way guarantee release; just that the decision to detain or release on bond will be based on the individual facts and circumstances. Individuals released from detention have a much better chance of obtaining counsel and gathering the documentation necessary to win their cases. They are also much less likely to be “coerced” by DHS detention into surrendering viable claims and appeal rights.
Majority’s response: These “aliens” have neither rights nor humanity that any life-tenured GOP-appointed judge is bound to respect.
Alternative: There is a readily available alternative statutory interpretation, adopted by the 4th Circuit and the dissent, that would recognize the human and legal rights of vulnerable refugees seeking legal protection and give them hearings on continuing custody in substandard conditions (in some instances, conditions in the “DHS New American Gulag” fall well below those that would be imposed on convicted felons).
You can’t win ‘em all: The Round Table was one of many organizations filing an amicus brief on behalf of the refugees and in support of the position adopted by the 4th Circuit and the dissent. While we were unsuccessful on this one, at least we are on the “right side of history.”
Creative suggestion: Detainees should incorporate, perhaps as a pipeline company, or better yet a gun rights’ group, so that they would have legal rights and be treated as “persons” (e.g., “humans”) by the Supremes’ GOP majority.
Next steps:
Advocates should prevail on the Biden Administration to change the regulations to give this limited subclass of applicants for protection a chance to seek bond before an Immigration Judge;
Advocates should keep up the pressure on the Biden Administration and Garland to appoint better judges at EOIR: progressive practical experts, who know how to grant legal protection efficiently and fairly and who will establish appropriate legal precedents to help these cases move through the EOIR system on the merits in a timely and fundamentally fair manner consistent with due process. The length of time it takes “Withholding Only” cases to move through the Immigration Courts has lots to do with: unfair, coercive detention practices by DHS; poor judging and bad precedents at EOIR; incompetent “judicial administration” and politicized “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” @ EOIR by DOJ politicos and their EOIR “retainers.”
Long term solution:
Support and vote for progressive legislators who will revise the immigration laws to do away with the unnecessary and wasteful“New American Gulag;”
Vote progressive candidates for President and the Senate: political officials committed to putting better Federal Judges on the bench at all levels — “practical scholars” with real experience representing the most vulnerable in society and who will tirelessly enforce due process, equal protection, human rights, and fundamental fairness for all persons regardless of race, religion, or status; judges who understand and will seriously reflect on the “real life” human consequences of their decisions. Better judges for a better America!
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports:
Hi all:We filed an amicus brief in the attached case (drafted for us by Sullivan Cromwell) challenging the BIA’s precedent decision in Matter of K-S-E- before the 9th Circuit. K-S-E- held that firm resettlement can be found based on the availability of permanent residence in a third country, regardless of the asylum seeker’s unwillingness to pursue such status.
The 9th Cir. yesterday vacated the Board precedent and remanded for the Board to further consider the firm resettlement issue, inter alia.
Best, Jeff
********************
To quote one of my esteemed Round Table colleagues:
Excellent news! Should an ethnic Korean from China or Japan be forced to accept an offer of firm resettlement from North Korea? To quote our President, “C’mon, man!”
“C’mon, man,” indeed! For Garland’s BIA it’s just a question of “what can we do to screw asylum seekers today!”The level of absurdity, irrationality, and/or illegality is largely irrelevant.
It’s not like Sessions and Barr had any concern for the law. The BIA knew there would be no meaningful consequences as long as they carried out the White Nationalist anti-immigrant agenda of the Trump regime!
But, you could say much the same about Garland! There was more than ample evidence and documentation of anti-asylum bias and deficient decision making to replace of the BIA with “real judges” from among progressive experts on the day Garland was sworn in as AG.
Yet, three months later, nothing much has changed and the assault on asylum seekers and justice at Garland’s EOIR continues largely unabated. Indeed, Garland’s totally inappropriate, due process damaging, appointment of yet more (17) “Barr-picked judges” has further aggravated the problem to a simply astounding degree! It’s like you’re behind by three touchdowns in the fourth quarter and your so-called “head coach” awards your opponents 17 more points for no particular reason! What on earth is going on in Garland’s head?
Real judges on a “Reform BIA”from the ranks of progressive experts would have Matter of K-S-E-, Matter of A-B-, Matter of L-E-A-, Matter of Castro-Tum and a host of other Trumpist garbage “sorted” in no time and the now-dysfunctional EOIR system back on track to due process and functionality. What’s glaringly missing is any semblance of awareness, urgency, and competent progressive leadership from Garland and those surrounding him!
NIZ-CHAVEZ v. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
No. 19–863. Argued November 9, 2020—Decided April 29, 2021
Nonpermanent resident aliens ordered removed from the United States under federal immigration law may be eligible for discretionary relief if, among other things, they can establish their continuous presence in the country for at least 10 years. 8 U. S. C. §1229b(b)(1). But the so- called stop-time rule included in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) provides that the pe- riod of continuous presence “shall be deemed to end . . . when the alien is served a notice to appear” in a removal proceeding under §1229a. §1229b(d)(1). The term “notice to appear” is defined as “written notice . . . specifying” certain information, such as the charges against the al- ien and the time and place at which the removal proceedings will be held. §1229(a)(1). A notice that omits any of this statutorily required information does not trigger the stop-time rule. See Pereira v. Ses- sions, 585 U. S. ___. Here, the government ordered the removal of pe- titioner Agusto Niz-Chavez and sent him a document containing the charges against him. Two months later, it sent a second document, providing Mr. Niz-Chavez with the time and place of his hearing. The government contends that because the two documents collectively specified all statutorily required information for “a notice to appear,” Mr. Niz-Chavez’s continuous presence in the country stopped when he was served with the second document.
Held: A notice to appear sufficient to trigger the IIRIRA’s stop-time rule is a single document containing all the information about an individ- ual’s removal hearing specified in §1229(a)(1). Pp. 4–12.
(a) Section 1229b(d)(1) states that the stop-time rule is triggered by serving “a notice,” and §1229(a)(1) explains that “written notice” is “re- ferred to as a ‘notice to appear.’ ” Congress’s decision to use the indef- inite article “a” suggests it envisioned “a” single notice provided at a
2
NIZ-CHAVEZ v. GARLAND Syllabus
discrete time rather than a series of notices that collectively provide the required information. While the indefinite article “a” can some- times be read to permit multiple installments (such as “a manuscript” delivered over months), that is not true for words like “notice” that can refer to either a countable object (“a notice”) or a noncountable abstrac- tion (“sufficient notice”). The inclusion of an indefinite article suggests Congress used “notice” in its countable sense. More broadly, Congress has used indefinite articles to describe other case-initiating plead- ings—such as an indictment, an information, or a civil complaint, see, e.g., Fed. Rules Crim. Proc. 7(a), (c)(1), (e); Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 3—and none suggest those documents might be delivered by installment. Nor does the Dictionary Act aid the government, as that provision merely tells readers of the U. S. Code to assume “words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things.” 1 U. S. C. §1. That provision means only that terms describing a single thing (“a no- tice”) can apply to more than one of that thing (“ten notices”). While it certainly allows the government to send multiple notices to appear to multiple people, it does not mean a notice to appear can consist of mul- tiple documents. Pp. 4–9.
(b) The IIRIRA’s structure and history support requiring the govern- ment to issue a single notice containing all the required information. Two related provisions, §§1229(e)(1) and 1229a(b)(7), both use a defi- nite article with a singular noun (“the notice”) when referring to the government’s charging document—a combination that again suggests a discrete document. Another provision, §1229(a)(2)(A), requires “a written notice” when the government wishes to change an alien’s hear- ing date. The government does not argue that this provision contem- plates providing “the new time or place of the proceedings” and the “consequences . . . of failing . . . to attend such proceedings” in separate documents. Yet the government fails to explain why “a notice to ap- pear” should operate differently. Finally, the predecessor to today’s “notice to appear” required the government to specify the place and time for the alien’s hearing “in the order to show cause or otherwise.” §1252(a)(2)(A). The phrase “or otherwise” has since disappeared, fur- ther suggesting that the required details must be included upfront to invoke the stop-time rule. Indeed, that is how the government itself initially read the statute. The year after Congress adopted IIRIRA, in the preamble to a proposed rule implementing these provisions, the government acknowledged that “the language of the amended Act in- dicat[es] that the time and place of the hearing must be on the Notice to Appear.” 62 Fed. Reg. 449 (1997). Pp. 9–13.
(c) The government claims that not knowing hearing officers’ avail- ability when it initiates removal proceedings makes it difficult to pro-duce compliant notices. It also claims that it makes little sense to re- quire time and place information in a notice to appear when that in- formation may be later changed. Besides, the government stresses, its own administrative regulations have always authorized its current practice. But on the government’s account, it would be free to send a person who is not from this country—someone who may be unfamiliar with English and the habits of American bureaucracies—a series of letters over the course of weeks, months, maybe years, each containing a new morsel of vital information. Congress could reasonably have wished to foreclose that possibility. And ultimately, pleas of adminis- trative inconvenience never “justify departing from the statute’s clear text.” Pereira, 585 U. S., at ___. The modest threshold Congress pro- vided to invoke the stop-time rule is clear from the text and must be complied with here. Pp. 13–16.
789 Fed. Appx. 523, reversed.
GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. KAVANAUGH, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and ALITO, J., joined.
*************************
This is the type of case where I had hoped that Justice Gorsuch would “stick to his interpretative guns” by stopping the Government from basically redesigning clear statutory requirements “willy nilly” to suit their own purposes and disadvantage respondents. And, he came through! Big time! I’ve been critical of Justice Gorsuch in the past and am likely to be so again in the future. But, in this case, he did the right thing, and I, for one, am grateful!
Most encouraging, Justice Gorsuch “got” the way that the DHS and EOIR, with the deck already unfairly stacked in their favor, manipulate clear legal requirements for their own nefarious purposes and to the disadvantage of those struggling for justice in an inherently unfair system. There is absolutely no doubt that receiving “piecemeal notice” — incomplete and often sent to incorrect addresses or “personally served” without the proper reading and explanations — works to further disadvantage respondents.
Indeed, illegal, ineffective notices — some setting hearings on “phantom dates” and “imaginary times” — lead directly to an over abundance of “in absentia” orders and consequent illegal removals. Some unrepresented individuals understand how to reopen their hearings for lack of notice — but many are clueless; the Government system strives to keep them that way to “jack up the numbers,” meet “quotas,” and improve stats. Worse yet, Congress sometimes uses the “bogus stats” generated by DOJ and DHS to write legislation, conduct oversight, and establish policy. This is an astoundingly broken, dysfunctional, and intentionally unfair system — a disgrace to our entire justice system and our national conscience each day it is allowed to continue to operate in its abusive ways!
The majority in this case was both very interesting, and at least mildly encouraging, for those of us who believe in due process and fundamental fairness for all persons, including migrants, under law. In addition to Trump appointees Justice Gorsuch and Justice Barrett, another GOP conservative appointee, Justice Thomas, joined Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor in the majority!
And, although this case has (incorrectly) seemed “hyper technical” to some Supremes’ watchers unfamiliar with immigration, it will have huge impact — forcing reopening and “redos” in tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of cases in the already backlogged (1.3 million cases) Immigration Court. That will be the direct result of poor jurisprudence by the BIA, lousy court administration by EOIR, and horrible policy decisions by DHS.
Just another prime example of how “haste makes waste” enforcement gimmicks continue to cause unnecessary chaos in the system. Why not just appoint progressive experts as Immigration Judges and BIA Appellate Judges. Qualified jurists who will understand immigration law, due process, and “get in right” in the first instance? Certainly seems like a reasonable approach. What is Judge Garland waiting for?
This, in turn should add to the already loud cries (from virtually everywhere outside Judge Garland’s universe and the restrictionist right) for sensible, readily available backlog reductions and accelerated movement toward better judges and independence in the Immigration Courts, not to mention better management in the DHS enforcement programs.
Here’s my favorite quote from Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion:
In the end, though, all this speculation is beside the point. The dissent tries to predict how the government will react to a ruling that requires it to follow the law and then pro- ceeds to assess the resulting “costs” and “benefits.” Post, at 17, 20–21. But that kind of raw consequentialist calcula- tion plays no role in our decision. Instead, when it comes to the policy arguments championed by the parties and the dissent alike, our points are simple: As usual, there are (at least) two sides to the policy questions before us; a rational Congress could reach the policy judgment the statutory text suggests it did; and no amount of policy-talk can overcome a plain statutory command. Our only job today is to give the law’s terms their ordinary meaning and, in that small way, ensure the federal government does not exceed its statutory license. Interpreting the phrase “a notice to ap-pear” to require a single notice—rather than 2 or 20 docu- ments—does just that.
*
At one level, today’s dispute may seem semantic, focused on a single word, a small one at that. But words are how the law constrains power. In this case, the law’s terms en- sure that, when the federal government seeks a procedural advantage against an individual, it will at least supply him with a single and reasonably comprehensive statement of the nature of the proceedings against him. If men must turn square corners when they deal with the government, it cannot be too much to expect the government to turn square corners when it deals with them.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Cir- cuit is
Reversed.
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
And, here’s some “immediate commentary” by Round Table spokesperson “Sir Jeffrey” Chase:
Victory!This was the case in which our Round Table amicus brief was specifically referenced in oral argument.
Knightess of the Round Table
Congrats to all involves, and Due Process Forever!
Hi all:The Round Table was on the winning team in a (lengthy) decision issued yesterday by the NJ Supreme Court concerning the detention of criminal defendants who are noncitizens based on the possibility of their removal by ICE.
Thanks to Sue Roy, who solicited the Round Table’s involvement, and then drafted our brief!
Except from the decision:
A group of fifty immigration law scholars and clinical professors (Professors), and a second group of twenty-five former immigration judges and members of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Former Judges), submitted comprehensive overviews of the immigration process. They highlight the complex, dynamic, and discretionary nature of the removal process and argue that state trial courts are ill-equipped to evaluate a defendant’s likelihood of removal, which is too speculative even for experts to predict. They submit that a civil immigration detainer, like an individual’s immigration status, is not a reliable indicator that a person will be removed from the country.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) and the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, the Immigrant Defense Project, and the Harvard Law School Crimmigration Clinic echo concerns about how difficult it is to forecast the risk of removal for a non- citizen. AILA adds that permitting pretrial detention based on a person’s risk of removal will have the disproportionate effect of incarcerating low-level offenders, the vast majority of whom are recommended for release under the CJRA.
Finally, Legal Services of New Jersey (LSNJ) and Make the Road New Jersey, joined by twelve other organizations (Make the Road), highlight the consequences of pretrial detention for non-citizens, their families, and their communities. LSNJ also challenges the need for pretrial detention given the avenues non-citizens have to resolve their criminal cases while in ICE custody. Make the Road adds that allowing pretrial detention based on immigration status undermines trust in law enforcement in immigrant communities and makes it harder for law enforcement to investigate and prosecute crimes.
Below is the summary from petitioner’s counsel, NJ Immigration Attorney Jerry Gonzalez:
Our firm represented Mr. Lopez-Carrera, who was ordered removed and physically removed from the US while his criminal case was pending (he had lost at the BIA and state was trying to get him back).
Props to our Amicus friends!Patrick McGuinness(Immigration counsel), Sue Roy, Eric Mark, Michael Noriega, Raquiba Huq and Professor Joanne Gottesman.Great team work!!!
Issue: In these consolidated appeals, the Court considers whether the Criminal Justice Reform Act (CJRA or Act), N.J.S.A. 2A:162-15 to -26, empowers judges to detain defendants who are non-citizens to prevent immigration officials from removing them from the country before trial.
Holding: The CJRA favors pretrial release over detention; it authorizes judges to detain defendants when the State has shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that no conditions of release would reasonably assure the eligible defendant’s appearance in court when required, would protect the public, or would prevent the defendant from obstructing the criminal justice process…. The Court agrees with the Appellate Division that the CJRA does not authorize judges to detain defendants to thwart their possible removal by ICE.
Enjoy the light reading!
Jerry
****************************
Many thanks to all involved, with particular thanks to Judge Sue Roy for her energy, scholarship, advocacy and continuing dedication to due process under law. It’s an honor to work with and be inspired by you, my friend.
Here’s an excerpt from a report by Nichols Iovino @ Courthouse News:
. . . .
The judge added that she found an amicus brief submitted by 37 former immigration law judges particularly illuminating because it helped illustrate some of “real-life consequences” of the rule.
The former immigration judges wrote that the rule “makes it more difficult for applicants and defense counsel to brief relevant issues and present evidence, creates new challenges for immigration judges to consider extraordinary changes in circumstances and to control the timing of their own docket, and severely limits the [Board of Immigration Appeals’] authority to make legally sound decisions and remain an apolitical rung in the immigration system.”
A motion for a preliminary injunction is also pending in separate lawsuit challenging the same Trump-era rule in the District of Columbia.
Judge Illston referenced our brief four times throughout the opinion (p.5, n.2, and pp. 39, 52, and 55).
Jeffrey also added:
The brief (drafted by Steven Schulman and his team at Akin Gump) was based on our Round Table’s comments to the proposed regs. [Judge] Ilyce [Shugall] organized and filed the comments, and the drafting committee was made up of [Judges] Ilyce [Shugall], Rebecca [Jamil], Joan [Churchill], Cecelia [Espenoza] and myself.
So proud to be part of this team that is “making a difference for the NDPA,” and more importantly, for the vulnerable human lives at stake in the EOIR Star Chambers. 🏴☠️ And thanks so much to Steven Schulman and his pro bono team at Akin Gump for making this happen.
So, here’s my question:Why is the Biden Administration defending this totally illegal, disingenuous, not to mention stupid, attempt byEOIR to deny due process and fundamental fairness while implementing the “worst practices imaginable?”
Judge Garland must get a handle on the awful, festering mess 🤮🤡☠️ at EOIR sooner rather than later!
Subject: [immprof] Amicus Brief on Behalf of Immigration Law Scholars on “Monster” Asylum Rule
Dear Colleagues:
Happy New Year! I hope you are staying well. We are pleased to share an amicus brief filed in the Northern District of California last week challenging the “monster” asylum rule, published as a final rule in December 2020. We are grateful to the immigration law scholars who signed onto this brief. The brief is focused on three aspects of the rule: 1) expansion of discretionary bars in general; 2) discretionary bars on unlawful entry and use of fraudulent documents in particular; and 3) expansion of the firm resettlement bar. The brief argues that these bars conflict with the immigration statute and further that the Departments have failed to provide a reasonable explanation for departing from past statutory interpretation with regard to these bars.
Co-counsel included Loeb & Loeb, Peter Margulies, and myself. We are grateful to the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program and other organizations who served as counsel to plaintiffs in this case.
Best wishes, Peter and Shoba
Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia (she, her)
Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar | Clinical Professor of Law
Many thanks to Peter, Shoba, Loeb & Loeb, and all the many great minds with courageous hearts ♥️ involved in this effort!
I’ve said it often: It’s time to cut through the BS and bureaucratic bungling that have plagued past Dem Administrations and put progressive practical scholars like Shoba, Peter, and their NDPA expert colleagues in charge of EOIR, the BIA, and the rest of the immigration bureaucracy. It’s also time to end “Amateur Night at the Bijou” 🎭🤹♀️and put “pros” like this in charge of developing and implementing Constitutionally compliant, legal, practical, humane immigration and human rights policies that achieve equal justice for all (one of the Biden-Harris Administration’s stated priorities), further the common interest, and finally rationalize and optimize (now “gonzo out of control”) immigration enforcement.
Knightess of the Round TableHon. Jeffrey S. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
More great news from Sir Jeffrey:
Hi all: We filed an amicus brief with the Third Circuit last year in a domestic violence withholding and CAT claim from Mexico. The BIA acknowledged that the petitioner was beaten four or five times a month by her abuser; was raped by him several times, and then lost her job as an agro-engineer with a government agency in Mexico after her abuser beat her violently in front of her co-workers, and her employer told her she could not publicly represent the agency with the resulting bruises on her face. The BIA further recognized that her abuser was able to locate her when she tried to relocate within Mexico. And yet withholding was denied on nexus, and CAT denied on government acquiescence grounds.
A number of other groups, including CGRS, filed amicus briefs as well, and OILu moved to remand under favorable terms. Anju Gupta at Rutgers, who represents the petitioner, said that today, the IJ (who was very much made aware of all of the amicus briefs) granted CAT relief.
The email said that the petitioner (who was previously detained at Elizabeth, NJ) is now in Mexico (I’m not clear on the details), but will hopefully be able to return soon based on the grant.
It’s great that we continue to make a positive difference.
Best, Jeff
**********
Wow! What a great holiday present!
What a great group with a great mission of promoting due process, advocating for equal justice, and saving lives! Every member of the Round Table has saved lives by standing up for the human dignity and legal rights of those who came before us in Immigration Court. And, we continue to “fight the good fight,” in every possible way at every level of the justice system!
Hon. “Sir” Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration JudgesKnightess of the Round Table
Hi all: A few outcomes right before the holiday (two good, one bad):
(1) The Fourth Circuit just granted the motion for rehearing en banc in Portillo-Flores v. Barr, in which the Round Table filed an amicus brief. This was a decision with a very problematic unwilling/unable determination by two judges (the petitioner, who was 14 when the events occurred, stated on the third time he was asked that it was possible the police might have taken some action), and a very strongly worded dissent.
(2) In a bond case in the Second Circuit in which we also filed an amicus brief in a case represented by Legal Aid., Arana v. Barr, the petitioner was released from custody today after having two prior requests denied. Legal Aid believes our brief was helpful in achieving that result. Counsel is expecting a stipulation for dismissal without prejudice.
(3) The bad news: in a petition to the 4th Circuit in support of CAIR Coalition involving Matter of A-B- issues, the 4th Cir. denied the petition for review, but did so in an unpublished decision.
Wishing everyone a very safe and happy Thanksgiving!
All my best, Jeff
**************************
Thanks, Sir Jeffrey!
I’m so thankful for all of the fantastic work that you and our other knightesses and knights of the Round Table do to keep due process and best practices on the forefront and spread truth in the face of tyranny, lies, and false narratives. While we often focus on the weekly amicus briefs we file with tribunals across the nation, the work also goes on in analysis, public speaking, media interviews, teaching, political involvement, video appearances, and grass roots pro bono and community work.
For example, our amazing colleague Judge Charlie Pazar of Tennessee just reported that he was featured on a CLE panel entirely devoted to the work and impact of our Round Table! Way to go Charlie! You are one of those who tirelessly works to improve American justice on all levels and you are certainly “super generous” in sharing your time, knowledge, expertise, and perspective!
Just recently, Sir Jeffrey, along with Round Table knightesses Judge Denise Slavin and Judge Sue Roy, in addition to yours truly and our friend NAIJ President Judge Ashley Tabaddor, were quoted by Suzanne Monyak in a Law360 article about the future of the NAIJ and the Immigration Court in a Biden Administration. Sadly, the article is “hidden behind the pay wall,” but those with access can read it in its entirety.
Compare these unselfish, teamwork-oriented, effective, expert professional activities aimed at improving the justice system and access to it for everyone with the disgraceful, ignorant, divisive, counterproductive, and often downright racist and illegal actions of the current regime’s immigration kakistocracy, starting, but by no means ending, with the deadly ☠️⚰️🏴☠️ “EOIR Clown Show” 🤡!
Think what a “Better EOIR” and a “better bureaucracy,” led by members of the NDPA could do to solve problems, promote the rule of law and best practices, and make “equal justice for all” a reality rather than a false promise that is intentionally never fulfilled! It isn’t rocket science. But, it does take replacing the kakistocracy, on all levels, throughout Government with experts from the NDPA committed to achieving “good government in the public interest.”
J Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration JudgesKnightess of the Round Table
Asher Stockler reports for Law360:
. . . .
But the government said that, even if these withholding claims succeed, it still retains the right to deport the group of immigrants to other countries that will accept them. Because deportation is still on the table regardless of the status of those claims, the administration argued, the group of immigrants should be treated identically to those who are about to be deported.
The ACLU rebutted that argument, saying that such third-country deportations are exceedingly rare. Because of this, the ACLU said the availability of a third-country option should not mean the
11/12/2020 Justices Told Of Due Process Issues Without Bond Hearings – Law360
deportation-ready provision of the law kicks in. According to the American Immigration Council, fewer than 2% of immigrants who received persecution-based relief in fiscal year 2017 were ultimately deported to a third country.
The Justice Department also raised the possibility that having to scrutinize the practical odds of removal from immigrant to immigrant would be “patently unworkable.”
“A case-by-case approach … would needlessly add to the burdens that are already ‘overwhelming our immigration system,'” the department said, quoting a prior case.
But a coalition of former immigration trial and appeals judges pushed back on that idea with their own amicus brief Thursday.
“Bond hearings in withholding of removal proceedings are no different than bond hearings in other contexts,” the group, representing 34 judges who have cumulatively overseen thousands of cases, wrote. “Contrary to [the administration’s] assertion, bond hearings in withholding of removal proceedings neither lead to a slowdown of cases that ‘thwart Congress’ objectives’ in enacting the immigration laws, nor impose an administrative burden on immigration courts.” The American Civil Liberties Union is represented by its own Michael Tan, Omar Jadwat, Judy Rabinovitz, Cecillia Wang and David D. Cole.
The coalition of former judges is represented by David Keyko, Robert Sills, Matthew Putorti, Daryl Kleiman, Patricia Rothenberg and Roland Reimers of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP.
The plaintiffs are represented by Paul Hughes, Michael Kimberly and Andrew Lyons-Berg of McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg and Rachel McFarland of the Legal Aid Justice Center, Mark Stevens of Murray Osorio PLLC, and Eugene Fidell of Yale Law School’s Supreme Court Clinic.
The Trump administration is represented by Noel Francisco, Jeffrey Wall, Edwin Kneedler and Vivek Suri of the U.S. Solicitor General’s Office and Lauren Fascett, Brian Ward and Joseph Hunt of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Division.
The case is Tony H. Pham et al. v. Maria Angelica Guzman Chavez et al., case number 19-897, at the U.S. Supreme Court.
–Editing by Michael Watanabe.
**********************************************
Read the complete article over on Law360. The case comes from the Fourth Circuit. Hopefully, the Biden-Harris Administration will withdraw the SG’s disingenuous petition (if not already denied by the Supremes) and implement the Fourth Circuit’s correct decision nationwide.
That’s the way to promote due process and judicial efficiency instead of constantly promoting inhumanity, abuse of due process, judicial inefficiency (fair adjudication is hindered by unnecessary detention in the Gulag), and chaos!
Many, many, many thanks to our all-star pro bono team:
David Keyko, Robert Sills, Matthew Putorti, Daryl Kleiman, Patricia Rothenberg and Roland Reimers of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP.
Couldn’t have done it without you guys! You constantly “Make us look smart!”
I also note with great pride the following “charter members” of the “New Due Process Army” who were on the plaintiffs’ legal team:
Rachel McFarland, my former Georgetown Law student;
Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, who appeared before me at the Arlington Immigration Court, and is an occasional contributor to “Courtside;
Mark Stevens, who appeared before me at the Arlington Immigration Court.
Well done, fearless fighters for due process!
Rachel McFarland Legal Aid Justice Center Charter Member, New Due Process Army
This disgraceful performance by the Solicitor General’s Office (once revered, now reviled) has become “the norm” under Trump. Francisco’s arguments are those of an attorney who didn’t do “due diligence,” but doesn’t expect the Court to know or care what really happens in Immigration Court. And, unfortunately, with the exception of Justice Sotomayor and perhaps Justice Kagan, that may well be a correct assumption. But that doesn’t make it any less of a powerful and disturbing indictment of our entire U.S. Justice system in the age of Trump.
Reality check: I routinely did 10-15, sometimes more, bond hearings at a Detained Master Calendar in less than one hour. I treated everyone fairly, applied the correct legal criteria, and set reasonable bonds (usually around $5,000) for everyone legally eligible. Almost all represented asylum seekers and withholding seekers eligible for bond who had filed complete and well-documented asylum or withholding applications were released on bond. About 99% showed up for their merits hearings.
I encouraged attorneys on both sides to file documents in advance, discuss the case with each other, and present a proposed agreed bond amount or a range of amounts to me whenever possible. Bond hearings were really important (freedom from unnecessary restraint is one of our most fundamental rights), but they weren’t “rocket science.” Bond hearings actually ran like clockwork.
Indeed, if the attorneys were “really on the ball,” and ICE managed to find and present all the detainees timely, I could probably do 10-15 bond cases in 30 minutes, and get them all right. My courtroom and my approach weren’t any different from that of my other then-colleagues at Arlington. In thirteen years on the bench, I set thousands of bonds and probably had no more than six appeals to the BIA from my bond decisions. I also reviewed many bond appeals at the BIA. (Although, most bond appeals to the BIA were “mooted” by the issuance of a final order in the detained case before the bond appeal was adjudicated.) Most took fewer than 15 minutes.
Indeed, my past experience suggests that a system led (not necessarily “run”) by competent judicial professionals and staffed with real judges with expertise in immigration, asylum, and human rights and unswervingly committed to due process and fundamental fairness could establish “best practices” that would drastically increase efficiency, cut (rather than mindlessly and exponentially expand) backlogs, without cutting out anyone’s rights. In other words, EOIR potentially could be a “model American judiciary,” as it actually was once envisioned, rather than the slimy mass of disastrous incompetence and the national embarrassment that it is today!
The idea that doing something as straightforward as a bond hearing would tie the system in knots is pure poppycock and a stunning insult to all Immigration Judges delivered by a Solicitor General who has never done a bond case in his life!
Yes the system is overwhelmingly backlogged and dysfunctional! But that has nothing to do with giving respondents due process bond hearings.
It has everything to do with unconstitutional and just plain stupid “politicization” and “weaponization” of the courts under gross incompetence and mismanagement by political hacks at the DOJ who have installed their equally unqualified toadies at EOIR. It also has to do with a disingenuous Solicitor General who advances a White Nationalist political agenda, rather than constitutional rights, fundamental fairness, rationality, and best practices. It has to do with a Supreme Court majority unwilling to take a stand for the legal rights and human dignity of the most vulnerable, and often most deserving, among us in the face of bullying and abuse by a corrupt, would-be authoritarian, fundamentally anti-American and anti-democracy regime.
It has to do with allowing a corrupt, nativist, invidiously-motivated regime to manipulate and intentionally misapply asylum and protection laws at the co-opted and captive DHS Asylum Office; thousands of “grantable” asylum cases are wrongfully and unnecessarily shuffled off to the Immigration Courts, thus artificially inflating backlogs and leading to more pressure to cut corners and dispense with due process.
It also paints an intentionally false and misleading picture that the problem is asylum applicants rather than the maliciously incompetent White Nationalists who have seized control of our system and acted to destroy years of structural development and accumulated institutional expertise.
Good Government matters! Maliciously incompetent Government threatens to destroy our nation! (Doubt that, just look at the totally inappropriate, entirely dishonest, response of the Trump kakistocracy to their overwhelming election defeat by Biden-Harris and the unwillingness of both the GOP and supporters to comply with democratic norms and operate in the real world of facts, rather than false narratives.)
Due process, fundamental fairness, equal justice, simple human decency, and Good Government won’t happen until we get the White Nationalist hacks out of the DOJ and replace the “clown show” at EOIR with qualified members of the New Due Process Army. Problem solvers, rather than problem creators; over-achievers, rather than screw-ups!
The incoming Biden-Harris Administration is left with a stark, yet simple, choice: oust the malicious incompetents and bring in the “competents” from the NDPA to fix the system; or become part of the problem and have the resulting mess forever sully your Administration.
The Obama Administration (sadly) chose the latter. President Elect Biden appears bold, confident, self-aware, and flexible enough to recognize past mistakes. But, recognition without reconstruction (action) is useless! Don’t ruminate — govern! Like your life depends on it!
And, by no means is EOIR the only part of DOJ the needs “big time” reform and a thorough shake up. We must have a Solicitor General committed to following the rules of legal ethics and common human decency and who will insist on her or his staff doing likewise.
The next Solicitor General must also have demonstrated expertise in asylum, immigration, civil rights, and human rights laws and be committed to expanding due process, equal justice, racial justice, and fundamental fairness throughout the Government bureaucracy and “pushing” the Supremes to adopt and endorse best, rather than worst, practices in these areas.
American Justice and our court systems are in “free fall.” This is no time for more “amateur night at the Bijou.”
And here are some thoughts for the future if we really want to achieve “Good Government” and equal justice for all:
Every future Supreme Court Justice must have served a minimum of two years as a U.S. Immigration Judge with an “asylum grant rate” that is at or exceeds the national average for the U.S. Immigration Courts;
Every future Solicitor General must have done a minimum of ten pro bono asylum cases in U.S. Immigration Court.
Due Process Forever! Clown Show (With Lives & Humanity On The Line) Never!
