Attorney General Merrick Garland – Page 12

🏴‍☠️ DON’T BELIEVE THE ADMINISTRATION’S & MEDIA’S BS ABOUT “SUCCESS” AT THE BORDER: “People want to avail themselves of a safe, fair and orderly system. This is currently impossible.” — Lindsay Toczylowski, Executive Director at Immigrant Defenders Law Center

Lindsay Toczylowski
Executive Director, Immigrant Defenders
“ I always tell the new immigration attorneys at Immigrant Defenders Law Center to never forget just how stacked against our clients the odds are in immigration court.“

Lindsay writes on Linkedin:

Barometer of whether an asylum system is functioning is not “keeping the numbers low” at the border. We expected as T42 ended to see a temporary uptick due to pent up demand, but seeing the opposite indicates new deterrence measures are making asylum inaccessible to those who need protection the most.

It is obvious to those of us on-the-ground that despite no “lines” at the ports of entry there are many people here in Tijuana desperate to seek protection in the US, as evidenced by crowd at our Immigrant Defenders Law Center legal clinic today. People want to avail themselves of a safe, fair and orderly system.

This is currently impossible.

There were more than 200 people at the shelter, mostly families with small kids. When we asked whether or not people had been able to register with CBPone, most raised their hands that they had. When we asked whether they had an appt, only four had successfully made one. 4 out of 200.

We encountered excruciating cases like this asylum seeking mom & her daughter w/ severe autism. She asked if there is a special process for ppl like her, given her daughter needs medical attn, but we have to tell her to just keep trying the app. She has been waiting for months.

We continue to encounter cases where asylum seekers are unable to register with CBPone app at all. We finally registered a mom traveling alone w/ 2 babies via one of our atty’s phones, and now she can try for an appt. She has family in Los Angeles area who are waiting for her.

For people suffering from PTSD & other mental health conditions related to the horrors they fled, the constant state of anxiety waiting for an appointment is hell. One of the moms told me that every night she & her daughter cry and pray that it will be the day they can finally get help.

I am immensely proud of our San Diego based cross border team for continuing to show up and keep fighting despite the odds.

*******************************

Well said, Lindsay! Thanks for all you and your colleagues do for due process in America!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-20-23

⚖️🧑‍⚖️ IMMIGRATION COURTS IN CRISIS = DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS FOR INDIVIDUALS — NY Times Article Quoting Round Table’s Judge Eiza Klein & Charles Honeyman, Also NDPA Officials, Judge Mimi Tsankov and Judge Samuel Cole! — PLUS BONUS COVERAGE: My Latest “Mini Essay” — “EOIR ABUSES ASYLUM SEEKERS”

Hon. Eliza Klein — Eliza C. Klein, a retired immigration judge, said the asylum case backlog “creates a second class of citizens.”Credit…Taylor Glascock for The New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/12/us/politics/immigration-courts-delays-migrants-title-42.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

Zolan Kanno-Youngs reports for the NYT:

. . . .

Eliza C. Klein, who left her position as an immigration judge in Chicago in April, said the latest increase in illegal border crossings will strain the understaffed work force as they prioritize migrants who crossed recently.

That will leave some older cases to languish even longer, she said.

“This is a great tragedy because it creates a second class of citizens,” Ms. Klein, who started working as an immigration judge in the Clinton administration, said of those immigrants who have been waiting years for an answer to their case. The oldest case Ms. Klein ever adjudicated had been pending in the court for 35 years, she said.

“It’s a disgrace,” Ms. Klein said. “My perspective, my thought, is that we’re not committed in this country to having a just system.”

While crowds of migrants continued to seek refuge in the United States after the lifting of Title 42, U.S. officials said the border remained relatively orderly. About 10,000 people crossed the border on Thursday, a historically large number, but that dropped significantly to about 6,200 on Friday.

Tens of thousands of migrants continued to wait in makeshift camps on both sides of the border for a chance to request sanctuary in the United States. The administration remained concerned about overcrowding; Border Patrol held more than 24,000 migrants in custody on Friday, well over the agency’s maximum capacity of roughly 20,000 in its detention facilities.

. . . .

Mimi Tsankov, the president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, said that to truly address the backlog, the Biden administration would need to do more than simply hire more judges. She said that the government should increase funding for better technology and bigger legal teams, and that Congress should reform the nation’s immigration laws.

“The immigration courts are failing,” said Samuel B. Cole, the judge association’s executive vice president. “There needs to be broad systemic change.”

. . . . .

Judge Charles Honeyman, who spent 24 years as an immigration judge and retired in 2020, said he came away from his job believing the United States would need to do a better job of deterring fraud while protecting those who would be harmed in their home country.

When handling an asylum case, Mr. Honeyman said he would assess the person’s application and examine the state of their home country by reading reports from the State Department and nonprofits. Many of the applicants lacked attorneys; he believes some cases that he denied might have turned out differently if the migrants had had legal representation.

In trying to root out fraud, he would compare a person’s testimony with the answers they had given to an asylum officer or Border Patrol agent.

. . . .

*******************************

Read the full article at the link.

EOIR ABUSES ASYLUM SEEKERS — The Problem Goes Deeper Than The Number Of Judges: Quality & Culture Matter!

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

U.S. Immigration Judge (Retired)

Courtside Exclusive

May 16, 2023

While the NYT article notes that the majority of asylum cases are eventually denied on the merits, this data is often presented in a misleading way by the Government, and unfortunately, sometimes the media. According to TRAC Immigration, during the period Oct 2000 to April 2023, approximately 43% of asylum seekers who received a merits decision were granted asylum or some other type of relief. Approximately 57% were denied. https://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/asylum/

Even in an overall hostile system, where individuals are often required to proceed without lawyers, and grant/denial rates among Immigration Judges vary by astounding levels (so great as to present prima facie due process issues), asylum seekers succeed on the merits of their claims at a very respectable rate. In a properly staffed and administered system where the focus was on due process and fundamental fairness for individuals, that number would almost certainly be substantially higher.

Moreover, the data suggests that toward the end of the Obama Administration and during the entire Trump Administration, the asylum system was improperly manipulated to increase denials.

For instance, in FY 2012, approximately 55% of asylum claims decided by EOIR on the merits were granted. https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/306/. While there was no discernible worldwide improvement in human rights conditions in the following years, IJ asylum grant rates cratered during the Trump years, reaching a low of 29% in FY 2020, barely half the FY 2012 level. https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/668/#:~:text=While%20asylum%20grant%20rates%20declined,after%20President%20Biden%20assumed%20office.%20That%E2%80%99s%20a%20decline%20of%20nearly%2050%%20since%20the%20FY%202012%20high.

I think there are three reasons for the precipitous decline in asylum grant rates, largely unrelated to the merits of the claims. First, Attorneys General Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr overruled some of the leading administrative precedents supporting grants of asylum. In the process, they made it crystal clear that they considered Immigration Judges to be their subordinate employees within the political branch of Government and that denial, deportation, and assistance to their “partners” at DHS Enforcement (actually DHS is a party before EOIR, not a “partner”) were the preferred results at EOIR.

Second, in greatly expanding the number of Immigration Judges, Sessions and Barr appointed almost exclusively from the ranks of prosecutors and government attorneys, even elevating an inordinate number of individuals with no immigration and human rights experience whatsoever. Not only were well-qualified individuals with experience representing individuals in Immigration Court largely passed over and discouraged from applying, but some of the best Immigration Judges quit or retired prematurely as a matter of conscience because of the nakedly anti-immigrant pro enforcement “culture” promoted at EOIR.

Additionally, the nationwide appellate court and precedent setter, the BIA, was expanded and “packed” with some Immigration Judges who denied virtually all of the asylum cases coming before them and had reputations of hostility to the private bar and asylum seekers. Remarkably, Attorney General Garland has done little to address this debilitating situation at the BIA.

Third, since the latter years of the Obama Administration, when a vastly overhyped “border surge” took place, political officials of both parties have improperly “weaponized” EOIR as a “deterrent” to asylum seekers, focusing on expeditious denials of asylum rather than the due process and expert tribunal functions the agency was supposed to serve. The result has been a “culture of denial and deportation” with particular emphasis on finding ways to “say no” to women and individuals of color seeking asylum.

The NYT Article also mentions that asylum merits decisions require a higher standard of proof than “credible fear determinations.” That’s true. But the suggestion that the standards are much higher is misleading. In fact, the standards governing merits grants of asylum before the Asylum Office and EOIR are supposed to be extremely generous.

In the seminal case, INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, the Court said that “well-founded fear” is a generous standard, one that could be satisfied by a 10% chance of persecution. In implementing this holding, the BIA found in Matter of Mogharrabi that asylum could be granted even where the chances of persecution were substantially less than probable.

There is as also a regulation, 8 C.F.R. 208.13, issued under the Bush I Administration, that creates a rebuttable presumption of future persecution based on past persecution.

The problem is that none of these generous and remedial provisions relating to asylum has ever been properly, consistently, and uniformly applied within EOIR. As someone who during my time on the bench took these standards to heart, I found that a substantial majority of merits asylum cases coming before me could and should be granted under a proper application of asylum law.

Consequently, I am skeptical of judges who deny virtually all asylum claims. Likewise, I question the claims by political officials of both parties who pretend, without actual knowledge, that almost all asylum applicants at the border are “mere economic migrants” who deserve to be quickly and summarily removed.

Actually, under some circumstances, severe economic hardships can amount to persecution. Moreover, under the legally required “mixed motive” analysis for asylum, an economic aspect does not automatically obviate other qualifying grounds.

So, at its root, “credible fear” is actually an even more generous application of what is already supposed to be (but often isn’t in reality) a very generous standard for asylum. The alleged “disconnect” between the number of individuals found to have credible fear and the number actually granted asylum on the merits appears to be more a function of defective and overly restrictive decision-making at EOIR than it is of unjustified generosity of Asylum Officers screening for credible fear. It’s also important to remember that at the credible fear stage, individuals haven’t had time to marshal the substantial corroborating evidence eventually required (some would say unrealistically and unreasonably) in formal merits asylum hearings before EOIR.

Finally, just aimlessly increasing the number of Immigration Judges, without solving the systemic legal, logistical, management, quality control, training, and “cultural” problems infecting EOIR creates its own set of new problems.

Recently, a veteran practitioner before EOIR wrote the following:

In about eleven years, our local DMV went from twelve (12) judges in Baltimore and Arlington in 2012 to a hundred (100) judges in 2023 (8 BAL, 18 HYA, 30 WAS, 9 FCIAC, 14 RIAC, 21 STE). That’s an increase of 733.33%. This seismic expansion has resulted in many attorneys being overscheduled for individual hearings, which has an adverse effect on our clients, our ethical obligations, due process, and mental health.

Well-prepared attorneys, many serving pro bono or “low bono,” are absolutely essential to due process and fundamental fairness in Immigration Court, particularly in cases involving asylum and other forms of protection. For EOIR to schedule cases in a manner that does not take into consideration the legitimate needs and capacities of those practicing before their courts is nothing short of malpractice on the part of DOJ leadership.

There is a silver lining here. The EOIR judicial hiring program gives NDPA stars a chance to get on the bench at the retail level level, bring much needed balance and perspective, and to develop the credentials for future Article III judicial appointments. Since change isn’t coming “from the top,” we need to make it happen at the “grass roots level!” Keep those applications coming!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-16-23

⚖️👩🏽‍⚖️ IMMIGRATION COURTS: ABOUT HALF OF THE 19 NEWLY-APPOINTED IMMIGRATION JUDGES HAVE EXPERIENCE REPRESENTING INDIVIDUALS BEFORE EOIR!

Here’s the official list with bios from EOIR:

https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDAsInVyaSI6ImJwMjpjbGljayIsInVybCI6Imh0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lmp1c3RpY2UuZ292L2VvaXIvcGFnZS9maWxlLzE1ODM1MzEvZG93bmxvYWQiLCJidWxsZXRpbl9pZCI6IjIwMjMwNTEyLjc2Njc5NzYxIn0.JuSaHIpyovBHrDQUPD-sjQQccVOsekUbLd1QWO9w_Po/s/1130895796/br/190560600642-l

For my colleague Judge “Sir Jeffrey” Chase, Judge Maria Baldini-Potermin is the name that jumps out:

Maria T. Baldini-Potermin, Immigration Judge, Chicago Immigration Court

Maria T. Baldini-Potermin was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in May 2023. Judge Baldini-Potermin earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1990 from the University of Dayton and a Juris Doctor in 1997 from the University of Minnesota Law School. From 2008 to 2023, she was the owner and managing attorney at Maria Baldini- Potermin and Associates PC in Chicago. During this time, from 2009 to 2023, she served as the author of “Immigration Trial Handbook,” a book she co-authored from 2008 to 2009. Also, from 2009 to 2021, she served as the update editor for “Immigration Law and Crimes” . From 2009 to 2021, she also served as a member of the board of directors of the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, where she served as board chair and interim executive director in 2019. From 2007 to 2008, she was an associate immigration attorney at Gostynska Frakt Ltd., and from 2001 to 2007, at Scott D. Pollock and Associates PC in Chicago. From 1999 to 2001, she served as a National Association of Public Interest Law (NAPIL) Equal Justice Fellow with the Midwest Immigrant Rights Center (now National Immigrant Justice Center) in Chicago. From 1997 to 1999, she served as a NAPIL Equal Justice Fellow with the Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota (Oficina Legal) in Saint Paul, Minnesota. From 1996 to 1997, she served as an immigration law clerk at Guyton Law Office in Saint Paul, Minnesota. From 1994 to 1997, she trained law students at the Asylum Law Project in Minneapolis. From 1992 to 1994, she served as an accredited representative, and from 1991 to 1992, as a paralegal, with the South Texas Pro Bono Asylum Representation Project (ProBAR) in Harlingen, Texas. From 1990 to 1991, she served as a paralegal with the Brownsville Catholic Charities Canada Asylum Project in Brownsville, Texas. Judge Baldini-Potermin is a member of the Illinois State Bar and the Minnesota State Bar. She is admitted to practice before the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits, and the Supreme Court of the United States.

For me, it’s Judge Angela Munro whom I worked with on training for the Annual Conference during my time at EOIR:

Angela Munro, Immigration Judge, Boston Immigration Court

Angela Munro was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in May 2023. Judge Munro earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2000 from Brown University, a Master of Arts in 2004 from the Fletcher School at Tufts University, and a Juris Doctor in 2008 from Northeastern University School of Law. From 2010 to 2023, she served as an attorney advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals, EOIR. From 2008 to 2010, she served as a judicial law clerk at the Boston Immigration Court entering on duty through the Attorney General’s Honors Program. Judge Munro is a member of the Massachusetts Bar and the New York State Bar.

Another bio that caught my eye is Judge Hannah B. Kubica who once practiced at Joyce & Associates in Boston with my long-time friend and Round Table colleague Judge Bill Joyce.

Hannah B. Kubica, Immigration Judge, Boston Immigration Court

Hannah B. Kubica was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in May 2023. Judge Kubica earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2005 from Vanderbilt University and a Juris Doctor in 2008 from the Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law. From 2016 to 2023, she was in private practice as an associate, and later as a senior associate, at McHaffey & Nice LLC in Boston where she represented noncitizens before EOIR and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security. During her time in private practice, she provided pro bono services at Rian Immigrant Center, formerly the Irish International Immigrant Center. From 2016 to 2011, she was in private practice as an associate at Joyce & Associates PC in Boston. From 2011 to 2008, Judge Kubica was in private practice at GNP Law Firm in the greater Boston area, and at Weir & Partners LLC in Philadelphia. Judge Kubica is a member of the Massachusetts Bar and the Pennsylvania Bar.

********************************

Congrats and good luck to all of the new Judges. Remember: The job is about due process, fundamental fairness, practical scholarship, and best practices, NOT “pleasing your handlers” or making DHS Enforcement happy!

We’re “making progress” in getting more NDPA practical scholars on the Immigration Bench! But, we need even more to fundamentally change the culture at EOIR and to make due process the overriding mission, as it was supposed to be! So, NDPA’ers, keep those judicial applications coming!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-13-23

🤯 BIA’S ANTI-ASYLUM JURISPRUDENCE CONTINUES TO TAKE A BEATING IN CIRCUITS — 1st Cir. Rejects Bogus “Changed Conditions” In Guatemala — 3rd Cir. Says No To BIA’s Bogus Jurisdictional Ruling For Asylee!

Kangaroos — Dems control the composition of one of the most consequential Federal Appellate Tribunals, the BIA. Is THIS really the look that they want to project?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/
Creative Commons License

Dan Kowalski reports for Lexis Nexis Immigration Community:

CA1 on Changed Country Conditions (Guatemala) – Mendez Esteban v. Garland

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/22-1215P-01A.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca1-on-changed-country-conditions-guatemala—mendez-esteban-v-garland#

“[T]he 2017 report and the testimony from Mendez do not — together or independently — establish that changes in Guatemala have fundamentally altered the specific conditions that gave rise to Mendez’s substantiated claim of political persecution. Accordingly, the BIA’s conclusion that DHS rebutted Mendez’s presumption of well-founded fear is not supported by substantial evidence. We therefore find Mendez statutorily eligible for asylum. … [W]e grant the petition for review as to Mendez’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal. We deny the petition as to Mendez’s claim for CAT protection. We accordingly affirm the denial of Mendez’s CAT claim, vacate the denials of Mendez’s political opinion-based asylum and withholding of removal claims, and remand to the IJ for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

[Hats off to Samuel Brenner, Emma Coreno, Patrick Roath and Rachel Scholz-Bright!]

************************

CA3 on Jurisdiction: Kosh v. Atty. Gen.

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca3-on-jurisdiction-kosh-v-atty-gen#

“Appellant Ishmael Kosh petitions us to review the order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) that terminated his asylum status and denied his applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. He maintains that the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) improperly sought to terminate his asylum status in asylum-only proceedings because he first entered the United States under the Visa Waiver Program. Per Kosh, that limiting program no longer applies to him, so he is entitled to complete-jurisdiction removal proceedings instead. In such unlimited proceedings, asylees can raise an adjustment-of-status claim as a defense to removal. We conclude that, if Kosh re-entered the country as an asylee without signing a new Visa Waiver Program form limiting his defenses, he is entitled to complete-jurisdiction proceedings. We thus grant his petition for review, vacate the BIA’s decision, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

[Hats off to Ben Hooper and Jonah Eaton!]

*********************

As many practitioners know, the BIA’s continual bogus “fundamentally changed circumstances” findings for countries where the human rights conditions have remained abysmal for decades, certainly NOT materially improving, and in most cases in the Northern Triangle getting worse, are an endemic problem. Following a finding of past persecution, ICE, not the respondent, bears the burden of proof!

If that burden were honestly and expertly applied, considering individualized fear of harm, ICE would rebut the presumption by a preponderance of the evidence in only a minuscule percentage of cases. Certainly, that was my experience over 21 years on both the trial and appellate benches at EOIR.

Moreover, in this and most other cases of past persecution, even if ICE were able to satisfy its burden of rebutting the presumption of future persecution by a preponderance of the credible evidence, the respondent would be a “slam dunk” for a grant of discretionary asylum on the basis of “other serious harm.” It’s not clear that any of the three judicial entities that considered this case understood and properly applied the “other serious harm” concept.

The BIA’s chronic failure to fulfill its proper role of insuring a fair application of asylum and other protection laws and to provide guidance “shutting down” IJs who routinely manufacture bogus reasons to deny is a systemic denial of due process and failure of judicial professionalism. That it continues to happen under a Dem Administration pledged to restore the rule of law and due process for asylum seekers is astounding, deplorable, and a cause for concern about what today’s Dems really stand for!

This case should have been granted by the IJ years ago. An appeal by ICE on this feeble showing should have been subject to summary dismissal.

That cases like Mendez Esteban are still aimlessly kicking around Garland’s dysfunctional system in an elusive search for justice is a serious indictment of the Biden Administration’s approach to asylum and to achieving long overdue, life-changing, and readily achievable reforms that are within their power without legislative action. It also helps explain why Garland has neither reduced backlogs nor sufficiently improved professionalism, even with many more IJs on the bench.

Practical tips for fighting against bogus “presumption rebuttals” by IJs under 8 CFR 208.13:

Insist that the IJ actually shift the burden to ICE to rebut the presumption of future persecution based on past persecution.
Use the regulatory definition of “reasonably available” internal relocation to fight bogus IJ findings. For example, countries in the Northern Triangle are “postage stamp sized” and plagued by nationwide violence and corruption. The idea of “reasonably available internal location” under all the factors is prima facie absurd! (A “better BIA” would have already pointed this out in a precedent.)
Argue for a discretionary grant of asylum even in the absence of a current well founded fear based on 1) “compelling circumstances” arising out of the past persecution (“Chen grant”), and/or “other serious harm” under the regulations — a much broader concept than persecution that does NOT require nexus to a protected ground.

Knowing and using the law aggressively to assert your client’s rights, making the record, and exhausting all appellate options are the best defenses to biased, anti-asylum, often disconnected from reality denials of life-saving relief to your clients!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-13-23

⚖️🗽🛡⚔️ ON A ROLL — ROUND TABLE ON THE WINNING SIDE FOR THE 3RD TIME @ SUPREMES! — Santos-Zacaria v. Garland — Jurisdiction/Exhaustion — 9-0!

Knightess of the Round Table — Somebody’s listening to our message! Too bad the Biden Administration doesn’t! It would save lots of time, resources, and lives if they did!

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1436_n6io.pdf

JUSTICE JACKSON delivered the opinion of the Court.

Under 8 U. S. C. §1252(d)(1), a noncitizen who seeks to challenge an order of removal in court must first exhaust certain administrative remedies. This case presents two questions regarding that statutory provision. For the rea- sons explained below, we hold that §1252(d)(1) is not juris- dictional. We hold further that a noncitizen need not re- quest discretionary forms of administrative review, like reconsideration of an unfavorable Board of Immigration Appeals determination, in order to satisfy §1252(d)(1)’s exhaustion requirement.1

. . . .

***********************

Read the full opinion at the link.

So, why is a Dem Administration under AG Garland taking anti-immigrant positions that can’t even garner a single vote on the most far-right Supremes in recent history?

Incredibly, the DOJ made the absurdist argument that, in violation of the statute, an additional unnecessary layer of procedural BS should be inflicted on individuals already dealing with the trauma of a dysfunctional system running a 2 million plus backlog and a BIA with more than 80,000 un-adjudicated appeals at last count! Where’s the common sense? Where’s the competence? Where’s the “better government” that the Biden Administration promised?

Meanwhile, our Round Table continues to put our centuries of collective experience in due process, fundamental fairness, and practical problem solving to use! The Biden Administration might not be paying attention. But, many others, including Article III Judges, are taking advantage and listening.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-12-23

⚖️ SPLIT 6th CR. WHACKS BIA ON LANDOWNERS AS PSG! — Turcios-Flores v. Garland

Four Horsemen — BIA Asylum Panel In Action. Garland’s largely “holdover” BIA continues to align itself with Trump’s extreme right, nativist judges, as the progressives and advocates who actually supported Dems in the last two elections are left to stew, along with their dehumanized asylum seeking clients.
Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

CA6 on PSG: Turcios-Flores v. Garland (2-1)

https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/23a0094p-06.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca6-on-psg-turcios-flores-v-garland-2-1#

“Under the correct analysis, the record here compels a conclusion that Honduran rural landownership in this case is a common fundamental characteristic because Turcios-Flores should not be required to change this aspect of her identity to avoid persecution given the demonstrated importance of landownership to her. Therefore, we remand to the Board for further explanation of whether this group meets the social distinction and particularity requirements as well as the remaining asylum considerations.”

[Hats off to Justin S. Fowles and Samuel W. Wardle!]

********************

To reach their wrong conclusion that “rural landowners” are not a “particular social group,” the BIA ignored its own precedent. See, e.g., Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211, 233 (BIA 1985), modified on other grounds.

The BIA also took an (all too typical) “ahistorical” approach. They ignored the powerful connection between various types of land and property ownership in society and classic historical examples of extermination and persecution. Indeed, millions of dead kulaks persecuted and liquidated by Stalin would be astounded by the BIA’s horribly flawed, “any reason to deny,” analysis. See, e.g., https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiTv6qnsun-AhWARzABHW3rACUQFnoECC4QAQ&url=https://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/stalin.htm&usg=AOvVaw0xlIU36bw6-wmabscwSXT5.

Class warfare and persecution of property owners was at the heart of most Marxist-Leninist Communist dictatorships.

Remarkably, under Garland, the BIA continues to parrot the same biased, restrictionist nonsense spouted by the Trumpist dissenter in this case, Judge Chad A. Readler. He was roundly criticized as unqualified by Democrats and advocates at the time of his nomination. This opposition had lots to do with his biased, anti-immigrant views flowing from his then “boss,” nativist/racist former AG Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions!

For example, it’s worth reviewing the comments of the Alliance for Justice on Reacher’s nomination:

On June 7, 2018, President Trump announced his intention to nominate a Justice Department official, Chad Readler, to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. This announcement was particularly striking for one notable reason: on that very day, Readler had become a leader in the Trump Administration’s fight to destroy the Affordable Care Act and the protections it offers to millions of Americans. Readler, as acting head of the Civil Division, filed a brief to strike down the ACA, including its protections for people with preexisting conditions. If Readler and the Trump Justice Department are successful, the ACA’s protections for tens of millions of people, including cancer patients, people with diabetes, pregnant women, and many other Americans, would be removed.

As the acting head of the Department of Justice Civil Division under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Readler defended the Trump Administration’s most odious policies, including separating immigrant children from their parents at the border, while claiming that “[e]verything that the Attorney General does that I’ve been involved with he’s . . . being very respectful of precedent and the text of the statute and proper role of agencies.”

His track record is equally atrocious in other respects. He has tried to undermine public education in Ohio; supported the efforts of Betsy DeVos to protect fraudulent for-profit schools; fought to make it harder for persons of color to vote; advanced the Trump Administration’s anti-LGBTQ and anti-reproductive rights agenda; fought to allow tobacco companies to advertise to children, including outside day care centers; sought to undermine the independence of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; and advocated for executing minors.

Chad Readler’s record of diehard advocacy for right-wing causes suggests he will be anything but an independent, fair-minded jurist. Alliance for Justice strongly opposes Readler’s confirmation.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjp353GtOn-AhWnjLAFHRjxAKYQFnoECCMQAQ&url=https://www.afj.org/nominee/chad-readler/&usg=AOvVaw1vd0ZxlEMALaM-lfJNn6bq

It’s remarkable and infuriating that once in office, Democrats in the Biden Administration have aligned themselves with the toxic views of extreme, nativist right wing judges whose xenophobic, atrocious views they campaigned against! They have done this in a huge “life or death” Federal Court system that they completely control and have authority to reform without legislation!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-10-23

⚖️ AFTER STRING OF CIRCUIT DEFEATS, BIA FINALLY BACKS DOWN ON “EQUITABLE TOLLING” — Sort Of! — Matter of Morales-Morales, 28 I&N Dec. 714 (BIA 2023)

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1582681/download

Matter of Morales-Morales, 28 I&N Dec. 714 (BIA 2023)

BIA Headnote:

(1) The Board of Immigration Appeals has authority to accept what are otherwise untimely appeals, and consider them timely, in certain situations because 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38(b) (2022) is a claim-processing rule and not a jurisdictional provision. Matter of Liadov, 23 I&N Dec. 990 (BIA 2006), overruled.

(2) The Board will accept a late-filed appeal where a party can establish that equitable tolling applies, which requires the party to show both diligence in the filing of the notice of appeal and that an extraordinary circumstance prevented timely filing.

FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mario Salgado, Esquire, San Francisco, California

BEFORE: Board Panel: WETMORE, Chief Appellate Immigration Judge; MULLANE and MANN, Appellate Immigration Judges.

MULLANE, Appellate Immigration Judge [Opinion]

********************************

Notably, but perhaps predictably for those who follow the BIA’s generally “respondent/due process unfriendly” jurisprudence, the “good news” that the BIA has belatedly decided to follow the 2d, 5th, and 9th Circuits on equitable tolling is “tempered” by the result in this case — denial of the motion to reconsider and accept the appeal!

Evidently, among its 82,000+ backlog, the BIA was unable to identify a case where correctly applying equitable tolling would actually BENEFIT the respondent, rather than just requiring a different, largely contrived, analysis to “get to no!” This continues a depressing and highly inappropriate long-standing tendency of the BIA to provide negative examples of how to apply potentially remedial rules.

Presumably, after 17 years of the BIA’s wrong-headed precedent Matter of Liadov, everyone understands that the BIA is “programmed to deny.” What’s needed is “reprogramming” to recognize and grant motions based on “equitable tolling.”

It’s also remarkable that the “highest tribunal” of a dysfunctional organization, notorious for losing files; failing to provide timely, correct notice; cancelling hearings without notice on the hearing date; switching Immigration Judges without notice in a system where the identity of the judge is too often “outcome determinative;” and “cutting” DHS and itself almost endless “breaks” and “exceptions” for their sloppy, lazy, and sometimes ethnically questionable practices sees fit to “pontificate” so self-righteously on what’s “due diligence” and “extraordinary circumstances” for the private bar. The “message” is pretty clear: Denial is the “preferred” (or default, or de facto presumed) result!

If either of the foregoing concepts were applied to EOIR and DHS with the same stringency they are to individuals and their representatives, both agencies would have been forced out of business long ago!

This system is totally screwed up! Dems must ask themselves why Garland and his senior leadership have failed to “unscrew it,” and what can be done to deal with their democracy-and-life-threatening indolence and inattention to quality jurisprudence, due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-08-23

🤯 FORMER EMPLOYEE’S EXPLOSIVE FEDERAL COURT ALLEGATIONS: NOT EVERYONE IN EOIR MANAGEMENT FOCUSED ON “GUARANTEEING FAIRNESS & DUE PROCESS!”

“Lust and Avarice”
MET DP871968.jpg
Print
Thomas Rowlandson
Creative Commons Zero, Public Domain Dedication

This item was originally reported by Bloomberg Law. From the complaint in Escoto v. Garland, USDC CD CA:

Escoto v Garland

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff CLAUDIA ESCOTO, while working as a Staff Assistant to Assistant Chief Immigration Judge Scott Laurent was subjected to egregious and continual sexual harassment, including Judge Laurent describing in graphic detail other judges and employees he wanted to have sex with, or had sex with, in what positions he wished to have sex and in what manner. Judge Scott Laurent discussed in lurid detail the physical attributes of attorneys who came before him to represent litigants and the government and further discussed attraction to and/or sexual relations with other judges. Judge Laurent regularly subjected Plaintiff to rambling diatribes regarding the breasts, attractiveness and whether he deemed the female attorneys and judges “fuckable.” Judge Laurent also regularly discussed female colleagues and employees in a degrading and sexual manner, discussing in graphic detail who he wanted to have sex with, the physical attributes of female employees and judges. Judge Laurent engaged in this conduct even when in judge’s robes when on the bench. Judge Laurent subjected Plaintiff to graphic description of sexual relations he was having with his wife and other women, including during what was supposed to be work hours.

2. Judge Laurent touched Plaintiff without her consent in a sexual manner, repeatedly placing his hand on Plaintiff’s upper leg when she traveled in a car with him, and ensuring his right arm touched her breasts. This was unwelcome and deeply disturbing to Plaintiff.

3. Judge Laurent further demeaned Plaintiff’s sexual orientation, claiming he could turn her straight (referring to his supposed sexual prowess if Plaintiff had sexual relations with him), referred to Plaintiff’s wife’s breasts and attractiveness and demanded that Plaintiff come “sit on Daddy’s lap,” referring to himself as “Daddy.” He would also proclaim “I can turn you straight, Baby!”

4. Judge Laurent’s conduct caused Plaintiff severe emotional impacts, including causing fainting spells, among other severe reactions. Plaintiff requested a medical leave, during which time

Judge Laurent continued to contact Plaintiff to pressure her to work. He denied Plaintiff’s extension of leave, improperly placing her on AWOL status, even though Plaintiff had leave time. Plaintiff requested a reasonable accommodation of reassignment to a different supervisor where she would not be subjected to this egregious sexual harassment. This request was denied by Defendant. Defendant then acted on Judge Laurent’s recommendation to fire Plaintiff shortly after receiving Plaintiff’s complaints of sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation, having taken no actions to address Plaintiff’s complaints, other than to fire her.

5. Judge Laurent’s actions show no respect for the sacred office he holds, demean the entire justice system, and turn what should be a model employment environment into a cesspool, where Plaintiff was made to endure an onslaught of sexual comments and sexual advances, ultimately being fired when she had the bravery to come forward. Plaintiff CLAUDIA ESCOTO, as well as the justice system itself, deserved so much better. Defendant must be held to account.

*****************************

These are only unproven allegations in a court complaint at this point! But, if any of this is true, it would confirm that there are some deep “cultural” issues at EOIR that leadership has not dealt with.

“Expedited/dedicated dockets” and other “haste make waste” nonsense that misses the mark at EOIR aren’t going to solve systemic issues affecting due process and fundamental fairness for the millions whose lives and futures are pending in our broken and dysfunctional Immigration Courts!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-04-23

⚖️🗽 TWO MORE (PREVIOUSLY) UNHERALDED ASYLUM VICTORIES FOR CENTRAL AMERICAN WOMEN! — From Colorado & NY Immigration Courts!

Pooja Asnani reports from Sanctuary For Families NY:

Hi all,

I wanted to share a recent asylum grant won by my colleagues, Deirdre Stradone, Amalia Chiapperino, and Kelly Becker-Smith, before IJ McKee at the NYC immigration court.

Client is Honduran Garifuna woman who survived DV and gang violence, and, importantly for the grant of asylum, forced sterilization. Below is a quick summary of the case, and I’m highlighting this asylum grant because our team, specifically Deirdre, has been seeing more and more cases of forced sterilization among Central American women.

Respondent is a forty-five-year-old Honduran Garifuna woman who has been the victim of forced sterilization, severe verbal, physical, and sexual violence, robbery and death threats by gang members, and intentional deprivation of law enforcement assistance and medical attention due to her race and gender. Overwhelming evidence affirms the horrific practice of forced sterilization against Garifuna women, as well as the high levels of domestic and gang violence in Honduras that take place with impunity. The evidence shows that government authorities largely fail to respond to complaints of abuse, or when they do respond, fail to do so effectively.

Deirdre has been collaborating with the Mt. Sinai Human Rights program to study the forced sterilization of Central American women, a topic she had encountered over and over again in her asylum cases, with the researchers agreeing that this particular violation of human rights is likely more common than is being research and reported. Deirdre has found several reports and studies conducted regarding indigenous, mainly Garifuna, women living with HIV who have been victims of this practice. As you all probably know, and stemming from the response to China’s one-child policy, forced sterilization is defined in the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) as “per se persecution on account of political opinion.”

I wanted to share this because we’re realizing that that it may be a more wide-spread practice than we initially thought, and often times, clients don’t even realized they have been sterilized when they come to us. We have been asking specific questions about this in our intakes, and often have been sending our clients to get a medical evaluation to determine whether they have been sterilized. Unfortunately, we have had a several clients discover in the course of our representation that they had been sterilized without their consent, and we believe that many other women may have experienced this without realizing.

While we have worked on several cases with similar facts, but interestingly, this is the first asylum case we have had were the IJ (McKee) granted specifically based on the forced sterilization claim (political opinion), and not on the ARCG DV claim.

Our team at Sanctuary is working to put together a training to help issue-spot, discuss common fact patterns, and how to prepare and brief these cases; stay tuned for more details.

CC’ing the team who worked on this case, including Deirdre, if folks have questions.

Thanks,

Pooja

Deirdre Stradone
Attorney
Sanctuary for Families NY

Kelly Becker-Smith
Attorney
Sanctuary for Families NY

Amalia Chiapperino
Sanctuary for Families NY

********************

Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/asylum-victory-in-colorado-indigenous-guatemalan#

Christina Brown writes: “I wanted to share the attached decision in case it is helpful to others. IJ Burgie granted the asylum claim of an indigenous Guatemalan applicant finding past persecution based on severe economic deprivation (DHS failed to rebut). She also granted based on a pattern and practice of severe economic persecution of indigenous Guatemalans.”

[ICE did NOT appeal. Hats way off to Christina Brown!]

Christina Brown ESQ

****************************

Many congrats and much appreciation to all involved!

Even as the Biden Administration and GOP nativists push their “big myth” that most seeking asylum at the Southern Border are “mere economic migrants” not “true refugees,” these results from those fortunate enough to have expert lawyers, fair Immigration Judges, and reasonable time to prepare, document, and present continue to show the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the racially-biased restrictionist claims. Indeed, to get to the “any reason to deny” nonsense, which also is often mis-employed by the BIA, one has to intentionally ignore or misconstrue both the real country conditions in the Northern Triangle and the inclusive “at least one central reason” mixed motive language of the INA.

These are NOT “one offs!” No, they are actually recurring situations! A properly functioning, fair, expert BIA, committed to a correct and generous interpretation of asylum laws, would have incorporated these and other recurring “grant” situations into a series of binding precedents. These, in turn, would allow lawyers, Asylum Officers, IJs, and ACCs to recognize and prioritize these cases for “fast track grants.”

That, in turn, would enable many asylum applicants to be timely admitted in legal asylum status, work authorized, and on the way to green cards and naturalization. Significantly, it would also avoid the largely self-created, self-aggravated, ever-growing EOIR backlogs that seem to “drive” the “haste makes waste,” sloppy, “any reason to deny” decision-making that still exists throughout our broken and biased asylum system.

The REAL problem here its that meritorious cases like or similar to these that require expert recognition, proper preparation and documentation, and officials committed to “protection not rejection,” are likely to be summarily rejected and wrongfully pushed back across the border by the “Biden/Miller Lite” procedures and toxic official attitudes toward asylum now being promoted by both the Administration and the GOP.

It’s disturbingly clear that the needed positive changes in the immigration legal system are NOT “coming from the top” in the Biden Administration. Consequently, in addition to recruiting, training, and mentoring ever more members of the NDPA (including non-attorney accredited representatives), to hold the system accountable, it is ESSENTIAL that we get more NDPA “practical experts” on the Immigration Bench to spread and force due process, fundamental fairness, and best interpretations/practices on a resistant system from the “retail level” — the “grass roots” if you will.

That requires that NDPA experts with the qualifications apply for Immigration Judge vacancies en masse! You can’t be selected if you don’t apply! And, without better Federal Judges at all levels not only will injustice continue to prevail for immigrants, but our entire democracy will be imperiled! Better judges for a better America!

Yes, as I have acknowledged in prior posts, EOIR can be a tough place to work. But, human lives and the future of our democracy depend on our changing the system, from “the bottom up” if that’s the only way. This system is too important, with too much at stake, to be left to the whims and false agendas of tone-deaf politicos and inept, “go along to get along” bureaucrats!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-02-23

🤯 JUSTICE ON THE ROCKS! ☠️ THE GOP HAS CORRUPTED THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY, WHILE THE DEMS CAN’T BRING DUE PROCESS AND QUALITY TO THE LARGE JUDICIARY THEY “OWN!” — Latest Rebuke By 5th Shows EOIR’s Sloppiness, Misrepresentations, Misconstructions, DOJ’s “Defense Of the Indefensible” In Quest To Deny Asylum To Refugees! — Recent Reports On “Management” & “Leadership” Deficiencies Show “The Wheels Are Coming Off The EOIR Circus Wagon!” 🤡

injustice — Injustice
Public Realm
Dems spend lots of time whining about the destruction of the Federal Judiciary by GOP right-wing extremists. However, after two years in charge, they have done little to bring due process, fundamental fairness, and judicial expertise to America’s worst courts — the Immigration Courts — which they totally control!

The 5th Circuit didn’t mince any words in its latest (inexplicably) unpublished, 24-page takedown of EOIR’s ridiculous “judicial” failure with lives at stake!

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/20/20-60133.0.pdf

. . . .

Based on all of the evidence as a whole, and in light of the applicable caselaw, Reyes-Hoyes has made a compelling case of persecution. Nevertheless, we find a remand is necessary because the BIA did not make a determination as to Reyes-Hoyes’s credibility. The BIA did not mention credibility in its decision or express any doubts about the truth of Reyes- Hoyes’s testimony. The IJ did express some doubts about Reyes-Hoyes’s credibility, although he did not explicitly find her uncredible and ultimately stated he was not denying relief “based on a lack of sufficiency of proof.” However, the BIA did not adopt the IJ’s decision and thus did not incorporate any of the doubts the IJ had. “Generally speaking, a court of appeals should remand a case to an agency for decision of a matter that statutes place primarily in agency hands.” I.N.S. v. Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16 (2002). If Reyes-Hoyes is credible, she has shown persecution, but the credibility determination must be made by the factfinder, not by this court on appeal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Avelar-Olivia v. Barr, 954 F.3d 757, 767 (5th Cir. 2020). Accordingly, the decision of the BIA is vacated in part, and we remand to the BIA for a determination on credibility.

. . . .

In sum, we conclude that, if Reyes-Hoyes is credible, the record compels the conclusion that Reyes-Hoyes suffered harm rising to the level of past persecution, but we remand for the BIA to consider her credibility in the first instance. We also conclude that the record compels the conclusion that safe internal relocation to parts of Guatemala—Mesata and Raul—was not possible. Additionally, we hold that the BIA procedurally erred in the remainder of its analysis concerning whether internal location was reasonable and whether Reyes-Hoyes had shown state action by not meaningfully considering the relevant substantial evidence.

. . . .

**************************

Here is my immediate reaction when Dan Kowalski at LexisNexis sent me the decison:

Wow! This is an EOIR/OIL error fest — replete with misrepresentations and mischaracterizations! Totally sloppy work! Why won’t they publish this? It’s a perfect example of how Garland has failed to get the job done!

And, here’s the reaction from my friend and Round Table Colleague “Sir Jeffrey Eagle Eyes” Chase:

24 pages; very detailed analysis of recurring asylum issues. Should certainly have been published.

BTW, please note footnote 9, an example of the ongoing problem with the government’s online regs continuing to list the enjoined “death to asylum” regs that the previous administration tried to push through. The Fifth Circuit continues to believe that the internal relocation reg was amended effective January 19, 2021. Have cases been decided based on this erroneous belief?

Lest you doubt the “complete FUBARness” of EOIR, check these out:

EOIR ranked 420 out of 432 in list of USG “Best Places to Work” (97th percentile) https://naij-usa.us20.list-manage.com/track/click?u=fb6095c093c4ba52c1a1f5cec&id=e8849a6c94&e=a00508cc44;
Second worst component of DOJ;
Worst of all the small and mid-sized agencies ranked;
While the “curve” for “subagencies” has gone up since 2007, EOIR’s score has cratered, plunging dramatically during the Trump years;
EOIR ranked at or near the bottom on key metrics, including, significantly, “leadership style” (some of the “credit” for this abysmal score should go to DOJ, which has failed to provide dynamic, due-process-oriented leadership over the last six years);
GAO study just cited EOIR for a number of management deficiencies including “blowing off” “our [GAO’s] 2017 recommendation to develop a strategic workforce plan to address current and future staffing needs, EOIR hasn’t done so—even though it had a significant and growing backlog of 1.8 million pending cases at the start of FY 2023, more than triple the number that it had in FY 2017.”
The NAIJ continues to raise technology and health and safety defects with EOIR “management;”
Notably, during this period of abject failure, EOIR has found time and resources to waste (and potential “goodwill” to squander) on unneeded nonsense like “IJ Dashboards,” “production quotas,” “expedited dockets,” more layers of bloated headquarters bureaucracy, and, perhaps the biggest boondoggle of all, a totally absurd and duplicative “Office of Policy” for an agency that has demonstrated a disturbing inability to carry out its “core function:” Providing Due Process for all through fair, timely, expert, correct adjudications!

EYORE — “Eyore In Distress”
Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up” — As Dems founder in their commitment to restore justice, could new Immigration Judges from the NDPA — unswervingly committed to due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices — get this poor little fella back on his feet and improve the culture and atmosphere at the “retail level” of EOIR, even in the face of indifference and incompetence from those in charge? Lives and futures — perhaps the future of our democracy — are at stake!

What we really need is a “lean, not mean, due process machine” @ EOIR. Why can’t the Dems deliver? That’s the age-old question among human rights experts!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-30-23

🤯 THEY JUST CAN’T GET IT RIGHT! — Biden Administration Combines Some Improvements In Refugee Processing Abroad With Cruelty & Mockery Of Asylum Law At The Border — “People seeking asylum at United States borders will be subjected to fast-track credible fear interviews while in Border Patrol custody and barred under the asylum ban, fueling wrongful deportations to persecution and torture.”

Eleanor Acer
Senior Director for Refugee Protection, Human Rights First

https://humanrightsfirst.org/library/human-rights-first-welcomes-resettlement-condemns-bars-to-asylum-seekers/

Human Rights First Welcomes Resettlement, Condemns Bars to Asylum Seekers

WASHINGTON – Human Rights First welcomes today’s announcement of the Biden administration’s plans to expand refugee resettlement and family reunification parole in the Americas while reiterating the organization’s call for the administration to abandon its planned asylum ban and the conduct of fast-track credible fear interviews in Border Patrol custody.

“The Biden administration is rightly expanding refugee resettlement from the Americas, an overdue step towards addressing a long-standing gap for people in need of international protection,” said Senior Director of Refugee Protection Eleanor Acer. “This initiative should swiftly bring refugees to safety and not be used to reduce the resettlement of refugees from other regions. The Biden administration should focus on measures like increasing refugee resettlement and regular pathways and abandon its plan to impose an asylum ban that would be a legal, moral, and political mistake.”

In today’s announcement, the Biden administration confirmed its plans to implement its proposed ban on asylum, which would violate U.S. and international refugee law and has sparked widespread opposition from faith leaders, civil rights organizations, unions, and many Members of Congress. People seeking asylum at United States borders will be subjected to fast-track credible fear interviews while in Border Patrol custody and barred under the asylum ban, fueling wrongful deportations to persecution and torture.

“The Biden administration rightly ended and should not resurrect Trump-era policies that conduct credible fear interviews in Border Patrol custody where access to legal counsel is restricted,” Acer said. “This due process disaster, along with the imposition of the planned asylum ban, will be a sham process for deporting refugees who qualify for asylum. Instead of implementing policies that punish people seeking asylum, the United States should lead in upholding refugee protections and human rights.”

Human Rights First and other groups have long urged the U.S. government to step up refugee resettlement from the Americas and offer safe pathways for migration. We recommend the Biden administration focus on transformational steps like increasing refugee resettlement and regular pathways and maximizing asylum capacity at ports of entry rather than pursuing its misguided plan to impose a new bar on asylum.

Today’s announcements are part of the Biden administration’s plans to address regional migration and initiate punitive policies as the use of the Title 42 public health order ends on May 11. Human Rights First has repeatedly documented human rights abuses inflicted by the Title 42 policy, including over 13,000 attacks against migrants and asylum seekers blocked in or expelled to Mexico under Title 42 during the Biden administration. The organization has also repeatedly detailed the harms and violations of law that would be caused by the Biden administration’s proposed ban on asylum.

***********************

The “official” DHS statement can be found here: https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/dhs-dos-announces-sweeping-new-actions-to-manage-regional-migration.

To me, the DHS/DOS statement (referenced by HRF) sounds like folks who expect to fail, want to “tamp down” expectations, and intend to blame the victims (asylum seekers and their advocates) and Congress for their (likely) failure.

Almost everybody agrees that reforms in our immigration system are overdue. But, there is no agreement whatsoever in Congress on what those reforms should be, as shown by the absolutely insanely “bonkers” proposal from the House GOP which seeks to make everything infinitely worse!

So, we’re not going to get the needed expansions and simplification of our legal immigration system, including more generous treatment of refugees and asylum seekers, in the foreseeable future. That’s not a surprise! After two plus years in office, the Biden Administration should have foreseen the obvious and come up with ways to make the current law work.

As almost any expert will tell you, our existing legal asylum system can be made to work in a fair, timely, and reasonable manner at the borders. But, that’s not going to happen with the current personal, poor leadership, bad attitudes, lousy precedents, and a badly failed Immigration Court system.

A fair, functional, properly run asylum system, in conjunction with a robust realistic overseas refugee program, will result in more individuals being admitted into the U.S. as legal immigrants through the refugee and asylum processes. That’s how they are supposed to work (but generally have not) as key components of our legal immigration system.

It’s also a fulfillment of our important international obligations that we intentionally took on after our questionable performance on Jews fleeing Europe just prior to, and even during, WWII. While we can absorb, even need, more legal immigrants, Administrations don’t want to admit and deal with the obvious. Forced refugee migrations aren’t going to disappear any time in the foreseeable future, much as politicos of both parties might want them to!

Yes, these are legacies of the Trump Administration, and, to a lesser extent, the Obama Administration. But, one of the reasons why the Biden Administration is in office is to make things work, not just to whine and wring their hands.

Sure, the Trump Administration undermined the rule of law (and, I might add, largely got away with it). But, that’s no excuse for Biden and Harris not to have listened to experts (like, for example, Eleanor Acer), replaced personnel at DHS and DOJ with “practical experts” who can get the job done, and established at least a working operational framework for a successful, orderly, refugee and asylum admission system. Over-relying on coercive and inhumane detention, denial-oriented decision-making, bogus bars to asylum, criminal prosecutions, threats, and a dysfunctional Immigration Court system are NOT that framework.

Of course the Administration’s proposals to increase refugee admissions, reprogram resources, and develop a better resettlement program for refugees and asylees in the U.S. are good ideas. But, they are basically “no brainers” that HRF and other experts urged even before “day one” of this Administration. They should be in place and operating by now! We’ll see how much due process and fairness this Administration can actually deliver, or whether their proposed solutions devolve into yet another “uber-enforcement fueled” fiasco with the most vulnerable humans as the victims!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-28-23

🇺🇸🦸🏽‍♀️🏆 NDPA LEADERBOARD: Professor Paulina Vera (GW Law) Joins Dean Kevin Johnson & Other Distinguished “Practical Scholars” On Hispanic National Bar Association (“HNBA”) National Task Force on Hispanic Law Faculty and Deans!

Paulina writes:

Excited to announce that I will be part of the Hispanic National Bar Association (HNBA) National Task Force on Hispanic Law Faculty and Deans! I am honored to be included in a group of Latine law professor giants, whom I have long admired. I look forward to continuing working on a personal passion of mine, which is diversifying the legal profession and legal academia. ¡Adelante!

Press release available here:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 24, 2023 Contact: Communications@HNBA.com

The Hispanic National Bar Association Launches New Task Force on

Law Faculty and Deans

Washington, DC – The Hispanic National Bar Association (HNBA) announces the launch of the first-of-its-kind National Task Force on Hispanic Law Faculty and Deans, aimed at addressing the alarming lack of Hispanic/Latino representation among U.S. law school professors and administrators (including deans), as well as the shortage of professional development resources specifically for Hispanic/Latino professors, deans, and other administrators already in the legal academy.

According to the most recent ABA Profile of the Legal Profession, only 5.8% of lawyers in the U.S. are Hispanic/Latino, even though we constitute over 19% of the general population. The shortage of Hispanic/Latino lawyers across the nation mirrors the paucity of Hispanics in legal academia. Only 9 of the almost 200 deans of ABA-accredited law schools in the 50 states and the District of Columbia are Hispanic/Latino. Estimates have the percentage of full-time Hispanic/Latino law professors at only 5%.

Hispanic/Latino law professors and law school deans are leaders of the profession and play seminal roles in educating future generations of lawyers and law-related professionals. Legal educators are visible role models and mentors to young people aspiring to careers in law. In addition, Hispanic/Latino legal academics – like other legal academics – frequently are tapped for senior government appointments, judgeships, and other key roles in our democracy. The urgency of this initiative is heightened further by the U.S. Supreme Court’s looming affirmative action decision, which threatens to make the shortage of Hispanic/Latino law students, lawyers, and legal academics even worse.

HNBA President Mariana Bravo has appointed as Co-Chairs of the Task Force Raquel M. Matas and Anthony E. Varona. Raquel Matas is the former Associate Dean for Administration at the University of Miami School of Law and has served as HNBA’s National Law School Liaison. Anthony E. Varona is Dean and Professor at Seattle University School of Law, the first law school dean of Hispanic/Latino heritage of any law school in the Pacific Northwest of the United States. Varona was the first Hispanic/Latino dean at University of Miami School of Law, where he was appointed dean emeritus after the conclusion of his deanship.

President Bravo said, “An increase in the number of Hispanic/Latino law professors and law school deans will translate into an increase in law school enrollment by Hispanic and Latino/a students inspired by educators who hail from their same communities, share their backgrounds and struggles, and in many cases, share a bilingual heritage. The work of this Task Force is long overdue, and I am delighted that former Associate Dean Matas and Dean Varona, with many decades of distinguished nationally recognized service in legal education between them, will lead us in this important work.”

The Task Force will oversee the development of annual summer nationwide online workshops for prospective and existing Hispanic/Latino law faculty and law school deanship aspirants, through programs such as the Michael Olivas Summer Writing Institute and the GO LILA summer workshops, collaboration with other established workshops, and by organizing new initiatives to increase Hispanic and Latino/a diversity in the legal academy. The Task Force will plan in-person “how to become a law professor” workshops at the annual HNBA conferences, assist with matching law faculty and law dean aspirants with suitable mentors, support the professional development of and networking opportunities for currently appointed Hispanic/Latino law faculty, promote better data tracking by national accreditation and membership associations, and otherwise promote more Hispanic and Latino/a representation in the legal professoriate and decanal ranks.

In addition to Matas and Varona, the HNBA Task Force on Law Faculty and Deans will include as members nationally renowned legal education leaders, known for their dedication to diversifying the legal profession and the academy, including:

Dolores S. Atencio, Esq., Visiting Scholar, U. of Denver Latinx Center|Sturm College of Law

Steven Bender, Prof. & Assoc. Dean for Planning & Strategic Initiatives, Seattle U. School of Law

Kevin R. Johnson, Dean and Mabie-Apallas Prof. of Public Interest Law & Professor of Chicana/o Studies, UC Davis School of Law

José Roberto (Beto) Juárez, Jr., Dean & Prof., Nova Southeastern U. Broad College of Law

Jenny Martinez, Lang Prof. of Law and Dean, Stanford Law School

Margaret Montoya, Prof. Emerita of Law (and Medicine), U. of New Mexico

Jennifer Rosato Perea, Dean & Prof. of Law, DePaul U. College of Law

Hon. Jenny Rivera, Associate Judge, New York Court of Appeals

Ediberto Román, Prof. of Law, Florida International U. College of Law

Krista Contino Saumby, Esq., Assoc. Director of Career Dev., Elon University School of Law

Paulina Vera, Professorial Lecturer in Law, George Washington U. Law School

This Task Force shall operate as a Presidential Special Committee.

###

The Hispanic National Bar Association is an incorporated, not-for-profit, national membership association that represents the interests of over 78,000+ Hispanic attorneys, judges, law professors, legal assistants, law students, and legal professionals in the United States and its territories. Since 1972, the HNBA has acted as a force for positive change within the legal profession by creating opportunities for Hispanic lawyers and by helping generations of lawyers to succeed.

**********************

Congrats to Paulina, Dean Kevin Johnson, and all the other outstanding scholar/leaders named to this group. Another place where more diversity is long overdue is the Federal Bench. In particular, despite the disparate impact of Immigration Court decisions on Hispanic-American communities, they are underrepresented on the bench at EOIR.

As the awesome talent represented by this Task Force shows, it isn’t for lack of exceptionally well-qualified judicial candidates available in the private sector. It’s a recruiting and cultural problem at DOJ, along with severe credibility problems stemming from perceptions of overall hostility at EOIR to asylum seekers, other migrants, and their lawyers, often directed at Hispanics and other individuals of color. The “culture” at EOIR really can only be changed by getting on the “inside” — that means getting on the bench or into the EOIR supervisory structure.

I have spoken to the Hispanic National Bar Association and urged private sector lawyers with immigration, human rights, civil rights, and due process expertise to apply for Immigration Judge vacancies. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/04/08/⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️camille-j-mackler-just-security-gets-it-how-come-judge-garland-the-biden-admini/

On a positive note, one of my fellow panelists on that occasion, Hon. Claudia Cubas, is now an Immigration Judge at the Hyattsville (MD) Immigration Court!

I look forward to Paulina and other NDPA superstars 🌟 like her joining Judge Cubas on the bench in the near future. Positive change requires working “at all levels” to pump due process, fundamental fairness, and decisional excellence into a broken justice system.

Under AG Garland, at least some semblance of a “merit-based” selection system, one that honors immigration representation and human rights experience, has taken hold at EOIR. Therefore, Immigration Judge positions are the ideal “entry level” for those seeking careers in the Federal Judiciary.

Also, the “hands on” experience with making difficult decisions at the critical “retail level” of American justice will be an asset in any career path. Every correct decision at EOIR is potentially life-changing and life-saving! There aren’t many other areas where you can say that! These decisions are far, far too important to individuals and to our nation’s future to be left to the “amateur night at the Bijou” aura that unfortunately (tragically) has permeated EOIR in recent years!

Very proud to say that Paulina is a “distinguished alum” of the “Legacy” Arlington Immigration Court Internship Program and a “charter member” of the NDPA! 😎⚖️🗽

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-26-23

⚖️ “STANDARDS [SHOULD] MATTER” — Judge Rosemary Pooler (Dissenting) “Schools” Colleagues On How Standards Of Review Are Improperly Manipulated To Favor DHS!

Hon. Rosemary S. Pooler
Senior Circuit Judge
Second Circuit
PHOTO: Law.com

https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/7c64a6f4-549e-4ec9-8278-1e538e4b4bd7/2/doc/19-2044_21-6533_complete_opn.pdf

Hernandez v. Garland, 2d Cir., 04-21-23, Walker, Pooler, Park, Circuit Judges

POOLER, Circuit Judge, dissenting:

2 Standards matter. A standard of review is the essential mechanism that

3 defines an appellate court’s proper role in reviewing the record presented. All

4 appellate courts must adhere to the proper standard of review. The Board of

5 Immigration Appeals (“BIA” or “the Board”) is no exception. Here, the BIA

6 applied a standard that substantially deviated from the clear error standard and

7 improperly made factual findings that contradicted those made by the

8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”). The BIA’s failure to adhere to the proper standard is

9 “the type of error that requires remand.” De La Rosa v. Holder, 598 F.3d 103, 108

10 (2d Cir. 2010). Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

11 This Court lacks jurisdiction to review purely discretionary decisions by

12 the BIA, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), but we retain jurisdiction over

13 “constitutional claims or questions of law,” Noble v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 73, 77 (2d

14 Cir. 2007) (quoting § 1252(a)(2)(D)). When reviewing decisions, “[t]he Board will

15 not engage in de novo review of findings of fact determined by an immigration

16 judge. Facts determined by the immigration judge, including findings as to the

17 credibility of testimony, shall be reviewed only to determine whether the

18 findings of the immigration judge are clearly erroneous.” 8 C.F.R. §

1

1 1003.1(d)(3)(i). “[W]hen the BIA engages in factfinding in contravention of 8

2 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv), it commits an error of law, which [the Court has]

3 jurisdiction to correct.” Padmore v. Holder, 609 F.3d 62, 67 (2d Cir. 2010); see also

4 Rizal v. Gonzales, 442 F.3d 84, 89 (2d Cir. 2006) (explaining that the Court will

5 vacate BIA decisions “that result from flawed reasoning or the application of

6 improper legal standards”). Though the BIA “may review questions of law” and

7 “all other issues” on appeal de novo, see § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii), it is explicitly barred

8 from “engag[ing] in factfinding in the course of deciding cases” aside from

9 taking “administrative notice of facts that are not reasonably subject to dispute,”

10 § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv)(A).

11 Here, the BIA recited the precise legal standard at the beginning of its May

12 2019 decision. Special App’x at 7 (citing § 1003.1(d)(3)). But we do not simply

13 “rely on the Board’s invocation of the clear error standard; rather, when the issue

14 is raised, [the Court’s] task is to determine whether the BIA faithfully employed

15 the clear error standard or engaged in improper de novo review of the IJ’s factual

16 findings.” Rodriguez v. Holder, 683 F.3d 1164, 1170 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Chen v.

17 Bureau of Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., 470 F.3d 509, 514 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting that

18 despite “cit[ing] the proper legal standard at the outset of its decision, [the BIA]

2

1 failed to apply this deferential standard of review”). Despite its invocation of the

2 clear error standard, the BIA did not ultimately apply this standard of review to

3 Oscar Hernandez’s case. Merely reciting the standard does not transform the

4 BIA’s impermissible factfinding into a permissible exercise of discretion. Such lip

5 service should not suffice.

6 The majority opinion characterizes the BIA’s impermissible factfinding as a

7 simple “de novo reweighing of the equities based on the facts found by the IJ.”

8 Maj. Op. at 3. That is not the case. Without identifying any of the IJ’s findings as

9 clearly erroneous, the BIA implicitly rejected the IJ’s factual findings and

10 substituted the facts found by the IJ with its own factual findings. If the BIA

11 rejects the IJ’s findings, we expect it to “supply cogent reasons for its rulings,”

12 which the BIA failed to provide. See Lin v. Lynch, 813 F.3d 122, 129 (2d Cir. 2016).

13 The BIA completely disregarded the IJ’s credibility determination when it

14 concluded, contrary to the IJ’s findings, that it “d[id] not find [Hernandez’s]

15 explanation convincing” regarding the circumstances of his 2016 arrest. Special

16 App’x at 10. This divergence in characterization of the 2016 incident was central

17 to the BIA’s decision. In its attempt to parse out the definition of “convincing,”

18 the majority claims the BIA did not overturn the IJ’s factual findings, arguing the

3

1 BIA’s intended use of the word meant it was not “persuaded” by Hernandez’s

2 explanation, not that his testimony was not “truthful.” Maj. Op. at 11. This is an

3 unconvincing distinction. Next, the majority suggests the BIA doubted that

4 Hernandez warranted discretionary relief, not the truthfulness of his testimony.

5 Id. at 12. That clarification, however, does not do much to support the majority’s

6 argument. The BIA’s “de novo” reconsideration of whether Hernandez merited a

7 favorable exercise of discretion was premised on its factual determination that he

8 had “continued to engage in violent behavior” following his first arrest and

9 conviction in 2009. Special App’x at 10. The only evidence cited for this

10 determination was that Hernandez’s “most recent arrest in 2016 . . . included

11 abusive behavior toward his spouse”—a characterization directly at odds with

12 the IJ’s findings. Special App’x at 10.

. . . .

*******************************

You can read the full decision, including Judge Poolers’ full dissent, at the link.

As Judge Pooler points out, manipulation of the standards of review can be used either to improperly substitute judgement on fact-findings (BIA) or too avoid critical review of BIA’s actions (Circuit majority).

Thanks to Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis for passing this along.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever:

PWS

04-23-23

🇺🇸⚖️🗽👩🏽‍⚖️ COURTS/ROLE MODELS: A New U.S. District Judge Who Understands Due Process, Equal Protection, Human Rights, & Relationship to Immigrants’ Rights — Meet U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín, Profiled By Jack Karp @ Law360 — “A thoughtful, compassionate jurist who understands firsthand how the law impacts real people.”

U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín — Hon. Araceli Martínez-Olguín
U.S. District Judge
N.D. CA
PHOTO: Wikipedia

https://www.law360.com/pulse/courts/articles/1598878

Jack Karp @ Law360:

The second Latina to be confirmed to the Northern District of California bench and one of the few immigrant rights attorneys to become a federal judge will be a thoughtful, compassionate jurist who understands firsthand how the law impacts real people, lawyers who know her say.

U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín was confirmed by the U.S. Senate in a 48-48 vote in February, with Vice President Kamala Harris casting the tie-breaking vote in her favor. Her confirmation makes Judge Martínez-Olguín just the second Latina to serve in the Northern District of California, according to the White House’s July announcement of her nomination.

It also makes Judge Martínez-Olguín the rare federal judge who has spent most of her career helping protect immigrants’ rights.

“It’s a slightly different path than we’re used to seeing in folks appointed to the bench, which I think is great,” said attorney Nora Preciado, who worked with Judge Martínez-Olguín at the National Immigration Law Center.

That background gives Judge Martínez-Olguín a unique understanding of the law, particularly when it comes to constitutional issues, which she often dealt with in her immigrant rights work, Preciado added.

But it will also make her more compassionate as a judge, according to those who know her.

“Immigration is a complex field that requires a lot of legal knowledge, but also requires compassion and empathy,” said Brian Amaya, current president of the East Bay La Raza Lawyers Association.

“The ability for a person to stay in this country with their family in order to avoid persecution, famine, war or political instability can be the most important legal decision or conclusion our legal system can make,” Amaya told Law360 Pulse. “It is important that members of our bench are individuals that can apply the law to real-life situations involving real-life people, in ways that are both lawful but full of compassion.”

While at NILC, Judge Martínez-Olguín spearheaded the organization’s work involving the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, including representing a class of DACA recipients who challenged the U.S. Department of Homeland Security‘s efforts to curtail that program, according to a questionnaire she submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

She contributed to merits and post-argument briefing when that case was consolidated with parallel challenges before the U.S. Supreme Court, she told the Senate.

Judge Martínez-Olguín also served as lead counsel in a Tennessee civil rights class action brought by Latino workers who alleged that their arrests during a worksite immigration raid lacked probable cause and were discriminatory.

Those cases and others showed the judge to be a very calm, steady and methodical litigator, according to Preciado, who worked with her on the Tennessee case.

“Areceli has always been somebody who’s very thoughtful, thorough, methodical in her legal thinking,” Preciado said. “She’s somebody who always wants to really dig deep into issues. She has a very steady approach and temperament to practicing law.”

“As an attorney, Judge Martínez-Olguín was known as a quick learner and could handle any type of legal issue,” echoed Ray Manzo, president of the San Francisco La Raza Lawyers Association.

She also loved to discuss those issues with her teammates, Preciado added.

Amaya added, “Just from talking to her, you could tell she was a brilliant legal mind. It was often my pleasure to just talk law with her. I believe that this was her most impressive quality — her vast understanding of the law and her ability to critically think about it and discuss it in a straightforward manner.”

Prior to her work at NILC, Judge Martínez-Olguín established and ran the Immigrants’ Rights Project at Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto, California, where she conducted policy advocacy, took on impact litigation and counseled local community groups, according to her Senate questionnaire.

“She certainly jumped into a lot of issues,” the organization’s executive director Katrina Logan said. The judge was “always looking for opportunities to use the law to promote and support our clients and the issues that impact them,” Logan said.

She also developed the organization’s emergency plan to deal with potential U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention of the group’s clients or possible ICE appearances at the organization’s offices, according to Logan.

“She was super-resourceful,” Logan added. “It was really great working with her, and I think she added a lot to our organization.”

Judge Martínez-Olguín also spent time in the ACLU‘s Women’s Rights Project and Immigrants’ Rights Project, litigating human trafficking claims involving the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and educating female farmworkers about how to protect their rights when faced with sex discrimination on the job, she told the Judiciary Committee.

She worked on the team that challenged the constitutionality of Arizona’s policy of denying driver’s licenses to DACA recipients under the supremacy and equal protection clauses, according to her Senate questionnaire. And she was part of a group of advocates who provided expertise about crafting the 2008 reauthorization of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act to better protect foreign workers.

Judge Martínez-Olguín has also worked at Legal Aid at Work as a staff attorney in its National Origin, Immigration and Language Rights Program, and in the U.S. Department of Education‘s Office for Civil Rights, where she investigated complaints against school districts and universities, according to her Senate questionnaire.

That background dealing with immigrants’ rights issues means the new jurist is steeped in constitutional issues such as due process, equal protection and freedom of speech, Preciado pointed out.

“It’s a great addition to the court because she’s somebody who has had to grapple very deeply with constitutional issues throughout her career, and I think few lawyers have that kind of experience under their belt,” Preciado said.

But more than her legal knowledge and acumen, what stands out to most of the attorneys who know her is how compassionate and caring she is, especially when it comes to her clients, they said.

“She was somebody who approached the law and the power of the law from a very human perspective, from a very personal connection with folks who are going through the system,” Preciado said.

This skill was especially apparent when the judge was dealing with the clients she and Preciado represented in the Tennessee case, where it was important for her to connect with those clients after they’d been through a traumatic immigration raid, Preciado said.

“She wasn’t showing up as just a brilliant lawyer, but also a human being and somebody who understood what people had gone through and wanted to be there to support in any way possible,” Preciado said. “That’s something that I really admire in her.”

Judge Martínez-Olguín also cares deeply about mentoring young Latina attorneys and working to improve their representation in the legal industry, according to these lawyers.

She has served as president and on the board of the East Bay La Raza Lawyers Association and on the board of the San Francisco La Raza Lawyers Association, according to her Senate questionnaire. Both organizations focus on expanding legal access in the Latinx community and supporting Latinx attorneys.

She “worked tirelessly” to keep the East Bay La Raza Lawyers Association funding scholarships and promoting mentorships for Latinx law school students, according to Amaya. And she made sure the organization’s Judicial Endorsement Committee met with and endorsed candidates for the bench, especially those who would promote the organization’s mission.

“She did a lot to continue our mission statement of growing the Latinx community’s presence in the California bar and bench,” said Amaya.

Judge Martínez-Olguín has even taught Spanish for Lawyers at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, where she earned her law degree.

That wasn’t her first time in the classroom. Before attending law school, the judge was a bilingual kindergarten teacher in Oakland, California, she told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

After graduating from law school, she clerked for U.S. District Judge David Briones in the Western District of Texas.

All those elements of her background mean Judge Martínez-Olguín will bring a unique and much-needed perspective to the federal bench, according to attorneys.

Her confirmation is “very significant, because it will bring a different viewpoint that is missing on the bench,” Manzo said. “Judges bring their career and personal experiences when making decisions, and having her there with a civil rights/immigration attorney and Latina viewpoint will create a richer discussion and interpretation of the law.”

“She will truly be able to apply sound legal principles to real-life situations that deal with real-life people and have real-life outcomes,” echoed Amaya.

“She will be a wonderful judge,” he added.

–Editing by Nicole Bleier.

******************************

We need MORE NDPA “practical scholars” like Judge Martínez-Olguín — MANY MORE — on the Federal Bench — at ALL levels! The place where the NDPA can make the most immediate positive impact is at EOIR! That’s why I’m urging NDPA members to get those applications in for current Immigration Judge vacancies and all that come up in the future.

We’ve seen in the past few weeks, graphically, how horrible judging from unqualified right wing zealots appointed by Trump can destroy precious individual rights and freedoms in America. NOW is the time to “model” the positive impact that practical scholars committed to due process, immigrants’ rights, and excellence in decision-making can have on American justice — starting at the all-important “retail level!”

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-22-23

🤯 ASYLUM SEEKERS @ THE BORDER NEED DUE PROCESS & COMPASSION — BIDEN ADMINISTRATION PLANS TO DELIVER DETERRENCE, DETENTION, DEPORTATION, DUMBNESS! — “The right to seek asylum, even though it is recognized in international law, is not being upheld.”

Marisa Limón Garza, Executive Director of Las Americas
PHOTO: The Border Chronicle

Melissa Del Bosque in The Border Chronicle:

https://open.substack.com/pub/theborderchronicle/p/the-right-to-seek-asylum-in-el-paso?r=330z7&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post

The Right to Seek Asylum in El Paso: A Q&A with Marisa Limón Garza, Executive Director of Las Americas

Marisa Limón Garza is executive director of the nonprofit Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center in El Paso, Texas. Founded in 1987 to aid refugees from the civil wars in Central America, Las Americas has provided legal representation to thousands of refugees and asylum seekers. Today, the staff of 19 is adapting to the growing, complex needs at the second-busiest port of entry for asylum seekers, after San Diego. Limón Garza, a native El Pasoan, talks about the challenges the organization faces as the United States rejects asylum law. “We’re seeing more expressions of xenophobia towards migrants on both sides of the border,” she said.

Las Americas has been serving migrants and asylum seekers since the 1980s. How has the population you serve changed since then?

The population that we started off serving was mostly Central American people seeking asylum. That population was our main focus. Over time, it’s shifted. For a long time, we’ve had a focus on women who were impacted by domestic violence or gender-based violence. We continue to have a community program specifically for crime victims. And so that has been something that we’ve persisted with. And then now we’re also working with people in the detention center setting. So, it’s evolved over time to meet the needs of immigrants and migrants.

Upgrade to paid

Are you seeing more people than ever? Or the same?

Right now, there are limitations on how many services we can provide, because of the number of attorneys that we have on staff, which is four. Attracting talent at the nonprofit level can be hard. It’s also a challenge in a community like ours that doesn’t have a law school. But we are seeing many people come for services. Especially due to the policies from the Trump administration and now the Biden administration. The need continues to grow. We are contacted by people all the time seeking assistance. And it’s more than we can actually serve.

What are the challenges you’re seeing with the populations you’re helping?

The challenges are related to the ways that the policies are being implemented. The people in our detained program have been focusing on a strategy of getting people out of detention on bond, because they’ll have a much higher chance of getting asylum when they have access to representation outside the detention center setting. But that’s become a lot more challenging in the past three months. There’s been a shift. Judges are not allowing people to be released on bond. And so that’s something that we are monitoring. We’re now taking on more cases for full representation through the asylum process with some people. So that’s a shift for us.

Governor Greg Abbott’s Operation Lone Star was extended to El Paso. How has it affected your community?

Operation Lone Star has been in our community since the city declared an emergency in December. It certainly has changed the dynamic with the more militarized presence and more enforcement. Visually, there’s more razor wire, more physical barriers, more obstacles. And the DPS squad cars everywhere.

Share

Can you talk about the CBP One app? I was in Reynosa, Mexico, recently. There were a lot of complaints about the app from asylum seekers, saying it doesn’t work. What are you experiencing in Ciudad Juárez with CBP One?

Our team has been helping folks get connected to the app and working with the Chihuahua state government in their COESPO office. Through that, we’ve been able to support over 662 people trying to access the app. It is challenging, even with the great Wi-Fi that’s available at COESPO. And it’s certainly been difficult as different versions of the app come out. There’s new glitches or glitches that didn’t happen before. Recently, there was a glitch where people were being notified on their screen that they needed to be north of the center of the country to secure an appointment. And of course, these people were applying from Ciudad Juárez, so it should have automatically included them, but they were being bumped out. Things like that continue to be challenges for people.

Are you having success with the app? Are some people getting through?

A minimal number. It’s not to the extent that we would like, but some people have secured appointments for themselves and their families.

Does frustration with the app lead asylum seekers to gather at ports of entry?

I think it’s the combination of rumors being shared about when people can access the port along with a level of frustration with the app. Combined, it creates a situation where people have this growing frustration, and they’re wanting to move forward but can’t. So it’s certainly part of the dynamic. I wouldn’t say it’s the sole factor. But it certainly contributes to that feeling that people are facing.

. . . .

Have conditions become more precarious for migrants arriving in Ciudad Juárez?

I think this has fomented because so many migrants have been coming towards the ports of entry. And when they go to the ports, some of those ports decide to close. That’s caused more of a challenge between community members and the migrants themselves. We’re seeing more expressions of xenophobia towards migrants on both sides of the border. And so that’s something that may have always existed but wasn’t as spoken out loud. Now it seems to be ratcheting up, although there’s still the presence of people who want to welcome and support migrants.

What future problems or issues do you see coming down the road?

I foresee challenges if we continue with the CBP One app. If that’s the only way people can access protection, then it really limits asylum. We would prefer that people be able to access a port of entry, claim their credible fear, and seek protection. We’re also mindful of the transit ban that is likely to go into place and will cause a lot of difficulty. People are supposed to seek asylum in the first country they cross through before seeking asylum here, but many of those countries have overrun asylum systems already. Adding to that challenge are the geopolitics as many different countries seem to be working with the United States to wall off access. This means that vulnerable people have far fewer places to turn to. The right to seek asylum, even though it is recognized in international law, is not being upheld.

What are solutions that you wish would be enacted right now by the U.S. and Mexican governments to fix things at the border?

We’d like there to be more transparency with border communities, at all levels, to ensure that plans are incorporated into the community, and there’s clear understanding of how they will work. Right now, there’s no clear information on what’s going to happen on May 11 [when Title 42 ends], and it’s less than a month away. We’d also like to see attention to the backlog of asylum claims within the courts, because there are many years that pass before someone can get access. Also reduce the time it takes to get a work permit. Right now, it takes at least six months to a year. That makes it riskier for people who must take more dangerous jobs and do things off the record. It’s important for people to earn a living and support their loved ones in a dignified way.

. . . .

********************

Read the full interview at the link.

Think the Biden Administration is paying attention and has used their 2+ years in office to work with experts to be ready to welcome legal asylum seekers excercising their rights upon the inevitable end of the Title 42 charade? Not a chance!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/04/20/homeland-security-border-mayorkas/

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said Thursday that the Biden administration plans to announce preparations across the U.S.-Mexico border next week in anticipation of an influx of migrants after the White House lifts pandemic-related restrictions on May 11.

Mayorkas declined to provide details about the government’s efforts but said immigration detention facilities would have additional beds available to hold migrants facing possible deportation.

“I think next week we’ll have more to say about our preparation and some of the things we are going to be doing,” Mayorkas told reporters at DHS headquarters in Washington.

. . . .

Since March 2020, DHS has leaned on the Title 42 policy as its primary enforcement tool, expelling more than 2 million migrants back to Mexico or their home countries. But Biden officials face pressure from immigrant advocates and some Democrats calling for an end to the policy they view as a carry-over from the Trump administration’s harsher approach.

DHS officials further blame the Title 42 policy for encouraging repeat illegal crossing attempts because migrants don’t face the threat of federal prosecution and jail time that they would under standard immigration rules. Lifting Title 42, Biden officials say, is key to restoring the legal consequences they need to deter illegal entries.

. . . .

Miller, the acting CBP commissioner, said officials will attempt to tamp down the surge with “enhanced expedited removal” — a fast-track deportation process for those who don’t qualify for humanitarian refuge.

But, he cautioned, “it will take time” for deportations to have a deterrent effect.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/04/20/homeland-security-border-mayorkas/

Deterrence, deterrence, deterrence = failure, failure, failure! It’s been failing for decades and is guaranteed to do so in the future! Governments can’t deter, detain, and deport their way out of humanitarian situations.

But, the the Biden Administration is happy to waste billions and unnecessarily endanger human lives making the same old mistakes over and over.

Not a mention of what REALLY would work: Honoring our legal obligations and enforcing the law by inviting asylum seekers to apply at ports of entry; making the system efficient and user friendly; providing wide access to representation; and timely and robustly granting asylum to qualified applicants under generous standards enunciated by the Supremes and the BIA decades ago but widely ignored, often mocked, in practice!

If, contrary to the Administration’s predictions of doom, gloom, and “planned failure,” the legal system works at the border, it will be due to folks like Marisa Limón Garza and NGOs forcing the law to work as it should — no thanks to out of touch politicos and bureaucrats in the Biden Administration and to GOP nativists like Abbott.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-21-23

Lindsay writes on Linkedin:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Here’s the official list with bios from EOIR:

For my colleague Judge “Sir Jeffrey” Chase, Judge Maria Baldini-Potermin is the name that jumps out:

For me, it’s Judge Angela Munro whom I worked with on training for the Annual Conference during my time at EOIR:

Another bio that caught my eye is Judge Hannah B. Kubica who once practiced at Joyce & Associates in Boston with my long-time friend and Round Table colleague Judge Bill Joyce.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for Lexis Nexis Immigration Community:

CA1 on Changed Country Conditions (Guatemala) – Mendez Esteban v. Garland

CA3 on Jurisdiction: Kosh v. Atty. Gen.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

CA6 on PSG: Turcios-Flores v. Garland (2-1)

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Matter of Morales-Morales, 28 I&N Dec. 714 (BIA 2023)

BIA Headnote:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Pooja Asnani reports from Sanctuary For Families NY:

Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

The 5th Circuit didn’t mince any words in its latest (inexplicably) unpublished, 24-page takedown of EOIR’s ridiculous “judicial” failure with lives at stake!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Paulina writes:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Hernandez v. Garland, 2d Cir., 04-21-23, Walker, Pooler, Park, Circuit Judges

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever:

Related posts:

Jack Karp @ Law360:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Melissa Del Bosque in The Border Chronicle:

The Right to Seek Asylum in El Paso: A Q&A with Marisa Limón Garza, Executive Director of Las Americas

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts: