"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
*********************************
Thanks, Roberto!
Just think how much better this system would work if Immigration Judges were getting guidance from the BIA to get these correct in the first place.
Also raises additional questions of why: 1) cases like this aren’t precedents; and 2) so-called “Temporary” Appellate Immigration Judges like Judge Gabe Gonzalez are “outperforming” most “permanent” BIA Judges?
PWS
05-16-22
https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/201828.P.pdf
Quote from Judge Marvin Quattlebaum’s wrong-headed decision, joined by fellow Trump appointee Judge Julius Richardson:
QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judge:
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) permits the Attorney General to detain aliens1 pending their
removal hearings. And the Attorney General has adopted procedures for making that discretionary decision. Under those procedures, an alien is given notice and three opportunities to seek release by showing they are neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community.
A district court determined that a class of aliens had a likelihood of establishing that those procedures violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. That court then issued a preliminary injunction ordering, on a class- wide basis, that to continue detaining an alien under § 1226(a), the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that an alien is either a flight risk or a danger to the community. The district court also required immigration judges, again on a class-wide basis, to consider an alien’s ability to pay any bond imposed and consider alternatives to detention.
However, under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1), the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue class-wide injunctive relief that enjoined or restrained the process used to conduct § 1226(a) bond hearings. As for the individual relief issued by the district court, the detention procedures adopted for § 1226(a) bond hearings provide sufficient process to
1 We realize that the use of the term “alien” has been the subject of some debate. See e.g., Martinez Rivera v. U.S. Att’y Gen., No. 20-13201, 2021 WL 2836460, at *7 (11th Cir. July 8, 2021). We use the term because Congress used it in the text of the applicable statutes, and the same term is used in the applicable regulations. Our use of the term “alien” is not intended to express any opinion, pejorative or otherwise, about the plaintiffs in this action or others challenging their detention under our immigration laws.
3
satisfy constitutional requirements. For that reason, the aliens are unable to establish a likelihood of success on their due process claims. Nor have they shown that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in their favor or that an injunction is in the public interest. Therefore, we vacate the district court’s preliminary injunction order.
A better quote from the only Panel Judge to get it right, Chief Judge Michael Urbanski of the WDVA, (an Obama appointee) sitting by designation:
While I am mindful of the executive’s vast authority over immigration, it must still
comport with constitutional safeguards. With this balancing in mind, requiring a detained noncitizen to prove he is not a danger to the community or risk of flight is unconstitutionally onerous on an already vulnerable group of defendants and violates due process. In sum, I respectfully dissent and would affirm the district court’s conclusion that the Due Process Clause requires the government to bear the burden of proof at § 1226(a) detention hearings and remand the case to the district court for consideration of § 1252(f)(1) and the availability of class-wide declaratory relief.
********************************
Well, at least one judge got it right!
The Round Table ⚔️🛡 filed an amicus brief in support of the respondents in this case. Additionally, Round Table Member Judge Denise Slavin filed an affidavit (cited by the USDJ) before the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. There, Hon. Catherine C. Blake, Senior District Judge, correctly ruled for the respondents. The Trump DOJ appealed, and Garland decided to continue to advance the prior Administration’s anti-due-process position before the Fourth Circuit.
Gosh, and Dem politicos wonder why it’s hard for them to gin up enthusiasm for the midterms!
PWS
05-15-22
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/05/12/20-17416.pdf
“At the heart of this case is an effort by advocates to learn about the circumstances of an asylum-seeker’s tragic death in federal custody. The Freedom of Information Act exists for just such a purpose—to ensure an informed citizenry, promote official transparency, and provide a check against government impunity. Yet here the advocates’ FOIA requests met first with silence and then with stonewalling; only after the advocates filed suit did the government begin to comply with its statutory obligations. Our task is to discern whether the government’s belated disclosure was “adequate” under FOIA. We conclude that it was not. … REVERSED, VACATED, and REMANDED.”
[Hats off to Irene Lax, Kimberly A. Evans and R. Andrew Free!]
*****************************
As Andrew Free ;pointed out to me, the 9th Circuit suggested some potential “bad faith” at work here in footnote 2 (p. 22):
2 Our conclusion is strengthened by evidence that the Government withheld information under this exemption in an overbroad manner. For instance, ICE redacted a portion of Hernandez’s credible fear interview under Exemption 7(E), but when TLC received an unredacted version from the CoreCivic production, the redacted text read as follows: “I left because my life was threatened by the Maras gang. A group of Maras raped and tried to kill me I was afraid for my life and left Honduras.” This statement from Hernandez could not possibly fall under the category of techniques, procedures, or guidelines. Such a redaction suggests that the agencies may have invoked Exemption 7(E) in an effort to shield prejudicial information. See Pulliam v. EPA, 292 F. Supp. 3d 255, 260 (D.D.C. 2018).
This raises the additional questions of 1) why is this going on in a Dem Administration that promised to restore the rule of law to immigration; and 2) why is Garland’s DOJ defending this nonsense and incredibly shoddy process in Federal Court?
PWS
05-13-22
Here’s the decision (unfortunately unpublished):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/15v7-tVnh-eqBWDWgwBE-Wxqx4rNCH_f8/view?usp=drivesdk
**********************************
There is more helpful, practical guidance in Judge Liebmann’s “two-pager” than in most BIA precedents. So, why isn’t this a precedent?
A.G. Garland overruled Session’s abominable, wrong-headed precedent nearly one year ago. Yet, there has been no further guidance from the BIA on the meaning of the “reinstated A-R-C-G-.” Nor, have the so-called “gender-based regulations” ordered by Biden and referenced by Garland ever seen the light of day.
Meanwhile, there are many cases like this out there in the backlog. Most of them could be granted with proper guidance and supervision from a “Better BIA.” No wonder the backlog continues to grow!
My prediction that the “ascension” (she was a “mere TBM” at the time of this particular decision) of Judge Liebmann to join Judge Saenz on the BIA would be a “breath of fresh air” for practitioners appears to be gaining at least some traction. But, it’s going to take more than two well-qualified judges to pull the BIA out of its current “death spiral.”
PWS
05-13-22
https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1504486/download
Matter of B-Z-R-, Respondent
Decided by Attorney General May 9, 2022
U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General
(1) Matter of G-G-S-, 26 I&N Dec. 339 (BIA 2014), is overruled.
(2) Immigration adjudicators may consider a respondent’s mental health in determining whether an individual, “having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii); see id § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii).
***************************************
Notably, the problem with the BIA’s poor decision-making here goes back to the Obama Administration. Their indolent, tone-deaf approach to EOIR helped “set the table” for the later weaponization and abuses by the Trump DOJ!
As A.G. Garland, and several Circuits, point out, there was no discernible rationale for the BIA’s wrong-headed decision to exclude mental health evidence from the case-by-case determination.
What’s the cost of poor decision making by the BIA?
What if the BIA were composed of experts, committed to due process and best interpretations? Wouldn’t the whole system work better?
PWS
05–10-22
An immigration judge ordered a gay Nigerian man deported over a minor discrepancy. The Ninth Circuit just reversed in a fiery ruling https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/An-immigration-judge-ordered-a-gay-Nigerian-man-17151459.php
When a local security brigade in Nigeria learned Peter Udo and his boyfriend were seen having sex in a hotel room, they seized and beat the couple for six hours and later told Udo he should be put to death.
Udo’s mother used her family savings to enable him to flee the country and he wound up in California, where an immigration judge rejected his plea for asylum and ordered him deported because his description of the events gave a false name for the hotel where he had been captured. That order has now been firmly rejected by a federal appeals court.
The judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals, which upheld the deportation order, failed to give any “reasoned consideration” to the evidence Udo presented, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said Wednesday in a ruling requiring the board to review his claim that he would be tortured if returned to Nigeria.
That evidence included an “excommunication notice,” signed by leaders of the community’s Council of Traditional Rulers, notifying Udo and his family that anyone engaging in homosexual acts is “subjected to public execution” and that his mother and five other relatives were no longer considered citizens of the community.
“Remarkably, the (Board of Immigration Appeals) did not reference the excommunication notice at all” in its ruling that would have returned Udo to Nigeria, Judge M. Margaret McKeown said in the appeals court’s 3-0 decision, which included a copy of the notice.
Udo’s lawyer, David Casarrubias, said the ruling was a victory for asylum seekers.
“The opinion stands for the proposition that although Congress may enact laws that make it harder for asylum seekers to prevail as a result of minor discrepancies in their applications, there are other international laws like the Convention Against Torture that still have teeth,” Casarrubias said.
. . . . .
**********************
Read the rest of Bob’s article at the link.
*******************************
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/21-1296P-01A.pdf
. . . .
The government does again urge us to construe the BIA as having merely affirmed a finding that it attributed to the IJ
10 For this reason, we need not resolve whether, as Ali contends, the IJ violated 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3) by failing to consider all relevant evidence through the way the IJ treated the evidence from Harper in her testimony and March 2020 declaration that bears on Ali’s “security forces”-related ground for CAT-based deferral of removal.
– 30 –
regarding whether it was “more likely than not” that Ali would be subject to abuse severe enough to constitute torture rather than a finding that it attributed to the IJ regarding the limited severity of the abuse that Ali had shown that he was likely to suffer. But, as we explained in connection with Ali’s challenge to the BIA’s “other private actors”-related ruling, the IJ did not make that finding either. And, in any event, as we have noted, that is a strained reading of the BIA’s opinion, given that the opinion expressly quotes only from the portion of the relevant regulations that purports to define how severe abuse must be to constitute torture, see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(2) (“Torture is an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment . . . .”), rather than a regulation concerning how “likely” it must be that the noncitizen will be subjected to abuse that is severe enough to constitute torture, see, e.g., id. §§ 1208.16(c)(2), (4).11
Finally, the government contends that we still must affirm the BIA’s ruling because, although Harper described violence, “she did not describe the injuries to the Somalis she
11 To the extent that the government means to argue here, too, that the BIA itself considered the Harper evidence in question because of the portion of the BIA’s opinion in which the BIA states, “after considering the risk of torture from all sources in the aggregate,” we cannot agree. That statement concerns only what the BIA determined that the IJ considered in making the finding about the severity of the abuse that Ali would face that the BIA attributed to the IJ. But, as we have explained, the IJ made no such finding.
– 31 –
witnessed being beaten or kicked . . . such that the agency could reasonably conclude she provided insufficient detail to show that such abuse by Somali security forces rose to the level of torture or that Ali was at risk that it likely would rise to the level of torture.” But, the IJ did not find that Ali had failed to meet his burden to show that he would likely be tortured by security forces in Somalia on any such basis. Rather, the IJ rejected his “security forces”-related ground for requesting deferral of removal pursuant to the CAT solely because the IJ found that “Harper indicated that the main motivation” of the security forces who “mean to do the respondent harm” is “they are either too busy to protect themselves and therefore they cannot protect other people” or to “harass people based on cultural differences,” such that they would not be acting “with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity” in visiting any abuse on Ali.
. . . .
*******************************
These are complicated cases. Indeed, the 1st Circuit spent 33 pages analyzing this particular case.
By contrast, a supposedly (but, clearly not) “expert” BIA appears to have taken about 5 minutes to “rubber stamp” the clearly defective denials prepared by staff attorneys in these life or death matters! How is this due process or fundamental fairness? No way!
If this were a law school exam, rather than a life or death “court” case, the BIA’s effort probably would have received a “D-“ or an “F.” Yet, Garland finds this ridiculously deficient level of performance acceptable where “only” the rule of law, constitutional due process, and human lives are at stake!
One might expect this from a GOP AG. But, is this really what human rights advocates and progressives elected Biden to churn out?
I say “No.” This is NOT acceptable performance by the BIA! Nor is it acceptable professional performance by Garland, Monaco, Gupta, Prelogar, and the other members of the “Clueless Crew” supposedly in charge of the DOJ!
⚖️Due process for migrants is due process for all in America!
PWS
05-08-22
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/20/20-60617.0.pdf
“This is a consolidated petition seeking review of three orders from the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), affirming decisions from an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying Petitioners’ motions to reopen. For the reasons set forth below, we VACATE the BIA decision and REMAND for reconsideration. … Statutory notice is the central issue in this case. All three family members argued before the BIA that they did not receive proper notice of the removal hearing, and thus that they should not have been removed in absentia. … The reasoning relied on by the BIA in its holding is now foreclosed by Fifth Circuit precedent. In Rodriguez v. Garland, 15 F.4th 351 (5th Cir. 2021), we held that “in the in absentia context,” an NTA must consist of “a single document containing the required information” regarding the removal hearing. Id. at 355. Rodriguez controls the outcome of this case because here, as in Rodriguez, the initial NTAs did not contain the date and time of the removal hearings. Id. And here, just as in Rodriguez, the BIA concluded that the deficiency was cured by a “subsequent notice of hearing specifying that information.” Id. The BIA’s conclusion to that effect was an abuse of discretion, as it was based on an erroneous interpretation of a statute. See Barrios-Cantarero, 772 F.3d at 1021. … Accordingly, we VACATE the three BIA decisions and REMAND the three cases for reconsideration in light of Rodriguez v. Garland, 15 F.4th 351 (5th Cir. 2021).”
[Hats off, yet again, to Raed Gonzalez!]
—
Daniel M. Kowalski
Editor-in-Chief
Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)
cell/text/Signal (512) 826-0323
@dkbib on Twitter
Free Daily Blog: www.bibdaily.com
*******************
Many congrats to fearless NDPA Superstar 🌟 Raed Gonzalez!
Is this just the “tip of the iceberg” 🧊 for rebukes of EOIR’s lousy “jurisprudence” that continues to be an ungodly mess under Garland?
Count on it! As Raed tells me:
Lots out there, and IJ’s keep on issuing in absentias with defective NTA’s. More lawsuits will be coming soon because of the fake dates and times in an attempt to go around Pereira and Chavez. Can’t wait!
It’s what happens when Dem Administrations mindlessly put the wrong folks in charge and and fail to give potential progressive judicial talent — brilliant, practical minds committed to due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices — a chance to straighten out the law and bring order, consistency, and integrity to what certainly is the most important (and currently most dysfunctional) “retail level” judicial system in America!
Compare the available, spectacular progressive judicial talent Biden and Garland HAVEN’T appointed to the “Immigration Bench” with the out of bounds, far right, ignore the Constitution and the law, “turn back the clock” poppycock being spewed forth by Justice Alito and his radical right, GOP, Federalist Society trained buddies on the Supremes and elsewhere! The Biden Administration’s failure to bring long overdue, achievable, beneficial reforms and a wave of better judges to EOIR is a stunning “missed opportunity” that now threatens the very foundations of our democracy!
To put it bluntly: If folks like Raed and other “practical scholars and intellectual powerhouses” from the NDPA were in charge of EOIR and on the “Immigration Bench” these problems wouldn’t exist and real progress would be made in reducing the backlog while enhancing due process!
Folks coming before the Immigration Courts would be receiving justice — rather than blithering nonsense — and our country and the world would be better for it!
PWS
05-06-22
https://www.asylumist.com/2022/04/27/aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah/
Let me tell you about some recent events in my office.
We had two cases set for individual hearings this week. Both cases involve noncitizens who have been waiting years for their decisions, both have family members abroad who they hope to bring to the U.S. if their claims are successful, and both have strong cases for asylum.
For the first case, we prepared and submitted evidence earlier in the pandemic, but the case was postponed at the last minute due to Covid. We were hoping that the new date would stick, given that restrictions are easing and the court now has a system to do cases remotely (called Webex). As the date approached, we filed additional evidence and scheduled two practice sessions for the client. We also regularly checked the Immigration Court online portal, which lists our court dates, to be sure the case was still on the docket.
“Your asylum case is cancelled. Again.”
The second case has also been pending for years. The respondent (the noncitizen in court) is from Afghanistan, and such cases are supposedly receiving priority treatment. So at the Master Calendar Hearing, the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) asked us to be sure to talk to DHS prior to the hearing, presumably in the hope that we would come to an agreement about relief. The IJ also scheduled the hearing for a relatively short time slot in anticipation of a possible uncontested hearing. As with the first case, we filed all the evidence and scheduled the practices.
Both respondents had been in touch with their families overseas and both had talked to their relatives about hopefully reuniting soon.
Then – surprise! – we checked the Immigration Court portal and noticed that both cases had disappeared from the docket. Since the portal pages are sometimes screwy, and since court dates are constantly changing, we decided to wait a bit to see whether the dates reappeared. Informing clients about court delays is always fraught, and can even be traumatic for the clients and their families, who have a lot invested in these dates. So it is better not to inform the client until we are sure a date is canceled.
After some hours, we decided to tell the first client. We had a practice session scheduled for that afternoon, and it would waste time to prepare for a hearing that was not going forward. I called the client and informed him, and as I have often experienced before, he was upset and confused. Why had the case been postponed? Was it something about him or his case? Or was it something about the Court? I could at least inform him that we had two cases canceled on the same date (from two different IJs), and so he should understand that the cancellation was not related to him personally. That is obviously cold comfort, but I guess it is better than nothing. I know it was very upsetting for him to receive this news. It was emotionally exhausting for me as well.
For the next two days, this client kept checking the online court system to see whether anything changed. Then – surprise again! – the case re-appeared on the docket for the same old day and time!
I called the court to confirm, and the clerk told me that the case had been removed by accident, and that it was back on! How lucky! The client told me how upset he had been. He hadn’t been able to sleep or eat. He did not even inform his family back home, as he feared they would not understand or would not believe him. We rescheduled the two practice sessions and mentally re-prepared to go forward.
The next day – surprise again again! – I received a message from the court. The case was definitely off. The clerk apologized for the confusion, and told me that the matter would be set for a date in the future. It would be inappropriate for me to publish here the words that came from my mouth after receiving this message, but let’s just say that I was somewhat agitated. I called the clerk and left a message informing the court how harmful this whole process had been to the respondent, how upset he was, and how he had not seen his family members for years. I also mentioned how upsetting the experience had been for me.
I should say that I do not blame the clerk. He is actually very nice and very responsive (he actually called back and said he will try to get us a new date as soon as possible). The problem is “the system” and complaining to the system is about as effective as punching the ocean. No one is ever responsible, and so there is no one who can be held accountable.
As for client number two, at least he did not suffer the on-again, off-again fate of our first client. But he and his family members were also very upset, and given the IJ’s intention of scheduling the hearing quickly because the respondent is Afghan, it is particularly frustrating that a likely approval should be pushed off until who-knows-when.
What now? For both cases, we will wait a bit to see if new dates appear. Maybe they will. If not, we will file motions to advance, and we will try to get earlier dates. All this is more expense and wasted time for the clients, more work for us, and more work for the court, which will have to review our filings. Last year, I wrote about the harm caused by cancelled hearings, and–despite the easing pandemic and the wide-spread availability of Webex–the problem persists. I’ve mentioned just two cases here, but we see this again and again and again. Not in every case, but it’s common enough that we can never be confident that any particular case will go forward, which makes it much more difficult for respondents and attorneys to prepare for court.
While the situation is bleak, I should mention that the news is not all bad. We are still having some successes. For example, over my Spring Break, I litigated a Syrian case (remotely, with very questionable internet, and in what I believe is the first Immigration Court case in the history of Shickshinny, Pennsylvania). Although it was a close case and DHS generally opposed relief, the IJ explained his reasons for granting and DHS agreed not to appeal. And just yesterday, my client from Pakistan received asylum after a contested hearing. DHS did not appeal.
So if we can actually get to a hearing, it is still possible to win. This is the hope we all need to hold on to, but it would be much easier and much fairer if the system had a modicum of respect for the people it purports to serve.
*******************
Thanks, Jason, for your clear and compelling description of the toxic human and systemic effects of Garland’s continuing “ADR” at EOIR!
Contrary to the “nativist false narrative” promoted under Administrations of both parties, those suffering in the inexcusable EOIR backlog are NOT “evading deportation.” Many, probably the majority, are individuals who are eligible to, and should be granted, the ability to remain in the U.S.
This is particularly true of asylum applicants. Even with a system improperly skewed against them, asylum applicants were winning the majority of their EOIR court cases as recently as FY 2012.
Despite worsening conditions since then in almost all “sending countries,” that rate cratered by about 50% during the Trump regime. It’s fairly obvious that the increased denial rates resulted from perversions of the law, ADR, and an intentional “dumbing down” of both the administrative law and EOIR personnel at all levels.
Garland has taken, at best, “baby steps” to improve the Immigration Courts. He’s merely “nibbling at the edges” where radical house cleaning 🧹and progressive reforms ⚖️ were absolutely necessary, recommended by experts, and achievable — at least had Garland “hit the ground running!”
EOIR should long ago have been replaced with an independent Article I Immigration Court based on the principles of fairness, scholarship, timeliness, respect, teamwork, and most of all, an overriding unswerving commitment to due process and best practices. Judges and administrators should be selected competitively, with private bar input, and exclusively on a merit basis from among those who have demonstrated expertise in immigration and human rights.
As long as EOIR inappropriately continues to reside in the U.S. Department of Justice, there should never, NEVER, again be another Attorney General who does not possess significant experience representing individuals in Immigration Court — the fundamental “retail level” of our entire justice system. Garland ‘s failure to “get the job done for due process and equal justice” — not even close — is “Exhibit A” in what happens when the wrong person is appointed to oversee the Immigration Courts!
At a time when America needed enlightened, inspirational, informed, and courageous legal and ethical leadership for the Immigration Courts, Garland has been “MIA!” American justice, at all levels, is paying the heavy price!☹️
PWS
05-04-22
https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/201856.U.pdf
“This case arises out of an in absentia order against two Petitioners who allege to have arrived one hour and five minutes late to their individual hearing scheduled for several hours. Neither the immigration judge (“IJ”) nor the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) addressed this argument. For the reasons that follow, we find that the BIA abused its discretion when it made no mention of the alleged late arrival in its decision to dismiss the motion to reopen proceedings on appeal. Thus, we reverse and vacate the BIA’s order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. … We vacate and remand with instructions to the BIA to consider Petitioners’ motion to reopen. In doing so, the BIA should determine whether Petitioners arrived late, and if so, whether the surrounding circumstances show that this late arrival constitutes a failure to appear for the purposes of the statute’s preclusive effect.”
[Hats off to Helen Parsonage!]
—
Daniel M. Kowalski
Editor-in-Chief
Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)
cell/text/Signal (512) 826-0323
@dkbib on Twitter
Free Daily Blog: www.bibdaily.com
**************************
Congrats, Helen!
Anybody have a guess as to how many of these “bogus in absentias” are out there right now? Haste makes waste!
PWS
05-03-22
Unfortunately, you have to get “down to the fine print” (page 13 of 20) find the paragraph that should be the “centerpiece of restoring the rule of law” — a functional legal asylum processing at ports of entry that would encourage refugees to present themselves there for fair and humane processing rather than seeking irregular entry with the help of smugglers.
Port of Entry Processing
The imposition of the Title 42 public health Order severely restricted the ability of undocumented noncitizens to present at POEs for inspection and processing under Title 8. The closure of this immigration pathway for much of the time Title 42 has been in effect has driven people between POEs at the hands of the cartels. Returning to robust POE processing is an essential part of DHS border security efforts. Beginning in the summer of 2021, DHS restarted processing vulnerable individuals through POEs under Title 8, on a case-by-case basis for humanitarian reasons, pursuant to the exception criteria laid out in CDC’s Title 42 Order. These efforts, which we have recently expanded, offer individuals in vulnerable situations a safe and orderly method to submit their information in advance and present at POEs for inspection and subsequent immigration processing under Title 8. We also have enhanced Title 8 POE processing through the development of the CBP One mobile application, which powers advanced information submission and appointment scheduling prior to an individual presenting at a POE. We will make this tool publicly available and continue to expand its use to facilitate orderly immigration processing at POEs.
13 of 20
**************************************
The failure of Garland to appoint a new, expert BIA committed to due process and providing fair, practical positive guidance on the generous application of asylum law foreshadowed by INS v. Cardoza Fonseca a quarter of a century ago, but never realized in practice, is likely to become a millstone around the Administration’s neck. There is no substitute for due process and fundamental fairness. The current dysfunctional, mismanaged, and inappropriately staffed EOIR is not capable of providing the necessary leadership, consistency, and accountability.
Also, in light of U.S. District Judge Robert Summerhays’s “off the wall” decision in Arizona v. CDC, it’s not clear that Title 42 will ever be lifted.
PWS
04-29-22
Hi all: A new volume of the AILA Law Journal was released yesterday. It contained an article by Stacy Caplow, co-director of Brooklyn Law School’s Safe Harbor Project, called The Sinking Immigration Court: Change Course, Save the Ship. I’m not sure if all can access it, but the link is:
https://www.aila.org/File/Related/19110103g.pdf#page=40. It is a very much worth reading generally, but I wanted to highlight the following mention of our group at pp. 49-50:
The Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, “a group of 51 former Immigration Judges and Members of the Board of Immigration Appeals who are committed to the principles of due process, fairness, and transparency in our Immigration Court system,” bears witness to the degrading of the court and, speaking with the voice of years of experience, has been an increasingly active and vocal critic of recent developments at the court both before Congress and as amicus curiae.
There are also citations to a couple of our group’s statements (including one to Congress) and an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court in the footnotes.
********************
How come the Biden Administration, and particularly AG Garland, don’t “get it?”
PWS
04-28-22
The issue is whether an in absentia removal order can be based on a statutorily defective notice. The panel followed the Supreme’s decision in Niz-Chavez and rejected the BIA’s conflicting decision in Matter of Laparra. In other words, the panel required the Government to follow the statute, a process known as “complying with the law.” This sent some of this most conservative circuit’s most far-right judges over the edge. Here’s the en banc decision:
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/20/20-60008-CV1.pdf
********************
PWS
04-21-22
Yesterday at 2:08 p.m. EDT
An unfinished area of the border wall between the United States and Mexico near Sasabe, Ariz., on Jan. 23. (Salwan Georges/The Washington Post)
With respect, it was breathtaking how much Marc A. Thiessen’s April 13 op-ed, “Biden to turn border crisis into a total catastrophe,” mistook Trump-era “public health” policy for border security, conflated families fleeing for their lives with fentanyl crossing the U.S. border and carelessly suggested that returning to normal asylum processing means Wild West open borders.
Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates
Seeking asylum is a right guaranteed under U.S. and international law. Ending Title 42 — a policy that weaponizes public health law to shut down the U.S. asylum system, which has been long decried by public health experts — simply means that people fleeing danger can once again exercise their right to apply for protection. It is policies such as Title 42, rather than the act of seeking asylum itself, that cause harm and catastrophe at our border. Title 42 has artificially inflated apprehension numbers because those expelled are left with no choice but to try again and again to seek safety.
Let’s remember that Poland, a country smaller than the state of New Mexico, just took in 2 million refugees in one month. The United States can certainly ensure a fair and orderly asylum system to welcome people with dignity. It’s the right — and legal — thing to do.
Katharina Obser, Washington
The writer is director of the Migrant Rights and Justice program at the Women’s Refugee Commission.
*******************
Thiessen is chronically wrong, misinformed, and misleading. He’s a righty shill. Why the Post finds it necessary to insult its readers by publishing him is beyond me. But, he’s not the problem here! Merely a “toxic symptom.”
The problem is lack of resolve, planning, and commitment to human rights and the legal rights of refugees and asylum seekers within the Biden Administration and by some misguided Dem politicos. The Administration should be screening, organizing, and “pre-processing” asylum claims in Mexico RIGHT NOW, TODAY, so that there is an orderly, timely process in place BEFORE May 23. An “army” of Asylum Officers and NGO volunteers should be working together NOW to determine what easily grantable applications can be moved to the front of the line and actually granted on May 28 when new regulations go into effect.
From what I’ve read and heard, this isn’t happening. The Administration isn’t taking the necessary and available steps to make the system work at ports of entry and to use that success to establish the system’s credibility among asylum seekers and thereby discourage and “dis-incentivize” dangerous and problematic unauthorized entries between ports of entry.
The best way of “shutting down the Abbotts and the Thiessens of the world” is to get a functioning legal system back in place at the border using available legal tools and new regulations to insure that those entitled to asylum are promptly and favorably processed and admitted and that those not entitled to admission or protection are expeditiously returned.
It can be done! But, NOT the dilatory and confused way the Biden Administration appears to be going about it!
Also, a credible system that provides practical precedents and “real life examples” about who does and who does not qualify for asylum would help combat the misinformation about our legal system spread by smugglers, nativists like Thiessen, and disgracefully, some Dems.
That, in turn, should help individuals in countries in crisis to make better, more informed decisions about whether to seek asylum in the U.S. Also, the Biden Administration needs a robust, realistic refugee program for Latin America and the Caribbean. That would make it unnecessary for those who are refugees to come to the border to apply for asylum.
Katharina, you need to pick up the phone, call your contacts in the Biden Administration, and get them off their tails and laser-focused on solving the problems, before it is too late, rather than “wandering in the wilderness.” Sadly, Thiessen isn’t the only one talking nonsense and spreading misinformation!
Supposedly responsible officials in the Biden Administration, those who have disgracefully dragged their collective feet on lifting the Title 42 charade, restoring the rule of law to asylum, and long overdue due process reforms of the Immigration Courts, are “channeling Thiessen.” That’s as idiotic and counterproductive as it is immoral. It’s also “bad politics” — even if some Dems are too blind and scared to admit it!
Inexcusably, the experts who understand what’s happening at the border, the disastrous human effects, and who have the skills and visionary thinking essential to restore the rule of law at the border are largely “on the outside looking in.” But, Katharina, if you and other leaders of the NGO community can’t get the Biden Administration out of their “perma-funk” and focused on pulling out all the stops to fix the asylum system by May 23, their “planned failure” will become your never-ending problem. Worst of all, vulnerable, innocent humans, who want only to be treated fairly and in accordance with law, will continue to suffer unspeakable fates at the hands of our Government’s ineptitude!
PWS
04-18-22
http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=e82dbea7-66e2-4617-93e2-42b7c8f8b4df
. . . .
Last month, the Biden administration unveiled a long-discussed and potentially significant change to expand authority of asylum officers to decide claims, not just initial screenings. It is designed to decide cases in months instead of years, but officials say there are no additional funds for its launch, expected in late May, and to expect a slow start.
Read the complete article at the link.
A “slow start” = DOA! If you’re not going to use it to make asylum work at the Southern Border after the lifting of the Title 42 blockade, when are you going to use it? There are ways that a competent Government could have made this work.
Why push for and tout a change you’re not fully prepared to implement? How come with 16 months to solve a “day 1” problem they campaigned on (for Pete’s sake), the Biden Administration is still “shooting blanks?”
Former insider tip: There are always resources and methods to deal with the “really important stuff” in Government. I was involved in numerous “immigration emergencies” over several decades as a Government executive and manager under Administrations of both parties. I never remember telling anyone or being told “we can’t afford that.” It was always a question of “make it happen,” and we’ll worry about how to pay for it later. So that tells you where an orderly asylum system at the border ranks in this Administration.
As May 23 approaches, the inexcusable failure to reform the Immigration Courts to bring in and empower competent practical scholars with the skills to make the asylum system work in a fair, efficient, manner driven by due process is likely to loom larger and larger, despite Garland’s concerted effort to ignore it. “Expedited dockets,” relying on judges who barely know how to grant asylum, let alone move grants fairly and efficiently through the system, is NOT going to solve the problem.
Actually, a minimally competent Administration could have worked with NGOs over the past month to identify, screen, prioritize, and informally process grants, screen the refugees for COVID, and parole them in under Title 42 exceptions to have their grants “finalized” by Asylum Offices in the U.S. on or shortly after May 28.
But that would take folks with some imagination and the expertise to run rational “expedited procedures” rather than the clueless, backlog enhancing, “Clown Show” 🤡 that Garland and Mayorkas have employed to date!
It would also take officials who really believe that legal asylum is a right and a key part of our legal immigration system that should be embraced, not feared, shunned, and disabled. Obviously, that belief is lacking among the Biden politicos.
Expediting grantable asylum cases without having to go through the Immigration Courts was what the Asylum Offices originally were created to do. But, it appears that the Biden Administration views the Asylum Office more as a potential “denial assembly line” that will move more quickly than the malfunctioning “denial factory” that Sessions and Barr constructed in the Immigration Courts and that Garland has, inexplicably, retained in its “weaponized against asylum seekers” structure and staffing.
“White Guy” cases, like Ukrainians, presumably can be whisked through the new system to success. Meanwhile, “Nonwhite cases” can be killed off rapidly and then assigned to “denial judges,” with records of faithfully killing most asylum cases, to “shoot anything that might still be moving.”
That process doesn’t appear geared to garner much assistance from the only groups who could actually “bail the Administration out” at the border — NGOs and asylum experts. But, despite the human rights rhetoric when seeking votes in 2020, this Administration appears to be more committed to external chaos, protestations of helplessness, and finger-pointing than it does to creative problem-solving and running a fair, functional legal asylum system.
But, I repeat myself, to no avail.
PWS
04-17-22
Secretary Mayorkas Designates Cameroon for Temporary Protected Status for 18 Months
Release Date: April 15, 2022
WASHINGTON— Today, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced the designation of Cameroon for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 18 months. Only individuals who are already residing in the United States as of April 14, 2022, will be eligible for TPS.
“The United States recognizes the ongoing armed conflict in Cameroon, and we will provide temporary protection to those in need,” said Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas. “Cameroonian nationals currently residing in the U.S. who cannot safely return due to the extreme violence perpetrated by government forces and armed separatists, and a rise in attacks led by Boko Haram, will be able to remain and work in the United States until conditions in their home country improve.”
A country may be designated for TPS when conditions in the country fall into one or more of the three statutory bases for designation: ongoing armed conflict, environmental disaster, or extraordinary and temporary conditions. This designation is based on both ongoing armed conflict and extraordinary and temporary conditions in Cameroon that prevent Cameroonian nationals, and those of no nationality who last habitually resided in Cameroon, from returning to Cameroon safely. The conditions result from the extreme violence between government forces and armed separatists and a significant rise in attacks from Boko Haram, the combination of which has triggered a humanitarian crisis. Extreme violence and the widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure have led to economic instability, food insecurity, and several hundred thousand displaced Cameroonians without access to schools, hospitals, and other critical services.
This marks the first time the Secretary of DHS will permit qualifying nationals of Cameroon to remain temporarily in the United States pursuant to a TPS designation of that country. Individuals eligible for TPS under this designation must have continuously resided in the United States since April 14, 2022. Individuals who attempt to travel to the United States after April 14, 2022 will not be eligible for TPS. Cameroon’s 18-month designation will go into effect on the publication date of the forthcoming Federal Register notice. The Federal Register notice will provide instructions for applying for TPS and an Employment Authorization Document (EAD). TPS applicants must meet all eligibility requirements and undergo security and background checks.
###
******************
According to TRAC, there were 3,191 pending Cameroonian cases in Immigration Court as of March 22, 2022. https://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/court_backlog/. On the basis of my experience, I would guess that most of these are in the mid-Atlantic region.
Cameroonian asylum cases were a “staple” in Arlington over my 13 years on the bench ending on June 30, 2016. For example, in FY 2012, they were approximately 9% of my asylum docket, although that number dwindled between then and my retirement.
According to EOIR’s first quarter FY 2022 stats, the asylum grant rate for Cameroon is about 60%, and the denial rate is only 6%. https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1107366/download
The other 1/3 of cases are disposed of in “other” ways. This indicates that with TPS as a tool, almost all of the pending Cameroonian cases at EOIR could be resolved in short order without diminishing anyone’s rights.
That’s a “drop in the bucket” on a 1.8 million case backlog. But, it does suggest that better docket management tools, ones that comply with due process, are available to Immigration Judges and could be built upon for the future with more visionary and due-process-focused leadership at EOIR and DOJ.
Sadly, this profile also confirms that the Biden Administration’s illegal use of Title 42 to return Cameroonians to harm’s way without an opportunity to apply for asylum has been exactly the race-based, grotesque violation of asylum laws, human rights, and human dignity that critics have asserted.
It also graphically demonstrates why real Democrats, core progressive supporters who put Biden and company in office, must aggressively stand up against the disgraceful agitation by a minority of Dem legislators and uninformed, amoral politicos within the Administration to retain the already totally unjustifiable Title 42 blockade!
Continuing violation of domestic and international law through use of Title 42 is NOT, I repeat NOT, an option! Yes, the Administration needs to get a plan in place for an orderly restoration of asylum processing for Cameroonians, Haitians, Latin Americans, Ukrainians, Russians, Afghans, and all other nationalities at our Southern Border.
Fair, humane, advance processing of those seeking asylum at the border NOW is the essential key to avoiding a mess on May 23. Pumping credibility, efficiency, humanity, and proper generosity into the asylum system at the border NOW will reduce the chances of an “immediate backlog” come May 23.
More importantly, showing that our laws can work in a fair, humane, and efficient way will encourage individuals seeking asylum to come to legal ports of entry to apply, rather than seeking more dangerous and difficult irregular entry that does not hold out the same prospects for rapidly obtaining legal status. Why wouldn’t legitimate asylum seekers present themselves at legal ports of entry if we had a fair, functioning, transparent system for processing them?
By eliminating the need and reducing the motivation for legal asylum seekers to attempt irregular entries to obtain refuge, the traffic between ports of entry should be reduced even though of course not eliminated. And the “expedited removal” procedures available under current law to CBP for those apprehended without credible asylum claims while attempting unauthorized entires are perfectly adequate to quickly process removals of those with no legal claim to be here!
Assuming that all or most asylum seekers will attempt unauthorized entries between legal ports will become a dangerous “self-fulfilling prophecy.” Yet, to the extent that the Biden Administration has a plan, it appears to be driven by the misguided notion that all the “action” will be at unauthorized crossing points. See, e.g., https://immigrationimpact.com/2022/04/12/what-is-bidens-plan-to-end-title-42/ (a sad commentary on wobbly, uninformed, unprincipled, pedestrian, un-creative thinking about an important solvable problem if I’ve ever seen one).
That’s only going to happen if the Administration continues to ignore the pressing need for immediate steps to establish the credibility of the asylum system at ports of entry.
The Administration went to considerable trouble to establish a “new” regulatory framework for processing asylum claims at the border (which becomes effective on May 28). I was one of those who pointed out serious flaws in the new system adopted.
One of the main defects is that for integrity, legal guidance, and effective supervision it heavily relies on Garland’s dysfunctional, hopelessly backlogged, and still anti-asylum-tilted Immigration Courts, at least where some of the common types of asylum applications at the border, like those from Northern Triangle countries, are concerned. These “courts that aren’t really courts” have shown a disturbing lack of asylum expertise and little effective commitment to a fair and practical application of asylum laws nationwide. It’s basically still a “denial factory” — just as Sessions and Barr staffed and manipulated it to be. That has spelled disaster in the past and will continue to do so in the future unless it can be “sidestepped” by granting more cases at the border without calling on these “courts.”
There’s where the “new system” has potential to work! One key advantage of the “new system” that many of us applauded is the potential for the USCIS Asylum Office expeditiously to grant many more claims at or near the border, thus entirely avoiding the broken Immigration Courts, prolonged detention, and releasing individuals to the interior without status.
As asylees, refugees can be admitted in a legal, work-authorized status right off the bat. Not only does that eliminate the never-ending debate about appearing for later Immigration Court hearings, but it also helps the economy and resettlement by putting individuals anxious to support themselves and their families directly into the workforce at a time when we need workers in many segments of the economy! It also avoids the current wildly inconsistent, unprincipled, and often defective asylum adjudication that now plagues Garland’s Immigration Courts, particularly in border areas and detention centers.
But, success isn’t going to happen by “magical thinking,” operating in “Stephen Miller’s world,” repeating platitudes about border crises, and reviving the past mistakes of “enforcement/deterrence only regimes.” I call BS! A “border crisis” is what happened in Poland! We’re not even remotely close to that!
It requires the Biden Administration to get the lead out, shut down the “naysayers,” work with NGOs, and get the expertise and manpower in place NOW at ports of entry and in Mexico to achieve success on May 23! But, continuing the illegal Title 42 charade/blockade is not an option that is on the table!
PWS
04-16-22
