"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.
Immigration judges and employees at the Executive Office of Immigration Review said the agency’s informal policy to keep offices and courts open puts deportations over workers’ safety.
APRIL 20, 2020 05:31 PM ET
For weeks, employees at the Executive Office of Immigration Review’s immigration courts and offices have noticed a trend: whenever someone exhibits coronavirus symptoms, the agency quietly shuts the facility down for a day or two, cleans the office, and then reopens.
The frequency of these incidents, combined with the apparent refusal by management to take more proactive steps, like temporarily closing immigration courts altogether or instituting telework for EOIR support staff, have employees and judges fearing that the Trump administration is more concerned with keeping up the volume of immigration case decisions than the health of its own workforce.
Since Government Executive first reported on an instance of an employee with COVID-19 symptoms at a Falls Church, Virginia, EOIR office last week, there have been three additional incidents at that facility, including one where the person eventually tested positive for coronavirus. An office in the Dallas-Fort Worth area also was closed for two days in March after someone exhibited symptoms of the virus.
Additionally, the agency has announced on its official Twitter account more than 30 immigration court closures, most only for one or two days, across the country. Although in most instances officials do not explain the closures, National Association of Immigration Judges President Ashley Tabaddor said that if there is no reason listed, “you can be sure” it is a result of coronavirus exposure.
“Everything is reactive,” Tabbador said. “They put everyone at risk, and then when there’s an incident reported, they shut down the court for a day and then force people to come back to work. At Otay Mesa [in San Diego] there’s a huge outbreak, but they still haven’t shared that information . . . Sometimes we get the info and sometimes we don’t, so we don’t know how accurate or complete it is. There’s no faith that everyone who needs to be notified has been notified.”
Nancy Sykes, president of the American Federation of Government Employees Local 2525, which represents staff at EOIR’s office in Falls Church said the amount of information provided to employees about coronavirus-related incidents has actually decreased in recent weeks. Although after the first incident, EOIR Director James McHenry emailed staff and provided information about when the employee was symptomatic and in the office, subsequent notifications were sent out by Acting Board of Immigration Appeals Chairman Garry Malphrus and omitted key information about when symptomatic individuals were in the building.
“Employees are scared, they’re concerned,” Sykes said. “They don’t really trust what’s coming from management just because of the lack of details being shared. There’s a lag in information: by the time something is revealed, so much time has passed, so nobody’s clear how that process works and why it takes so long to get notice out to employees.”
In a statement, EOIR spokeswoman Kathryn Mattingly said that the agency “takes the safety, health and well-being of employees very seriously,” but that the workforce is critical to ensuring the due process of detained suspected undocumented immigrants.
“Accordingly, EOIR’s current operational status is largely in line with that of most courts across the country, which have continued to receive and process filings and to hold critical hearings, while deferring others as appropriate,” Mattingly wrote. “Recognizing that cases of detained individuals may implicate unique constitutional concerns and raise particular issues of public safety, personal liberty, and due process, few courts have closed completely.”
A Series of Half Measures
Agency management has taken some steps to mitigate employees’ exposure to COVID-19. On March 30, the agency postponed all hearings related to individuals who are not being detained while they await adjudication. The agency is also encouraging the use of teleconferencing, video-teleconferencing and the filing of documents by mail or electronically, and some attorneys, paralegals and judges have been able to make use of telework to reduce the amount of time they spend in the office.
But thus far, the agency has refused to postpone hearings for detained individuals, a matter that is now the subject of a federal lawsuit brought by immigration advocates and attorney groups. And the agency has denied telework opportunities to support staff in EOIR offices and immigration courts across the country.
Sykes said the lack of telework is in part a capacity issue—the agency does not have the amount of laptops on hand to distribute to employees. But she suggested that local management may be prohibited from encouraging workplace flexibilities by agency or department leadership.
“We’ve asked management about doing something where you could have employees come in shifts every other day, or over a week’s time in rotation to pick up and drop off work materials, so that there’s less exposure when coming into the office,” she said. “But they said they have not been authorized to make those types of changes to our business. When my board management says they don’t have the authority, that means it’s over their heads.”
Tabaddor said she has heard similar stories that everything judges and supervisors authorize regarding coronavirus response must be “cleared” by someone up the chain of command.
“Supervisory judges, our first line of supervisory contact, they were told that they cannot put anything in writing about the pandemic or COVID,” she said. “Anything they want to do related to that has to be cleared by HQ and, essentially, the White House. So, to date, they haven’t been told what standards and protocols are to be used. The only thing they’ve been told is if there’s a report of any incident, they are to kick it up to HQ and wait for instructions.”
On Monday, McHenry sent an email to EOIR employees announcing that the agency has ordered face masks for employees to wear when they report to the office, and said they would be available “next week.”
“Once delivered, supervisors will provide their staff with information regarding distribution to employees who are not telework eligible and are working in the office,” McHenry wrote. “Even while using face coverings, however, please continue to be vigilant in maintaining social distancing measures to the maximum extent practicable and in following CDC guidance.”
Production Over People
Agency employees said what they have seen over the last month suggests that the agency is prioritizing working on its more than 1 million case backlog, and enabling the Homeland Security Department to continue to apprehend suspected undocumented immigrants, at the expense of the wellbeing of its workforce.
“Everything is designed under the rubric that the show must go on,” Tabbador said. “While we’ve been focused on public health first . . . the department says, ‘Nope, we need to make sure that the machinery continues. To the extent that we can acknowledge social distancing as long as business continues, we can do it. But between business and health considerations, business as usual supersedes health.”
Sykes said the agency’s resistance to making basic changes to protect its employees is troubling.
“To me, the only other explanation is the immense backlog that we have of immigration appellate cases building up, and the need to continue working on that backlog even in light of the current pandemic,” she said. “It’s very unnerving, because I believe this will continue, and I don’t have any other indication that we’re not going to just continue operations as is. We now finally have a confirmed case [in the building] and there’s still no change.”
In an affidavit filed in response to the lawsuit seeking to postpone immigration court hearings for detained individuals, McHenry said he has given individual immigration courts leeway to respond as needed to the COVID-19 outbreak in their communities.
“Because COVID-19 has not affected all communities nationwide in the same manner and because EOIR’s dockets vary considerably from court to court, the challenges presented by COVID-19 are not the same for every immigration court,” McHenry wrote. “In recognition of these variances and of the fact that local immigration judges and court staff are often in the best position to address challenges tailored to the specifics of their court’s practices, EOIR has not adopted a ‘one size fits all’ policy for every immigration court, though it has issued generally-applicable guidance regarding access to EOIR space, the promotion of practices that reduce the need for hearings, and the maximization of the use of telephonic and means through which to hold hearings.”
But he also suggested it could hamper the work of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the ability of the Border Patrol to keep arresting suspected undocumented immigrants.
“The blanket postponement of all detained cases in removal proceedings, including initial master calendar hearings for aliens recently detained by DHS, would make it extremely difficult for DHS to arrest and detain aliens prospectively, even aliens with significant criminal histories or national security concerns, because of the uncertainty of how long an alien would have to remain in custody before being able to obtain a hearing in front of an [immigration judge] that may lead to the alien’s release,” he wrote.
*******************************
Thanks, Laura, for “packaging” this so neatly for further distribution! And many thanks to Erich Wagner over at Government Executive for “keeping on” this story he originally reported and that I also posted @ Courtside. https://wp.me/p8eeJm-5mO
Nice to know that someone is looking out for the public interest here, even if EOIR isn’t.
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”
Wow, these self-serving “GrimGrams” ☠️⚰️ from McHenry must be very comforting to the EOIR employees 😰🧫 whose health 🤮 and safety ☠️ is on the line, not to mention the possibility that they will eventually infect their own families.😰
Deportations over safety, sanity and public health at EOIR. It’s just “business as usual” in the Clown Courts! 🤡
“We must now decide three issues: (1) whether persons who publicly provide assistance to law enforcement against major Salvadoran gangs constitute a cognizable particular social group for purposes of asylum and withholding of removal under the INA, (2) whether Guzman has established that he suffered past persecution on account of anti-gang political opinion imputed to him, and (3) whether the BIA correctly applied the framework we enunciated in Myrie v. Attorney General1 in denying Guzman relief under the CAT. For the reasons that follow, we hold that persons who publicly provide assistance against major Salvadoran gangs do constitute a particular social group, that Guzman has failed to meet his burden to show that imputed anti-gang political opinion was a central reason for the treatment he received, and that the BIA erred in its application of Myrie to Guzman’s application. Accordingly, we will vacate the BIA’s decision and remand this case for further proceedings on Guzman’s petition for relief from removal.”
[Hats off to J. Wesley Earnhardt Troy C. Homesley, III Brian Maida (ARGUED) Cravath, Swaine & Moore!]
***************************
*** I believe that the Third Circuit uses “Attorney General” rather than the name of the particular Attorney General in their immigration citation.
Before: RESTREPO, ROTH and FISHER, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Roth.
Distortion of evidence and law happens all the time in this dysfunctional system now operated to deny basic due process and fundamental fairness to endangered individuals. Frankly, the Judges of the Third Circuit and other Courts of Appeals should be more than just “troubled” by the BIA’s legal incompetence and anti-immigrant decision-making. This isn’t just some “academic exercise.” The lives of innocent individuals are being put at risk by the ongoing fraud at EOIR under Barr!
This one-sided politically and prosecutorially-dominated charade of a “court system” is clearly unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to our Constitution. Not everyone has the ability to appeal to the Circuit Courts and be fortunate enough to get a panel that actually looks critically at the case, rather than just “rubber stamping” the BIA’s decisions or giving them “undue deference” like all too many Article III Judges do. Most asylum seekers aren’t represented by Cravath, Swaine & Moore, one of America’s top law firms.
Indeed, many asylum applicants are forced by the Government to proceed without any counsel and don’t have the foggiest notion of what’s happening in Immigration Court. How would an unrepresented individual or a child challenge the Immigration Judge’s or the BIA’s misapplication of the “three-part test” for “particular social group?” How would they go about raising failure to apply the applicable Circuit precedent in Myrie v. Attorney General?
Even with the best representation, as was present in this case, under pressure from political bosses like Sessions, Whitaker, and Barr, Immigration Judges and BIA Appellate Judges constantly look for “reasons to deny” relief even where the case clearly has merit, as this one does! If against these odds, the respondent “wins,” or achieves something other than an outright “loss,” Barr can merely reach in and change the result to favor DHS Enforcement.
More outrageously, he can make that improper and unethical decision a so-called “precedent” for other cases. How totally unfair can a system get? Is there any other “court system” in America where the prosecutor or the opposing party gets to select the judges, evaluate their performance under criteria that allow for no public input whatsoever, and then change results at both the trial and appellate level? How is this consistent with Due Process or basic judicial ethics, both of which require a “fair, impartial, and unbiased decision-maker.” In the “real world,” the mere “appearance” of impropriety or bias is enough to disqualify a judge from acting. Here “actual (not apparent) bias” is institutionalized and actively promoted!
The ongoing legal, ethical, and Constitutional problems at EOIR are quite obvious. For the Article III Courts to merely “tisk tisk” without requiring that immigration adjudications comply with basic Constitutional, statutory, and ethical requirements is a disservice to the public that continues to demean and undermine the role of the Article III Courts as an independent judiciary.
Due Process Forever! Captive Courts & Complicit Judges, Never!
“Hector Daniel Lopez Ordonez was conscripted into the Guatemalan military when he was 15 years old. As part of the G-2 intelligence unit, Lopez Ordonez was ordered— and repeatedly refused—to torture and kill people. After a particularly horrific incident in which Lopez Ordonez refused to murder a five-month-old baby and threatened to report the G-2’s abuses to human rights organizations, the G-2 confined him to a hole in the ground for ten months. Upon his release, he fled to the United States. Lopez Ordonez now petitions this Court to review an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his asylum application and ordering his removal to Guatemala. The BIA determined that Lopez Ordonez did not meet the nexus requirement to establish his eligibility for asylum—that is, he did not show past persecution on account of a statutorily protected ground. The record in this case, however, compels us to conclude that Lopez Ordonez has demonstrated that one central reason for his persecution by the Guatemalan military was his political opinion, a protected ground under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). Accordingly, we vacate the BIA’s nexus determination and remand for further proceedings.”
“Chief Judge Gregory wrote the opinion, in which Judge Wilkinson and Judge Wynn joined.”
Beneath the smokescreens of the uncontrolled backlog and gross mismanagement at EOIR lies an uglier truth. The BIA is a politically motivated tool of the Trump regime that puts reaching preconceived denials of protection ahead of Due Process and the fair application of asylum law.
This case should have been an easy grant, probably a precedent. By requiring the DHS, the Asylum Office, and Immigration Judges to follow a properly fair and generous interpretation of asylum law that would achieve its overriding purpose of protection, an intellectually honest BIA with actual legal expertise in applying asylum laws would force an end to the racially-driven intentional perversion of asylum laws and Due Process by the Trump regime.
More cases granted at a lower level would discourage the largely frivolous attempts to deny asylum engaged in by the DHS here. It would reduce the backlog by returning asylum and other protection grants to the more appropriate 60%+ levels they were at before first the Obama Administration and now the Trump regime twisted the laws and employed various coercive methods to encourage improper denials to “deter” legitimate refugees from Central America and elsewhere from seeking protection.
With fair access to legal counsel, many more asylum cases could be well-documented and granted either by the USCIS Asylum Office (without going to Immigration Court) or in “short hearings” using party stipulations. The ability to project with consistency favorable outcomes allows and encourages ICE Assistant Chief Counsel to be more selective in the cases that they choose to fully litigate. That encourages the use of stipulations, pre-trial agreements, and prosecutorial discretion that allows almost all other courts in America, save for Immigration Courts, to control dockets without stomping on individual rights.
It would also force all Administrations to establish robust, realistic refugee programs for screening individuals nearer to the Northern Triangle to obviate the need for the journey to the Southern border. Additionally, compliance with the law would pressure our Government to work with the international community to solve the issues causing the refugee flow at their roots, in the refugee-sending countries, rather than misusing the U.S. legal system and abusing civil detention as “deterrents.”
NEW YORK — Dr. P. has to be reminded to take breaks during her 12-hour emergency-room shifts — to drink water so she doesn’t get dehydrated; to go to the bathroom; even just to breathe for a few minutes alone, unencumbered by layers of sweaty, suffocating personal protective equipment.
It can be hard to remember to pause because there’s too much to do. Too many patients, everywhere, wheezing and gasping for air. Even before the ER was overwhelmed, she had been reluctant to step away. In mid-March, as patients were surging into emergency departments, she requested to cancel some scheduled time off.
“I asked to keep working, rather than just sit at home and do nothing,” she said. “It’s a helpless feeling sitting at home, knowing that things are getting worse at the hospital.”
But if the Supreme Court lets the Trump administration have its way, she might have to stop her lifesaving work, permanently.
[[Full coverage of the coronavirus pandemic]]
P. is a “dreamer,” one of the 825,000unauthorized immigrants brought to the United States as children who have received protection under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. (I’m using only her last initial because she fears attracting attention to her family, which is still undocumented.)
DACA, created by the Obama administration in 2012, shields these young immigrants from deportation and allows them to work. An estimated 29,000 are health-care workers like P. and on the front lines of the coronavirus pandemic.
After the Trump administration announced in 2017 that it planned to terminate the program, one of the more prescient outcries came from the medical community. In a Supreme Court filing, a consortium of medical colleges and aligned groups warned that the industry depends heavily on not just immigrant workers but specifically on DACA recipients, and that ending DACA would weaken the country’s ability to respond to the next pandemic.
[[Sign up for our Coronavirus Updates newsletter to track the outbreak. All stories linked in the newsletter are free to access.]]
For now, those who had DACA protections before the legal battles began are able to continue renewing them while the courts deliberate. For people such as P. — and the patients who rely on her care — this has been a godsend, if an imperfect one given her career choice.
The education and training required to become a doctor are an exceptionally long undertaking, and DACA offers only two years of protections before renewal is required (though it was never guaranteed). There was always a chance she might not be able to actually practice medicine after years of schooling and taking on hundreds of thousands of dollars in student debt.
Still, P. committed herself to finding a way to become a doctor. She applied for and received DACA status, completed college (in three years, to save money) and persuaded a highly ranked medical school to give its first-ever slot to a dreamer.
She’s in her first year of residency in emergency medicine. Each day, after she takes off her protective gear and attempts to wash off both “the virus and the fear,” she goes home and worries about whether she will be allowed to complete her residency. Losing DACA would mean losing her ability to repay her loans, treat desperate patients, even stay in the only country she has ever known. She’s been here since age 2.
She’s on edge, waiting for the Supreme Court to decide whether the way the Trump administration ended DACA was lawful. Tremendous uncertainty surrounds the range of possible outcomes, from no changes at all to every DACA recipient losing protections immediately. In oral arguments last fall, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. suggested terminating DACA would result in dreamers losing their work authorization but that deportation was not at issue; Trump administration officials have since made clear they are, in fact, reopening removal proceedings.
. . . .
**************
Read the forested of Catherine’s article at the link.
The lower Federal Courts unanimously did the right thing here by protecting the Dreamers from irrational Executive overreach based on an invidious racially-tainted White Nationalist agenda and a transparently bogus legal rationale. There was no reason for the Supremes to even take the case. Dismissing the Government’s poorly reasoned, bad faith case against the Dreamers should be a “no brainer” for the Supremes. The lower court decisions provide numerous solid reasons for doing so.
Nevertheless, to date, J.R. and his GOP colleagues have yet to find a White Nationalist immigration policy by the Trump regime that they didn’t “greenlight.” If, as expected, they do it again here, the results for both America and the Dreamers will be horrendous.
“We hold that the BIA violated due process by relying on undisclosed evidence that Zerezghi and Meskel did not have an opportunity to rebut. In making its initial determination of marriage fraud, the BIA also violated due process by applying too low a standard of proof. On remand, it must establish marriage fraud by at least a preponderance of the evidence before it can deny any subsequent immigration petition based on such a finding.”
Robert Pauw Founding Partner Gibbs, Houston & Pauw Seattle, WA
********************
How totally perverse has the EOIR system become?
Well, the BIA’s sole function is to insure Due Process for individualsand to apply top-flight expertise and scholarship to keep the Immigration Courts, ICE, CBP, and USCIS in line and following the law and best practices.
Instead, the BIA has become a corner-cutting, sloppy, “rubber stamp” on DHS Enforcement and USCIS “enforcement wannabes.” Remember, early on, the Trump regime made it clear that service to the public, i.e., immigrants, their families, and their communities, was no longer “part of the mission” at USCIS. Instead, the mission is to help ICE & CBP institute politically-driven White Nationalist xenophobic enforcement initiatives.
USCIS was created as a separate agency under DHS specifically to allow service to the immigrant community to flourish without the subservience to law enforcement often present and institutionalized at the “Legacy INS.” However, this regime and its toadies in DHS “Management” have seen fit to recreate the very same conflicts of interest and enforcement dominance that USCIS was created to overcome. In most ways, things are far worse than they ever were at the “Legacy INS.” And, let’s remember that USCIS is funded largely by user fees collected from the public on the now largely fictional rationale that they are getting valuable and professionalized services. What a complete mess and abuse of public funding!
Moreover, given the BIA’s lousy performance, rather than assisting the Article III Courts, it now all too often falls to the Article IIIs to keep the BIA in line and do its job for it. But, given the wide disparity in interest levels, expertise, and integrity among the Article IIIs, the results have been spotty.
Some Article III Judges step up and do the job; others sweep the chronic problems under the table and look the other way as rights are trampled and service to the public mocked. And, no Article III to date has been courageous and scholarly enough to take on the real problem: the glaring unconstitutionality under the Due Process Clause of a so-called “court” controlled, staffed, and evaluated by a highly biased prosecutor empowered to reverse individual case outcomes that don’t match his political agenda!
A glimpse of future horrors to come: Emboldened by Article III complicity, and egged on by the White Nationalist nativists, EOIR now outrageously proposes to charge astronomically higher fees for its shabby, biased, and ever deteriorating “work product.” This is a transparent attempt to further restrict access to justice for the most vulnerable among us. Another clear denial of Due Process!
Yes, Congress is responsible. Yes, Congress is largely in failure. But, that doesn’t absolve the Article IIIs of their duty to the Constitution, the rule of law, and human decency. Will they finally wake up, act with some courage, and do their jobs? Or, will they engage in further “judicial task avoidance” until it’s too late for all of us?
Immigration Review Office Remains Open Despite Potential COVID-19 Exposure
Most support staff at the Executive Office of Immigration Review in Falls Church, Va., remain unable to telework even after two floors had to be deep cleaned after an employee exhibited coronavirus symptoms at work last week.
The agency responsible for conducting removal proceedings in immigration courts still is not providing telework for many of its employees, even after an employee exhibited coronavirus symptoms at work.
On April 8, an employee on the 20th floor of the Executive Office of Immigration Review’s office in Falls Church, Va., which the agency shares with the Social Security Administration, had symptoms consistent with COVID-19, although the employee has not been tested for the virus.
As a result, employees on that floor and the 21st and 22nd floors were temporarily sent home on weather and safety leave until contractors could conduct a deep cleaning. The 21st and 22nd floor employees returned to work Friday, while the 20th floor reopened on Monday, except to those who came in contact with the employee, who are now undergoing a 14-day quarantine.
“I want to advise you that an EOIR employee working on the 20th floor of the Skyline Tower Building has displayed symptoms of COVID-19,” wrote Executive Office of Immigration Review Director James McHenry in an email to employees last week. “The employee is now self-quarantined for two weeks and all persons identified as close contacts have been advised of their interaction with the symptomatic employee. We are conducting an enhanced cleaning of the 20th and 21st floors and the building’s common areas in compliance with [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] guidelines. The CDC guidance does not indicate that any additional EOIR spaces would require cleaning.”
An agency employee, who requested anonymity out of fear of reprisal, said that employees on the 17th floor were told that if they were uncomfortable continuing to work in the office, they would have to take personal leave. And they said that while the attorneys and paralegals may work remotely, the agency still is not allowing most support staff and clerks to telework, citing a lack of laptops.
“Unlike at the immigration judge level, we’re still fully operational,” the employee said. “There’s been no change, no modification to the way we’re operating. We’re 100% fully staffed and we have attorneys, paralegals and support staff.”
The office remains open despite guidance from the Office of Personnel Management and the Office of Management and Budget urging agencies to “maximize telework” for employees wherever possible. Additionally, Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and Assistant Attorney General for Administration Lee Lofthus directed Justice Department components to “move to a posture of maximum telework” in the Washington, D.C., region beginning March 16.
“Components should exploit all flexibilities in their telework policies, including adjusting duties and work to expand availability of telework to employees whose duties did not previously support telework, and even if the employee would only have enough duties to telework for part of a work day,” Lofthus wrote.
The EOIR employee said the agency has been resistant to implementing a continuity of operations plan that would prioritize detainee cases over non-detainee cases, as immigration courts have done to reduce the time needed to be in the office, and said they fear the agency is more concerned with “keeping up production numbers” than employees’ well-being.
“Why can’t we go into COOP status to minimize staff in the office?” the employee said. “We could go into only working detained cases, just like the courts, and we wouldn’t need as many staff. And with a smaller docket, maybe we could introduce rotations or stagger shifts. Right now the only option to stagger shifts is allowing some employees to work from 6 a.m. until 3 and then someone else could work later.”
The employee noted that, by comparison, when there was a positive coronavirus case among the Social Security Administration’s employees in the building, the agency completely evacuated the office, and employees have not returned since.
“Why did we come back to work so much faster [than Social Security]?” they asked. “SSA had one incident and they’re on 17 different floors, and they haven’t been back.”
The agency did not respond to a request for comment.
**********************
Interestingly, in past “Government shutdowns,” most EOIR HQ personnel were deemed “nonessential” and told to say home. Now, with a true emergency that could affect employee health and safety, and with the Immigration Courts’ “non-detained docket” — more than 95% of the EOIR workload — shut down, it becomes necessary to drag HQ staff in. To do what? Exactly what “essential services” are being performed that justify risking the health and safety of employees, their families, and their communities?
But, I suppose it’s no surprise that an agency sitting on a largely self-created backlog of 1.4 million cases, with no plausible plan for dealing with it, would essentially tell its own employees to “show up and hope for the best.”
Professor Geoffrey Hoffman Immigraton Clinic Director University of Houston Law Center
Geoffrey writeS in ImmigrationProf Blog.
A Stunning Fifth Circuit Asylum Decision: An Analysis of Inestroza-Antonelli v. Barr by Geoffrey Hoffman, Clinical Professor, University of Houston Law Center
I was moved this morning to write about a recent decision from the Fifth Circuit. This is an insightful and sensitive decision from the 2-person panel’s majority, Judges Dennis and King, with Judge Jones dissenting. The April 9th decision is Inestroza-Antonelli v. Barr.
In the very first paragraph, the essence of the decision is announced: “Without addressing the coup, the BIA found that any change in gender based violence was incremental or incidental and not material. Because this conclusion is not supported by the record, we grant the petition and remand.” Id. at 1.
Procedurally, the case involved an in absentia order of removal from 2005. In 2017, the petitioner moved to reopen proceedings outside the 90-day deadline for such motions based on a change in country conditions in Honduras. The petitioner argued that in Honduras since the time of her original removal order there had been “a 263.4 percent increase in violence against women since 2005.” She submitted a trove of documents to support her motion. The Immigration Judge, and Board on appeal denied her motion to reopen.
As recounted in the panel’s decision, there had been a military coup in Honduras in 2009. Specifically, there were several principal changes in the country as a result: “(1) the Gender Unit of the Honduran National Police, established between 2004 and 2005, has been restricted in its operations, and access to the Unit is now limited or nonexistent; (2) the power of the Municipal Offices for Women to address domestic violence has been severely diluted, and officials have been removed from their positions for responding to women’s needs, especially those related to domestic violence; (3) institutional actors have targeted women for violence, including sexual violence, and threatened the legal status of over 5,000 nongovernmental women’s, feminist, and human rights organizations that have opposed the post-coup government’s policies; (4) the rate of homicides of women more than doubled in the year after the coup and has continued to steadily increase, ultimately becoming the second highest cause of death for women of reproductive age; and (5) in 2014, the status of the National Institute for Women was downgraded and other resources for female victims of violence were eliminated….”
The crux of the Immigration Judge’s decision in denying her motion to reopen was that the violence suffered by women in Honduras is an “ongoing problem” and the increase allegedly did not represent a “change in country conditions.” The Board, in its decision, did not even mention the coup, finding instead that the IJ had not clearly erred” because the evidence reflected only an “incremental or incidental,” rather than a “material” change in country conditions.
I would like to point out several noteworthy and instructive aspects of this excellent decision.
First, in analyzing her claim, the Fifth Circuit’s majority noted, as is usual, that the government had introduced “no conflicting evidence.” Indeed, they did not introduce any evidence of country conditions in Honduras at all. Instead, on appeal they “cherry-pick[ed]” excerpts from the evidence introduced by the petitioner. Most typically, the relied on a 2014 Department of State report describing the availability of “domestic violence shelters and municipal women’s offices.”
This first point is important because it accurately describes what is typical of these asylum proceedings. The government often relies on little beyond the State report, and introduces no other evidence of its own. The result sometimes leads to tortured arguments on appeal, nitpicking before the Board, or unfair conclusions before the immigration judge.
It is frustrating sometimes when we litigate these cases and we see parties attempt to shoehorn their conclusions into preconceived molds. This selective reasoning should be called out more often. Many times when confronted with a record that contains a treasure trove of material that is largely favorable to the immigrant, the government is at a loss about how to respond on appeal. Instead of agreeing to a remand, they are faced with defending a sparse record with support for their position. As such, they have to (assuming they do not agree to a remand) cull through the record to find anything to shore up the precarious reasoning in the administrative decisions below.
Second, the majority rejects reliance on a prior case where a petitioner had not presented sufficient evidence of changed country conditions. As astutely pointed out by the majority, it makes no sense to hold that the current petitioner is unable to meet her evidentiary burden merely because a prior petitioner had failed to do so. In the words of the majority, “to hold that Inestroza-Antonelli is precluded from proving that conditions changed as a factual matter during this period simply because a previous petitioner failed to do so would violate the ‘basic premise of preclusion’—i.e., ‘that parties to a prior action are bound and nonparties are not bound.’ Id. at 7 (citing 18A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4449 (3d ed. 2019)). It is refreshing to see a panel rely on the famous federal practice and procedure treatise.
Third, the decision does a wonderful job of elucidating the “substantial evidence” standard, which is used so often against the immigrant-petitioner. Here, the majority explains that this standard does not mean that the Court of Appeals reviews the BIA decision to determine whether “there theoretically could have been some unevidenced occurrence that would make its findings correct.” Id. at 5 (emphasis added). Instead, the “substantial evidence” standard just means what it says: whether a party has produced substantial evidence in support of their position. Here, the government – as noted – provided no evidence against the petitioner’s position. In fact, the record “compels” the conclusion that conditions have “significantly changed,” according to the majority.
Fourth, the decision takes to task the BIA’s lack of analysis in its decision, specifically the failure on the part of the agency even to mention the “coup” in Honduras. Instead, there was nothing but a conclusory statement that the Board had “considered [the petitioner’s] arguments.” We have seen, for example, other courts of appeals such as the Seventh Circuit, take to task the BIA in recent months. See Baez-Sanchez v. Barr (7th Cir. 2020) (Easterbrook, J.) . It is a very good sign that circuit courts are making searching inquiries, demanding compliance from the Board and EOIR, and not engaging in mere cursory review.
There was a frustration shown in that, as they noted, the Board evidenced a “complete failure” to address the “uncontroverted evidence” of a clear significant “turning point” in Honduras’ history. The majority characterized this failure as an abuse of discretion by the BIA. On a separate point concerning the Board’s rejection of an argument about her abusive husband’s return to Honduras in 2009, as a changed in country conditions, the majority stopped short of calling that argument’s rejection an “abuse of discretion.” In a footnote, the majority noted several sister circuits that agreed that such a change should be characterized as a change in “personal circumstances.”
The most notable thing about the panel’s 2-1 decision besides its well thought-out reasoning is the lack of any discussion involving Matter of A-B-, 27 I & N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018), anywhere in either the majority’s or dissent’s decisions. Arguably, A-B- is related and has been used (routinely) by the government to argue against relief for women who are similarly situated. Because this case turned on a denial of a motion to reopen in 2017, and there was no Attorney General’s decision until 2018, there was no occasion for the IJ and, later, the BIA rely on the AG’s A-B- decision. To the extent that AG Sessions in A-B- did not rule out all gender-based violence claims, the more important take away here is this: Matter of A-B- can be overcome and is no prohibition on relief, despite what a number of judges and BIA members may believe, so long as the petitioner can produce substantial evidence in support of his or her claims, as the petitioner did so well here. (Note, since this decision relates to a motion to reopen, the case will now be remanded to the BIA and IJ and the petitioner’s fight will continue on remand.)
Judge Edith Jones in her dissent, while never relying outright on A-B-, still takes affront at the perceived failure to “defer” to the BIA. In a telling passage, she states: “The majority has failed to defer to the BIA, which, hearing no doubt hundreds (or thousands) of cases from Honduras, must be far more familiar with country conditions than judges working from our isolated perch . . . . .” This is a scary position. While it is true the BIA has heard thousands of cases from Honduras, this cannot and should not form the basis for any rationale to blindly “defer” to the Board.
This type of deference and the attempted “rubber-stamping” that it engenders was exactly what Justice Kennedy warned about in his short but biting concurrence in Pereira v. Sessions. To quote Justice Kennedy, the “type of reflexive deference exhibited in some of these cases is troubling…it seems necessary and appropriate to reconsider, in an appropriate case, the premises that underlie Chevron and how courts have implemented that decision.” Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105, 2121 (2018), Kennedy, J., concurring (emphasis added). Justice Kennedy was right. The dissent’s transparent and clearly forthright encapsulation of the arguments in favor of “deference” highlights the dangers inherent in such a position and shows just why Chevron must (and will) be reconsidered.
Geoffrey Hoffman, Clinical Professor, University of Houston Law Center, Immigration Clinic Director
(Individual capacity; Institution for identification only)
KJ
***********************
Judge Jones’s dissent ignores the clear evidence that the BIA is no longer anything approaching an “expert tribunal,” and that it’s jurisprudence has swung sharply in an anti-immigrant, and specifically anti-asylum, direction under Sessions, Whitaker, and Barr.
How long can the Article IIIs keep “papering over” not only the all too often deficient work-product produced by today’s BIA, but, more significantly, the glaring unconstitutionality of a system constructed and run by prosecutors and politicos that purports to function like a “court.” I doubt that Judge Jones would be willing to trust her life to a “court” that was composed and run like EOIR. So, why aren’t other “persons” entitled to the same Constitutional treatment and human dignity that she would expect if their positions were reversed?
In the meantime, I wholeheartedly endorse Geoffrey’s observation that even in the “Age of A-B-,” and in the normally “asylum-unfriendly” Fifth Circuit, great scholarship, persistence, and good lawyering can save lives! We just need more “good lawyers” out there in th NDPA to keep pressing the fight until all of the Article III’s stop “going along to get along” with the charade currently unfolding at EOIR and we also get the “regime change” necessary to establish an Article I Immigration Court that functions like a “real court” rather than a surreal vision of a court.
They are children who were caught crossing the southwest border without papers and sent to migrant shelters in New York when the coronavirus was silently spreading. Now the city is a pandemic epicenter in lockdown, but the Trump administration is pressing ahead with their deportation cases, forcing the children to fight in immigration court to stay.
In two courthouses in the center of the besieged city, hearings for unaccompanied children—migrants who were apprehended without a parent—are speeding forward. The U.S. Department of Justice, which controls the immigration courts, has said it has no plan to suspend them.
This week an 8-year-old, a 5-year-old, and a teenage single mother with an infant were preparing for imminent court dates and deadlines in New York, lawyers representing them said. With children trapped indoors in shelters and foster-care homes, many young migrants who don’t have lawyers may not even be aware of ongoing court cases that could quickly end with orders for them to be deported.
Hearings for unaccompanied children are also proceeding in courts in other COVID-19 hotspots, including Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago and Boston.
The Executive Office for Immigration Review, the Justice Department agency in charge of the immigration courts, has rejected calls from judges, prosecutors and immigration lawyers to shut down courts nationwide. Although hearings for immigrants who are not detained have been suspended through May 1, cases of people in detention are going forward at the same accelerated pace as before the pandemic.
That includes many unaccompanied children. Since last year, Trump administration officials have instructed the courts to treat those children as detained if they are in shelters or foster care under the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, or ORR, a federal agency. Immigration judges are under pressure to complete detained cases within 60 days—warp speed in immigration court—with no exception for children.
Across the country, about 3,100 unaccompanied children are currently in the custody of the refugee agency. Many have run from deadly violence and abuse at home and hope to find safety with family members in the United States. The demands for them to meet fast-moving court requirements are causing alarm among lawyers, caregivers and families.
“It is inexplicable and dangerous that the Trump administration has insisted that detained unaccompanied children are still required to go to court,” said Wendy Young, president of Kids in Need of Defense, or KIND, which helps provide lawyers for unaccompanied children. Unlike in criminal courts, in immigration court children have no right to a lawyer paid by the government if they cannot afford one.
On April 8, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the immigration bar, and other legal groups asked a federal court for a temporary restraining order to force the Justice Department to suspend in-person hearings of detained immigrants during the pandemic.
Justice Department officials say they are holding hearings for immigrants in detention, including for children, so they can get their cases decided and perhaps be freed quickly.
. . . .
******************
Read the rest of Julia’s report at the link.
The idea, as DOJ claims, that this is being done to facilitate the “freeing” of kids is preposterous on its face.
First, there is nothing stopping them from arranging placements for children without the Immigration Court hearings being completed. It used to be done all the time.
Second, the DOJ has intentionally and unethically rewritten asylum laws through “precedents” aimed primarily at making it harder to qualify for asylum. This abuse of process particularly targets those fleeing persecution resulting from various types of systematic government and societal violence in Central America. The approval rates for these types of cases have fallen to minuscule levels under Trump.
Third, no child has any chance of succeeding in Immigration Court without a lawyer. Almost all lawyers who represent children in Immigration Court serve “pro bono” — or work for NGOs who can only provide minimal salaries.
Yet, the Administration is making these lawyers risk their health and safety, while artificially accelerating the process, all of which actively and aggressively discourages representation.
Added to that is the constant “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” with Immigration Courts closing, reopening, and re-closing on a moment’s notice and dockets constantly being rearranged as judges, court support staff, interpreters, and DHS lawyers fall ill.
The Administration could work with groups like KIND and other NGOs to arrange placements, and schedule hearings in a manner that promotes health and safety for everyone while maximizing due process. But, the Administration refuses to do this.
Instead, those seeking to inject sanity, common sense, best practices, and human decency into the process are forced to sue the Administration in Federal Court. This further dissipates and diverts already scarce legal resources that could have been used to actually represent children in Immigration Court and arrange safe placements for them.
Finally, as I have noted previously, the Administration has simply suspended the operation of the Constitution and the rule of law at the borders. This means that thousands, including unaccompanied children, are “orbited into the void” without any process whatsoever or any effort to ascertain their situations or best interests.
All of this gives lie to the Administration’s bogus claim that this is about looking out for the best interests of these kids. No, it’s about maximizing cruelty, destroying lives (considered an effective and acceptable “deterrent” in nativist circles), and carrying out a noxious racist White Nationalist restrictionist immigration agenda.
And, to date, Congress and the Federal Courts, both of which have the power to put an end to this disgraceful, unlawful, and unconstitutional conduct have been largely “MIA.”
Nevertheless, thanks to courageous and dedicated journalists like Julia and organizations like KIND, a public record is being made. While those responsible for implementing and enabling these abuses directed at the “most vulnerable of the vulnerable” among us are likely to escape legal accountability, they will eventually be tried and found wanting in the “court of history.”
John A. Freedman Senior Counsel Arnold & PorterHon. Ilyce Shugall U.S. Immigraton Judge (Retired) Director, Immigrant Legal Defense Program, Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Assn. of San Francisco.Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Retired Immigration JudgesKnightess of the Round Table
Key Excerpt:
We are in the midst of a nationwide pandemic. From the approach of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) headquarters, one would never know that. Through a series of chaotic and inconsistent announcements, EOIR —the office that manages the procedural components of the immigration court system on behalf of the United States Department of Justice2—has continued to schedule non-essential proceedings, requiring judges, court staff and security personnel, litigants and case participants, attorneys, witnesses, interpreters, and interested members of the public to come immigration court, exposing them, their families, and their communities to unnecessary risk of COVID-19.
1 In accordance with Local Rule 7(o), no party’s counsel authored this brief in whole or in part, nor did any party or party’s counsel, or any other person other than amici curiae, contribute money that was intended to fund preparing or submitting this brief.
2 See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.0(b) (setting forth the authority of the Director of EOIR).
1
Case 1:20-cv-00852-CJN Document 11-1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 5 of 22
The madness of EOIR s approach is evident in one example, representative of its
approach. Yesterday – April 8 — the immigration court in Elizabeth, New Jersey was open for business as usual. This court is across the Hudson River from New York City, and is near the epicenter of the largest COVID-19 hotspot on the planet, and is in a jurisdiction that has had a mandatory shelter-in-place” order since March 21. Yet EOIR insisted that proceedings continue
yesterday. Until it was learned that two detainees in the courthouse were positive for COVID- 19. Only then did EOIR accede to the obvious, scrambling to order the court to shut the Elizabeth court down. But immigration courts were open in many other jurisdictions yesterday, and are scheduled to be open today and for the foreseeable future.
EOIR’s intransigence defies the practice of numerous federal and state courts, the
recommendations of public health officials, and the orders of dozens of Governors who have ordered all non-essential business be deferred. As Judge Samuel Cole, a spokesperson for the National Association of Immigration Judges warned, everyone is being put at risk.” Close immigration courts? Lawyers and judges push to stop in-person hearings amid coronavirus spread, Fortune (Mar. 26, 2020) (describing how attorneys are wearing swim googles and masks to comply with EOIR orders).
The current EOIR approach manifests this disarray because there was not, and has never been, any meaningful continuity planning by EOIR. EOIR, and therefore the immigration court system itself, has sacrificed due process in favor of rapid removals, leaving the court without any incentive at all to plan to protect the public health or the individuals and participants in the system.
Amici urge the issuance of a temporary restraining order to allow for development of a more comprehensive, systemic, and scientifically sound policy that respects due process and the
2
Case 1:20-cv-00852-CJN Document 11-1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 6 of 22
public health. We offer a framework for what a legally and scientifically sound policy could look like and why a court-ordered pause on all non-essential activities for a short 28-day period could allow for such a policy to emerge in deliberations with stakeholder communities.
Read the entire brief, which contains our proposed solution for how the Immigration Courts could conduct essential operations consistent with health, safety, and due process during this pandemic: Amicus brief_NIPNLG
*********************************
Again, many, many thanks to John Freedman and his group at Arnold & Porter as well as Ilyce & Jeffrey for their leadership.
Happy to share my new article Mistreating Central American Refugees: Repeating History in Response to Humanitarian Challenge (forthcoming Hastings Race and Poverty Law Journal). The full article can be downloaded here.
Abstract:
In the 1980s, tens of thousands of Central Americans fled to the United States seeking refuge from civil unrest that ravaged their countries. In a largely geopolitical response, the Reagan administration labeled those fleeing Guatemala and El Salvador as “economic migrants,” detained them, and largely denied their asylum claims. The illegal discrimination against these refugees was exposed in a series of lawsuits and through congressional investigations. This led to the reconsideration of thousands of cases, the enlistment of a corps of asylum officers, and an agreement on the conditions under which migrant children could be detained.
Unfortunately, the lessons of the 1980s have been forgotten, or intentionally neglected. Beginning in 2014, once again large numbers of Central American asylum seekers—including women and children—are being detained. Asylum denial rates for migrants fleeing extreme violence are high. The mixed refugee flow continues to be mischaracterized as an illegal immigration problem. Many of the tactics used in the 1980s are the same today, including hampering the ability to obtain counsel. President Trump has taken the cruelty to the next level, by invoking claims of national security in attempting to shut down asylum by forcing applicants to remain in Mexico or apply for asylum in a third country. We should remember the lessons of the past. Spending billions on harsh border enforcement that preys on human beings seeking refuge is wrongheaded. We should be implementing policies and procedures that are cognizant of the reasons migrants are fleeing today, while working on sensible, regional solutions.
Professor Hing’s article echoes one of the themes of some of my speeches and comments, although, of course, he approaches it in a much more scholarly and systematic manner.
Check out my speech here:
“JUSTICE BETRAYED: THE INTENTIONAL MISTREATMENT OF CENTRAL AMERICAN ASYLUM APPLICANTS BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW”
Hon. Susan G. Roy Law Office of Susan G. Roy, LLC Princeton Junction, NJ Member, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
Former Judge Sue Roy reports:
The [Elizabeth] court was open today (and has been for days) and they had already started hearings this morning, with detainees and others in the courtrooms and the holding areas, when 2 detainees tested positive for COVID-19. They frantically shut down the court.
The Court is inside the detention center, uses the same antiquated ventilation system, same entrance, same guards and facility employees, etc.
And last week EOIR was trying to force Newark Immigration Judges to cover in Elizabeth IN PERSON.
The callousness and disregard for their own staff, much less everyone else, is staggering.
Sue
**************
Thanks for speaking out, my friend!
The mindless cruelty and bad judgment just “keeps on keeping on!”
WASHINGTON, DC–Immigration groups today moved for an emergency temporary restraining order (TRO) against the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in order to protect the health of immigration attorneys, immigrants, and the public from the impact of dangerous and unconstitutional policies during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Represented by the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild (NIPNLG) and the law firm of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, NIPNLG, the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), and the Immigration Justice Campaign–a joint initiative of the American Immigration Council and AILA–filed the TRO, in NIPNLG, et al., v. EOIR, et al., to seek a brief pause of in-person hearings for detained individuals and facilitate remote confidential communication between attorneys and their clients. The pause would enable EOIR and ICE to adopt policies, practices, and procedures to enable the consistent and safe conduct of remote hearings (for example by video teleconference) that are protective of attorney-client privilege.
EOIR and ICE have repeatedly ignored recommendations regarding how to maintain health and safety in the courts and in detention, including the use of remote access. Detainees, court staff, and attorneys are subject to inconsistent practices and procedures for in-person hearings in 58 of the nation’s 69 immigration courts.
The National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild (NIPNLG) is a national non-profit organization that provides technical assistance and support to community-based immigrant organizations, legal practitioners, and all advocates seeking and working to advance the rights of noncitizens. NIPNLG utilizes impact litigation, advocacy, and public education to pursue its mission. Follow NIPNLG on social media: National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild on Facebook, @NIPNLG on Twitter.
The American Immigration Council works to strengthen America by shaping how America thinks about and acts towards immigrants and immigration and by working toward a more fair and just immigration system that opens its doors to those in need of protection and unleashes the energy and skills that immigrants bring. The Council brings together problem solvers and employs four coordinated approaches to advance change–litigation, research, legislative and administrative advocacy, and communications. Follow the latest Council news and information on ImmigrationImpact.com and Twitter @immcouncil.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association is the national association of immigration lawyers established to promote justice, advocate for fair and reasonable immigration law and policy, advance the quality of immigration and nationality law and practice, and enhance the professional development of its members. Follow AILA on Twitter @AILANational.
Thanks, Laura, for sending this around and for everything you and AILA are doing to save some lives from the “malicious incompetence” of the Trump regime.
Will the Article III Courts finally do the right thing? Or will they continue their “head in the sand” approach to the ever-worsening disaster in our Immigration Courts and the New American Gulag? I’d have to say that at this point, while some U.S. District Judges notably have “stepped up to the plate” in a number of cases involving a limited number of releases or threatened releases, I have seen little to indicate an inclination toward taking the necessary bold, decisive nationwide action to save lives in the face of this crisis.
Kate Morrissey reports for the San Diego Union Tribune:
On the same day the first person in immigration custody in San Diego was confirmed to have the new coronavirus, the American Civil Liberties Union sued for the release of certain high-risk detainees at the region’s two detention centers.
In the lawsuit, ACLU attorneys argue that specific detainees at Otay Mesa Detention Center and Imperial Regional Detention Facility who have pre-existing conditions that would make severe symptoms of COVID-19 more likely should be released in order to protect them from likely exposure to the virus. Some similar cases, filed by other groups around the country, have been successful in getting immigrant detainees released.
This coverage of the coronavirus pandemic is part of your subscription to The San Diego Union-Tribune. We also provide free coverage as a service to our community.
“During this pandemic, we’ve seen institutions at all levels take these really drastic, life-altering measures to preserve public safety and community well being,” said Monika Langarica, an attorney with the ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties. “(U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement), which oversees massive detention operations across the country, rather than follow the course of these other institutions, has done almost the opposite.”
. . . .
****************
Read the rest of Kate’s article at the above link.
Similar suits have produced mixed results throughout the country. While some U.S. District Judges have ordered or threatened to order the release of certain detainees, others have “blown off” legitimate health concerns and the failure of DHS and DOJ authorities to follow health guidelines during the pandemic.
Of course, the idea that social distancing, universal testing, basic hygiene, or individual protective equipment is being employed in any part of the “DHS Gulag” and the Immigration “Courts” is preposterous on its face. Yet, remarkably, some U.S. District Judges prefer the “show me the dead bodies approach” as an alternative to the sensible preventive measures recommended by health professionals. After all, “they are only aliens” in the eyes of the regime and some Federal Judges.
Others, more astutely, have recognized that those stuck in the Gulag and the never-ending dysfunction of the Immigration “Courts” are actually their fellow human beings, most without serious criminal convictions. They are also “persons” under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, entitled to have their health, safety, and lives protected from dangerous and unreasonable actions by the Federal Government.
In the words of the Supreme Court, “Freedom from imprisonment – from government custody, detention, or other forms of physical restraint – lies at the heart of the liberty that [the Due Process] Clause protects.”1 While imprisonment usually occurs in the criminal context, courts have allowed detention under our immigration laws, which are civil and (purportedly) non-punitive, only to protect the public from danger or to ensure the noncitizen’s appearance at future hearings.2 Case law thus requires a determination that a detained noncitizen does not present a danger to the public, a risk to national security, or a flight risk in order to be eligible for bond under section 236 of the I&N Act.
The Board of Immigration Appeals has acknowledged the complexity of such determinations. In it’s 2006 decision in Matter of Guerra,3 the Board suggested nine factors that an immigration judge may consider in deciding if bond is warranted. The list included whether the respondent has a fixed U.S. address; the length of residence, employment history, and family ties in this country (and whether such ties might lead to legal status); the respondent’s criminal record, and their record of appearing in court, fleeing prosecution, violating immigration laws, and manner of entry to the U.S. But the Board made clear that an immigration judge has broad discretion in deciding what factors to consider and how much weight to afford each factor.The ultimate test is whether the decision was reasonable.
What makes such a decision reasonable? Given what the Supreme Court has called “an individual’s constitutionally-protected interest in avoiding physical restraint,”4 Guerra’s broad discretion must be interpreted as an acknowledgment of the inadequacy of relying on “one size fits all” presumptions as a basis for overriding such a fundamental constitutional right. In allowing IJs to consider what factors to consider and how to weigh them, Guerra should be read as directing those judges to delve deeply into the question of whether the noncitizen poses a danger or a flight risk. Obviously, all recently-arrived immigrants are not flight risks, and all of those charged with crimes don’t pose a threat to society.As the trier of fact, immigration judges are best able to use their proximity to the respondent, the government, and the evidence and witnesses presented to determine what factors are most indicative of the likelihood that the respondent will see their hearings through to the end and abide by the result, or in the case of criminal history, the likelihood of recidivism.
In considering the continued custody of one with no criminal record, the risk to public safety or national security are generally not factors. And in Matter of R-A-V-P-,5 a case recently decided by the BIA, the immigration judge found that the respondent, an asylum-seeker with no criminal record, presented no risk on either of those counts. However, the immigration judge denied bond on the belief that the respondent was a flight risk, and it was that determination that the BIA was asked to consider on appeal.
How does one determine whether someone detained upon arrival is likely to appear for their hearings? It is obviously more complicated than whether one presents a threat to public safety, in which the nature of the criminal record will often be determinative. In R-A-V-P-, the Board repeated the nine Matter of Guerra factors, and added a tenth: the likelihood that relief will be granted.
As stated above, Guerra made clear that these were suggestions; the immigration judge could consider, ignore, and weigh whatever factors they reasonably found relevant to the inquiry. Furthermore, many of the listed Guerra factors were not applicable to the respondent. Guerra involved a respondent found to pose a danger to others. The nine factors laid out in the decision were not specific to the question of flight risk; clearly, all the listed factors were not meant to apply in all cases. As to the specific case of R-A-V-P-, obviously, someone who was detained since arrival can have no fixed address, length of residence, or employment history in this country. The respondent’s history of appearing for hearings also reveals little where all appearances occurred in detention.And the Guerra factors relating to criminal record and history of fleeing prosecution are inapplicable to a respondent never charged with a crime.
The Board’s decision in R-A-V-P- is very short on details that would provide meaningful context. There is no mention of any evidence presented by DHS to support a flight risk finding. In fact, the absence of any listing of government counsel in the case caption indicates that DHS filed no brief at all on appeal, a point that doesn’t appear to have made a difference in the outcome.6
The few facts that are mentioned in the decision seem to indicate that the respondent sought asylum from Honduras based on his sexual orientation. Not mentioned were the facts that the respondent entered as a youth, and that although he entered the U.S. without inspection, he made no attempt to evade immigration authorities after entry. To the contrary, he immediately sought out such authorities and expressed to them his intention to apply for asylum.These facts would seem quite favorable in considering the Guerra factors of the respondent’s “history of immigration violations,” manner of entry to the U.S., and attempts to “otherwise escape from authorities.”7 And although not mentioned in Guerra, the respondent is also represented by highly competent counsel, a factor that has been demonstrated to significantly increase the likelihood of appearance, and one within the IJ’s broad discretion to consider as weighing in the respondent’s favor.
Regarding the tenth criteria introduced by the Board, i.e., the likelihood of relief being granted, the persecution of LGBTI individuals is well-documented in Honduras, and prominently mentioned in the U.S. Department of State’s country report on human rights practices for that country. The State Department reported an increase in killings of LGBTI persons in Honduras in 2019, and that 92 percent of hate crimes and acts of violence committed against the LGBTI community went unpunished. Such asylum claims are commonly granted by asylum officers, immigration judges, and the BIA.
Yet the Board took a very strange approach to this point. It chose to ignore how such claims actually fare, and instead speak in vague, general terms of how “eligibility for asylum can be difficult to establish,” even for those who were found to have a credible fear of persecution. The Board next noted only that the immigration judge found that the respondent “did not demonstrate a sufficient likelihood that he would be granted asylum,” without itself analyzing whether such conclusion was proper.
In fact, the immigration judge did deny the asylum claim; a separate appeal form that decision remains pending before the BIA. But the Board missed an important point.The question isn’t whether the respondent will be granted asylum; it’s whether his application for asylum will provide enough impetus for him to appear for his hearings relating to such relief. From my experience both as an attorney and an immigration judge, the answer in this case is yes.One with such a claim as the respondent’s who is represented by counsel such as his will almost certainly appear for all his hearings.The author of the Board’s decision, Acting BIA Chair Garry Malphrus, did sit as an immigration judge in a non-detained court for several years before joining the BIA. I’m willing to bet that he had few if any non-appearances on cases such as the respondent’s.
Yet the Board’s was dismissive of the respondent’s asylum claim, which it termed a “limited avenue of relief” not likely to warrant his appearance in court. Its conclusion is strongly at odds with actual experience. Early in my career, I represented asylum seekers who arrived in this country in what was then known as “TRWOV” (transit without visa) status, which meant that the airline they traveled on was responsible for their detention. The airline in question hired private guards to detain the group in a Queens motel.As time passed, the airline calculated that it would be cheaper to let those in their charge escape and pay the fine than to bear the ongoing detention costs. The airline therefore opened the doors and had the guards leave, only to find the asylum seekers waiting in the motel when they returned hours later.None were seeking to abscond; all sought only their day in court.And that was the determinative factor in their rejecting the invitation to flee; none had employment records, community ties, or most of the other factors held out as more important by the BIA in R-A-V-P-. They chose to remain in detention rather than jeopardize their ability to pursue their asylum claims.
My clients in the above example had a good likelihood of being granted asylum. But volunteering in an immigration law clinic three decades later, I see on a weekly basis individuals with much less hope of success nevertheless show up for all of their hearings, because, even in these dark times, they maintain faith that in America, an impartial judge will listen to their claim and provide them with a fair result. In one case, an unrepresented asylum applicant recently released from detention flew across the country for a preliminary master calendar hearing because the immigration judge had not yet ruled on his motion for a change of venue.
So for what reason did the BIA determine that the respondent in R-A-V-P- would behave to the contrary? The Board made much of the fact that an individual who promised to pay for the respondent’s bus ticket and provide him with a place to live (an offer which the Board referred to as “laudable”) was a friend and not a family member of the respondent. But on what basis can it be concluded that living with a cousin rather than a friend increases the chances of his future appearance in court? In the absence of statistics or reports that support such determination, is this fact deserving of such discretionary weight? The Board felt it could rely on this factor simply because it was mentioned in Matter of Guerra. But while that decision requires a finding that the IJ’s conclusion was reasonable, the decision in R-A-V-P- appears to be based more on a hunch than a reasoned conclusion, with the Board referencing seemingly random factors in support of its conclusion without explaining why such factors deserve the weight they were afforded, while ignoring other more relevant factors that would weigh in favor of release.
The respondent has now been detained for well over a year, including the seven months his bond appeal lingered before the Board, a very significant deprivation of liberty. The respondent’s asylum appeal remains to be decided, likely by a different Board Member or panel than that which decided his bond appeal.But now that the majority of the Board has voted to publish the bond denial as a precedent decision, what is the likelihood that any Board member will review that appeal with an unbiased eye?
As a final point, although the drafting of the decision likely began months earlier, the Board nevertheless chose to allow the decision to be published as precedent in the midst of an unprecedented health pandemic that poses a particular threat to those detained in immigration jails. So at a time when health professionals and numerous other groups are pleading for the government to release as many as possible from immigration detention centers, the BIA chose to instead issue a decision that will likely lead to an opposite result.
Notes:
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001).
Ibid; Robert Pauw, Litigating Immigration Cases in Federal Court (4th Ed.) (AILA, 2017) at 418.
24 I&N Dec. 37 (BIA 2006).
Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 356 (1997).
27 I&N Dec. 803 (BIA 2020).
Appeals may be summarily dismissed due to the failure to file a brief or to sufficiently state a ground for appeal. However, the BIA does not view an appeal or motion as unopposed where ICE files no brief.
Matter of Guerra, supra at 40.
Copyright 2020 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
HOW EOIR’S “CAPTIVE COURTS” INTENTIONALLY DISTORT AND PERVERT JUSTICE — The Shocking Failure Of Congress & The Article IIIs To Stand Up For Justice In America!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
“Courtside” Exclusive
April 6, 2020
Jeffrey and I both get to pretty much the same “bottom line” here. But, as usual, he is more “nuanced” in his approach.
Certainly, the DOJ’s two-decade program, under Bush, Obama, and now Trump, of systematically excluding from the BIA (and also largely from the Immigration Judiciary, with a more than 9-1 government/private sector hiring ratio) any acknowledged immigration and human rights expertise from those who actually represent and work with asylum applicants is paying huge dividends for Trump’s nativist immigration agenda.
A “captive BIA” well-attuned to “not rocking the boat” and “implementing the Attorney General’s priorities” abandons due process and fundamental fairness for individuals. Instead, they crank out an endless stream of one-sided pro-DHS-enforcement “precedents.”
Led by the Supremes’ “supreme abdication of judicial duties” in Chevron and Brand X, the Courts of Appeals and sometimes the Supremes themselves “defer” to “any old interpretation” by the BIA rather than undertaking the more challenging search for the “best interpretation.” In immigration law, “deference” to the BIA “tilts the playing field” overwhelming in favor of DHS and against individuals and due process.
And, if the BIA occasionally lets the immigrant “win” or at least not outright “lose,” one or two precedents, Sessions, Whitaker, and Barr have shown a frequentwillingness to merely step in and change the results. Sometimes, they do this on cases decided years ago, even when DHS doesn’t ask them to. They openly and aggressively are carrying out a predetermined White Nationalist, nativist agenda. Because, they can!
If this sounds like a parody of due process, that’s because it is! But, the Supremes and the rest of the Article IIIs have been studiously looking away while due process, fundamental fairness, and equal protection are trampled in Immigration Court for more than a half-century. Why step up to the plate now?
Although it’s hard to do under Chevron, the BIA does sometimes so clearly ignore the statute or come up with such “off the wall” interpretations that the Article IIIs occasionally have to distinguish Chevron and intervene. In other words, generally screwing immigrants is OK by the Article IIIs; but, at some point looking totally feckless or downright idiotic by rubber stamping the BIA’s most outlandish anti-immigrant rulings is a “no no.” Bad for their reputations, law school speaking tours, and recruitment of the “best and brightest” clerks that the “Supremos” and other Article IIIs enjoy so much.
Another “big advantage” of a captive and fundamentally unfair BIA is that its “perversions of justice” become a “self-fulfilling prophecy.” The respondent inR-A-V-P- should not only have been released on bond, but his asylum case could easily have been granted in a “short hearing” in a system committed to a fair interpretation and application of asylum law. That might have led to the release of others and the more efficient granting of other similar cases. That actually would be an huge step forward in a dysfunctional system running a largely self-inflicted backlog of approximately 1.4 million cases.
Instead, denying meritorious cases creates hugely inflated denial rates. This supports the Trump Administration’s intentionally false narrative that all asylum claims are frivolous or fraudulent.
And, naturally, if the claims are overwhelmingly non-meritorious, who cares if we give asylum applicants any due process or not. Just summarily deny them all and you’ll be right 90% of the time.
That’s probably why Trump has gotten away with his biggest outrage: Simply eliminating the statutory right to apply for asylum at the border by Executive fiat, confident that the Supremes and the Article IIIs will never have the guts to effectively intervene and hold him accountable merely for arbitrarily inflicting potential death sentences on asylum seekers. After all, they are just “aliens,” not really “humans” or “persons” under the warped views of the Roberts’ Court majority! “Dred Scottification in action.”
Also, by denying meritorious claims for asylum seekers already in the U.S., the BIA“sends a message” that asylum seekers shouldn’t bother applying — they can’t and won’t win no matter how meritorious their cases. And, what’s more, the BIA will use the manipulated, improperly inflated “denial rates” to show that there is “little likelihood of success” on the merits of any asylum claim.
Under R-A-V-P–, this virtually guarantees punitive DHS detention, serving as both a punishment for asserting rights and a further deterrent to asserting claims in Immigration Court. Heck, in a “best case scenario” for Trump, COVID-19 will wipe out all detained asylum seekers, thereby eliminating that “problem.”
The system is a farce. But, it is a farce that both Congress and the Article IIIs have enabled.
Asylum seekers and other migrants deserve justice from America. When they will finally get it from a system intentionally rigged against them, and judges and legislators all too often unwilling to acknowledge or recognize their humanity, remains to be seen.
The United States operates the largest immigration detention system in the world. More than 50,000 immigrants are detained every day in county jails and for-profit prisons that contract with Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) — at great human cost, and at a cost to taxpayers of $3 billion per year. The current administration has drastically expanded the system, establishing over 20 new detention centers (17,000 more people per day). Christina Fialho, an Ashoka Fellow since 2016 and co-founder of Freedom for Immigrants, is working not only to stop this expansion, but to end immigration detention altogether. Ashoka’s Lorena García Durán caught up with her to learn more.
You co-founded Freedom for Immigrants eight years ago with Christina Mansfield. What was the main goal you set out to achieve?
We want to build a country where no person is imprisoned for crossing a border. Freedom for Immigrants is working to achieve this goal through two main strategies. First, we’ve built a network of 4,500 volunteers that is a consistent watchdog inside this system. We started by building the first visitation program in California. Now volunteers in our network visit people in 69 immigrant prisons in nearly 30 states every week. Second, we launched a community-based alternative to free over 250 people by paying their immigration bonds. Once they are released, we connect them to housing, lawyers, transportation, and mental health services — and we do it all for only $17 per person per day, far less than the government pays to detain people (roughly $165 per person per day).
We are proving that our strategy works. Freedom for Immigrants drafted and co-sponsored the Dignity Not Detention Act — composed of the first statewide bills in the country to stop detention expansion and give the state attorney general oversight powers. These bills passed in California — a state that used to detain a quarter of all people in immigration detention. Since Dignity Not Detention went into effect, seven municipalities ended their ICE contracts. We then worked in a statewide coalition of immigrant rights groups to pass another bill to phase out private prisons in California. Together, we are proving that abolition is possible in the 5th largest economy in the world.
You talk a lot about the importance of creativity and risk taking in the face of obstacles. What are some obstacles you’ve overcome along the way?
Since 2013, we’ve faced “a litany of retaliatory acts by DHS in response to our public advocacy,” as Judge Andre Birotte Jr. explained in his recent court ruling granting us a preliminary injunction against ICE. We’ve had over a dozen of our affiliated visitation programs suspended when we’ve published articles or spoken out in favor of a new system. When we worked with Orange Is The New Black to dramatize the reality of detention, our national hotline was terminated. Private prison companies have muzzled us for reporting sexual assault in detention, and I was personally barred from visiting at certain detention facilities. However, we have successfully moved the work forward through creative persistence, community mobilization, and legal action when necessary.
Speaking of obstacles, ICE just ended all social visitation in response to COVID-19. How is Freedom for Immigrants responding?
If ICE is truly serious about ensuring the health and wellbeing of people in its custody, the agency would release immigrants, beginning with vulnerable populations. Other countries like Spain and Iran are releasing people in response to Covid-19. In fact, Spain’s Interior Ministry has begun a gradual release of people from immigration detention whose deportation cannot be effected before March 29. Freedom for Immigrants has launched an interactive map that tracks ICE response to Covid-19, and we have trained our national hotline volunteers to respond to medical negligence.
. . . .
***************
Read the rest of Lorena García Durán‘s interview of Christina Fialho at the above link.
In my experience, there are a few cases where ICE could show on an individualized basis that temporary detention is necessary to protect the public or insure appearance. But, such caseswould be the “exception to the rule,” a very small percentage of today’s “New American Gulag” population.
As this article points out, in most cases government grants to enable community placements and legal representation actually would be much cheaper than today’s wasteful funding of the Gulag.
Unlike the Gulag, it also would promote due process, fundamental fairness, best practices, docket efficiency, and most important, maximize the chances of fair results.
Under the Trump regime, the cruel, costly, and counterproductive Gulag has expanded as a means of punishing, coercing, dehumanizing, and deterring those asserting legal rights, particularly the right to apply for asylum and mandatory protections like withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
It also is used by the regime to hinder the statutory and constitutional right to counsel and to promote biased results. Consequently, individuals entitled to relief and protection under our laws are instead railroaded out of the country by judges employed by the regime who have been instructed to disregard migrants’ rights and follow unethical and legally incorrect “precedents” intentionally misconstruing the law to make release from detention unnecessarily difficult and to promote unjust removals.
In other words, a systemic “Due Process Disaster” and a national disgrace.
Thanks to Christina and her team at Freedom for Immigrants for their courageous efforts to stand up to tyranny and defend due process. You certainly are brave front line fighters for the New Due Process Army!
