"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.
The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) at the Department of Justice (DOJ) is seeking a highly-qualified individual to join our team of expert professionals who serve as Appellate Immigration Judges.
This is an Excepted Service position, subject to a probationary period. The initial appointment is for a period not to exceed 24 months. Conversion to a permanent position is contingent upon appointment by the Attorney General.
This position is in the Board of Immigration Appeals, within the Executive Office for Immigration Review. The incumbent reports to a Deputy Chief Appellate Immigration Judge, who in turn reports to the Chief Appellate Immigration Judge.
Appellate Immigration Judges must apply immigration laws impartially, humanely, and equitably and ensure that all parties are treated with respect and dignity. They also must resolve cases expeditiously, in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, and consistent with the Department’s priorities and policies.
Appellate Immigration Judges are commissioned to serve in formal, quasi-judicial proceedings to review the determinations of immigration judges in removal and related proceedings, and of certain officers of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in visa petition proceedings and other matters. All Appellate Immigration Judges review the record on appeal, including briefs, exhibits, and transcripts, and hear oral argument when appropriate. An Appellate Immigration Judge may concur or dissent based on their view of any given case. The majority of the Appellate Immigration Judges’ duties fall into the general categories of removal proceedings, discretionary relief, claims of persecution, stays of removal, visa petitions, administrative fines, and bond and detention.
The majority of an Appellate Immigration Judge’s duties will be dedicated to the appellate work, but an Appellate Immigration Judge must also be qualified, and may be called upon, to conduct trial level proceedings in the role of an immigration judge.
Appellate Immigration Judges make decisions that are final, subject to appeal to the Federal courts. In connection with these proceedings, Appellate Immigration Judges exercise certain discretionary powers as provided by law and are required to exercise independent judgment in reaching final decisions.
Employment is contingent upon the completion and satisfactory adjudication of a background investigation.
Selective Service Registration is required, as applicable.
Moving and Relocation Expense are not authorized.
You must have relevant experience (see “Qualifications” below.)
Qualifications must be met by the closing date of the announcement.
If selected, you must file a financial disclosure statement in accordance with the Ethics in Government Act of 1978.
You must receive your Federal salary by Direct Deposit (to a financial institution of their choosing).
Qualifications
In order to qualify for the Appellate Immigration Judge position, applicants must meet all of the following minimum qualifications:
Education: Applicants must possess a LL.B., J.D., or LL.M. degree. (Provide the month and year in which you obtained your degree and the name of the College or University from which it was conferred/awarded.)
AND
Licensure: Applicants must be an active member of the bar, duly licensed and authorized to practice law as an attorney under the laws of any state, territory of the U.S., or the District of Columbia. (Provide the month and year in which you obtained your first license and the State from which it was issued.)
AND
Experience: Applicants must have seven (7) years of post-bar admission experience as a licensed attorney preparing for, participating in, and/or appealing formal hearings or trials involving litigation and/or administrative law at the Federal, State or local level. Qualifying litigation experience involves cases in which a complaint was filed with a court, or a charging document (e.g., indictment or information) was issued by a court, a grand jury, or appropriate military authority. Qualifying administrative law experience involves cases in which a formal procedure was initiated by a governmental administrative body.
NOTE: Qualifying experience is calculated from the date of your first admission to the bar.
In addition, successful applicants will have a strong combination of experience demonstrating that they will perform at the level of competence, impartiality, and professionalism expected of an Appellate Immigration Judge. For more information about relevant experience and knowledge, please see the “How You Will Be Evaluated” section.
Additional information
This is an Excepted Service position, subject to a probationary period. The initial appointment is for a period not to exceed 24 months. Conversion to a permanent position is contingent upon appointment by the Attorney General.
Additional positions may be filled from this announcement within 90 days of certificate issuance.
Alternative work schedule options are available.
There is no formal rating system for applying veterans’ preference to Appellate Immigration Judge appointments in the excepted service; however, the Department of Justice considers veterans’ preference eligibility as a positive factor in Appellate Immigration Judge hiring. Applicants eligible for veterans’ preference must claim their status when completing their application in the online application process and attach supporting documentation. (See “Required Documents” section.)
Conditions of Employment: Only U.S. Citizens or Nationals are eligible for employment with the Executive Office for Immigration Review. Dual citizens of the U.S. and another country will be considered on a case-by-case basis. All DOJ applicants, both U.S. Citizens and non-citizens, whose job location is with the United States, must meet the residency requirement. For a total of three (not necessarily consecutive years) of the five years immediately prior to applying for a position, the applicant must have: 1) resided in the United States; 2) worked for the United States overseas in a Federal or military capacity; or 3) been a dependent of a Federal or military employee serving oversees.
As the Federal agency whose mission is to ensure the fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans, the Department of Justice is committed to fostering a diverse and inclusive work environment. To build and retain a workforce that reflects the diverse experiences and perspectives of the American people, we welcome applicants from the many communities, identities, races, ethnicities, backgrounds, abilities, religions, and cultures of the United States who share our commitment to public service.
Additional Information: The COVID-19 vaccination requirement for Federal employees pursuant to Executive Order 14043 does not currently apply. Some jobs, however, may be subject to agency- or job-specific vaccination requirements, so please review the job announcement for details. To ensure compliance with an applicable preliminary nationwide injunction, which may be supplemented, modified or vacated, depending on the course of ongoing litigation, the Federal government will take no action to implement or enforce the COVID-19 vaccination requirement pursuant to Executive Order 14043 on Requiring Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination for Federal Employees. Therefore, to the extent a Federal job announcement includes the requirement that applicants must be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 pursuant to Executive Order 14043, that requirement does not currently apply.
Read more
Benefits
How You Will Be Evaluated
You will be evaluated for this job based on how well you meet the qualifications above.
You will be evaluated for this job based on how well you meet the qualifications above.
Applicants meeting the minimum qualifications stated above will be further evaluated to determine those who are best qualified. This determination will be based, in part, on the following Quality Ranking Factors (QRFs), which need to be addressed as part of the application package.
Ability to demonstrate the appropriate temperament to serve as a judge. Appellate Immigration Judges need to possess traits such as compassion, decisiveness, open-mindedness, courtesy, patience, freedom from bias, and commitment to equal justice under the law. Additionally, individuals in this role are expected to exercise discretion, and articulate how that discretion is being exercised, in complex, sensitive, high-pressure and/or emotional situations. A strong candidate demonstrates excellent analytical, decision-making, and writing abilities.
Litigation or adjudication experience, preferably in a high volume judicial or administrative context. Appellate Immigration Judges often must balance a variety of skills that can include managing a high volume of cases, drafting decisions, and reviewing an administrative record at the appellate level. It is vital that a candidate is able to manage a high-volume docket under tight deadlines without compromising quality.
Experience conducting administrative hearings or adjudicating administrative cases. Appellate Immigration Judges are expected to decide difficult or complex issues, particularly those that impact people’s lives. Prior adjudication experience in other tribunals – Federal, state, local, military or other court systems – is ideal, however, adjudications experience may be drawn from non-courtroom settings. For candidates who have limited adjudications experience, significant litigation experience before EOIR or extensive litigation experience in settings comparable to an immigration court setting may be considered.
Experience handling complex legal issues. Immigration law often involves handling complex legal issues. This role requires being able to work through complicated fact patterns and issues, novel areas of the law, as well as learning, adapting to, and incorporating changes in the law.
Knowledge of immigration laws and procedures. In this role, depth and/or volume of immigration law experience is important. Candidates should have meaningful experience applying complex immigration law, which can include representing non-citizens or the Federal government in matters involving complex or diverse immigration laws, adjudicating immigration matters, legislative or administrative advocacy on immigration policy issues, academic or clinical experience, and other similar work that involves routine analysis and application of immigration law.
To apply for this position, you must provide a complete Application Package by 11:59 PM (ET) on 04/12/2024, the closing date of this announcement, which includes:
Your Resume documenting seven (7) years experience since being admitted to the bar.
A complete online Assessment Questionnaire.
Document(s)addressing the Quality Ranking Factors (QRFs) listed above.
A Writing Sample demonstrating your ability to author legal documents (10 pages, maximum; an excerpt of a longer document is acceptable).
Current or former Federal employees must provide copies of their most recent and their latest SF-50, Notification of Personnel Action.
Other Supporting Documents, if applicable:
Veterans’ Preference Documentation: Although the veterans’ preference point system does not apply to this position, we accept preference claims and adjudicate such claims per the documentation provided. Note: If claiming 5-point veterans’ preference, include a DD-214 or statement of service. If claiming 10-point veterans’ preference, include an SF-15 and documentation required by that form, VA or military letter dated 1991 or later, and DD-214.
Any other supporting documentation required for verification as described in the announcement.
Tips for your resume:
Ensure that your resume contains your full name, address, phone number, email address, and employment information.
Each position listed on your resume must include: From/To dates of employment (MM/YYYY-MM/YYYY or MM/YYYY to Present); agency/employer name; position title; Federal grade level(s) held, if applicable; hours, if less than full time; and duties performed.
In addition, any experience on less than a full time basis must specify the percentage and length of time spent in performance of such duties.
Tips for addressing QRFs:
Applicants should use narrative form to address each of the five (5) QRFs. They must be written in a separate document indicating the by-number of the specific QRF being addressed.
Successful applicants will address all of the QRFs. If you do not have the specific experience addressed in a QRF, we encourage you to write about a similar skill, ability, knowledge, or experience.
Applicants should be thorough in addressing each QRF. This includes:
Approximate number of cases or matters handled in a given period of time.
Applicant’s specific role (e.g., adjudicator, first chair, co-counsel, responsible for the written brief only, etc.).
Length of time involved in a given role (e.g., lead counsel in 20 immigration proceedings in 10 years).
Specific examples of the types of cases (asylum application, pleas, settlement, bench trial, jury trial, etc.).
The number of court and/or administrative appearances made in those cases.
The case dispositions (ruling on the merits, plea or similar resolution, settlement, trial, jury trial, etc.).
Failure to submit the documents listed above with your application package will result in your application package being removed from consideration.
If you are relying on your education to meet qualification requirements:
Failure to provide all of the required information as stated in this vacancy announcement may result in an ineligible rating or may affect the overall rating.
You must submit a complete application package by 11:59 PM (EST) on 04/12/2024, the closing date of the announcement.
To begin, click Apply Online to create a USAJOBS account or log in to your existing account. Follow the prompts to select your USAJOBS resume and/or other supporting documents and complete the occupational questionnaire.
Click the Submit My Answers button to submit your application package.
It is your responsibility to ensure your responses and appropriate documentation is submitted prior to the closing date.
To verify your application is complete, log into your USAJOBS account, select the Application Status link and then select the more information link for this position. The Details page will display the status of your application, the documentation received and processed, and any correspondence the agency has sent related to this application. Your uploaded documents may take several hours to clear the virus scan process.
To return to an incomplete application, log into your USAJOBS account and click Update Application in the vacancy announcement. You must re-select your resume and/or other documents from your USAJOBS account or your application will be incomplete.
If you are unable to apply online or need to fax a document you do not have in electronic form, view the following link for information regarding an Alternate Application.
We will evaluate the qualifications and eligibility of all applicants, and then assess those who meet the minimum qualifications. All candidates who meet all the minimum requirements will be referred to the hiring official for further consideration. We will notify you of the final outcome after all of these steps have been completed.
Fair & Transparent
The Federal hiring process is set up to be fair and transparent. Please read the following guidance.
Beginning of a dialog window for the agency announcing this job. It begins with a heading 2 called “Learn more about Field Operating Offices of the Office of the Secretary of the Army”. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Learn more about
Executive Office for Immigration Review
If you are interested in a rewarding and challenging career, this is the position for you!
The Executive Office for Immigration Review seeks highly-qualified individuals to join our team of expert professionals in becoming a part of our challenging and rewarding Agency. The primary mission of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) is to adjudicate immigration cases by fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly interpreting and administering the Nation’s immigration laws. Under delegated authority from the Attorney General, EOIR conducts immigration court proceedings, appellate reviews, and administrative hearings. EOIR consists of three adjudicatory components: The Office of the Chief Immigration Judge, which is responsible for managing the Immigration Courts where Immigration Judges adjudicate individual cases; the Board of Immigration Appeals, which primarily conducts appellate reviews of these Immigration Judge decisions; and the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer, which adjudicates immigration-related employment cases.
Learn more about what it’s like to work at Executive Office for Immigration Review, what the agency does, and about the types of careers this agency offers.
Yes, EOIR is a mess! But, it’s not going to get any better without better judges, particularly at the BIA which sets precedents and should (even if it now doesn’t) maintain nationwide consistency among Immigration Judges and articulate and implement “best judicial practices.”
Quite disappointingly and outrageously, the Biden Administration and A.G. Garland have failed to “clean house” and bring long overdue due process and judicial reforms to EOIR. So, the NDPA will have to go about it “the old-fashioned way:” one judicial vacancy at a time!
What if we had a BIA that:
Believed due process and fundamental fairness are “job one;”
Insured correctness and quality over “generating numbers;”
Institutionalized protection, not rote rejection, of asylum seekers;
Built on past precedents for properly generous treatment of asylum seekers like INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, Matter of Mogharrabi, and Matter of Kasinga, rather than ignoring, or looking for artificial ways to limit them;
Issued precedents insuring early identification and consistent granting of many current and repetitive asylum applications;
Looked for ways to simplify, rather than overcomplicate and obfuscate, legal guidance;
Had “zero tolerance” for anti-immigrant, anti-asylum, racial, gender, and other biases among Immigration Judges (e.g., no more “asylum free zones”);
Refused to allow the Immigraton Court system to be misused and abused as a “deterrent” or “an adjunct of DHS Enforcement;”
Developed and enforced “best judicial practices;”
Prioritized facilitating pro bono representation as a key element of due process;
Aspired to make the “former vision of EOIR” — “through teamwork and innovation be the world’s best administrative tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all” — a reality, rather than a cruel hoax!
Of course, one judge can’t do it all! But, there are plenty of great judges in the current EOIR system, at both levels, who need reenforcement and reaffirmation! Rebuilding the EOIR system so that it is a real, due-process-oriented, subject-matter-expert court that insures justice — rather than institutionalizing injustice — has to start somewhere! Fixing EOIR would also help save the entire faltering Federal Judicial system.
If the NDPA doesn’t do it, who will? Certainly not Biden, Harris, Garland or their minions— or at to least not without being pushed from within and dragged kicking and screaming from without.
Waiting for Godot (a/k/a Merrick Garland) to fix EOIR isn’t going to cut it! Naseer’s Motley Group in The Rose Bowl Merlaysamuel Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Waiting for Godot in Doon School.jpg Copy [[File:Waiting for Godot in Doon School.jpg|Waiting_for_Godot_in_Doon_School]] Copy December 8, 2011So, don’t “wait for Godot” to fix this broken system! Clue: He’s not coming! Get those applications in now!
Better judges for a better America! Sooner, rather than later!
The agency is still considering referred applicants from the previous announcement posted September 25, 2023, under announcement number, IJ-12116877-23-VG. If you applied under that announcement and were referred for consideration, you need not reapply under this announcement.
This is an Excepted Service position. Upon completion of the required trial period, the position will be permanent. Additional positions may be filled from this announcement within 90 days of certificate issuance.
This position is in the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), Office of the Chief Immigration Judge. EOIR seeks highly-qualified individuals to join our team of expert professionals who serve as immigration adjudicators in this important Agency.
EOIR plays a pivotal role in the administration of the Nation’s immigration system. EOIR’s mission is to adjudicate immigration cases fairly, equitably, and efficiently at the trial and appellate level, governed by due process and the rule of law. Under delegated authority from the Attorney General, EOIR conducts immigration court proceedings, appellate reviews, and other administrative hearings, applying the immigration laws while ensuring that adjudicators are impartial, that laws are applied humanely and equitably, that all parties are treated with respect and dignity, and that cases are resolved expeditiously and in accordance with the Administration’s priorities and all applicable laws and regulations.
EOIR consists of three adjudicatory components: the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge, which is responsible for managing the numerous immigration courts located throughout the United States where immigration judges adjudicate individual cases; the Board of Immigration Appeals, which primarily conducts appellate reviews of the immigration judges’ decisions; and the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer, which adjudicates immigration-related employment cases. EOIR’s Headquarters is located in Falls Church, Virginia, about 10 miles from downtown Washington, DC.
As the federal agency whose mission is to ensure the fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans, the Department of Justice is committed to fostering a diverse and inclusive work environment. To build and retain a workforce that reflects the diverse experiences and perspectives of the American people, we welcome applicants from the many communities, identities, races, ethnicities, backgrounds, abilities, religions, and cultures of the United States who share our commitment to public service.
Job Description
Immigration Judges preside in formal, quasi-judicial hearings. Proceedings before Immigration Judges include but are not limited to removal, and bond adjudications, and involve issues of removability as well as applications for relief such as asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture, cancellation of removal, and adjustment of status.
Immigration Judges make decisions that are final, subject to appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals. In connection with these proceedings, Immigration Judges exercise certain discretionary powers as provided by law, and are required to exercise independent judgment in reaching final decisions. Immigration Judges may be required to conduct hearings in penal institutions and other remote locations
Qualifications
In order to qualify for the Immigration Judge position, applicants must meet all of the following minimum qualifications:
Education: Applicants must possess a LL.B., J.D., or LL.M. degree. (Provide the month and year in which you obtained your degree and the name of the College or University from which it was conferred/awarded.)
AND
Licensure: Applicants must be an active member of the bar, duly licensed and authorized to practice law as an attorney under the laws of any state, territory of the U.S., or the District of Columbia. (Provide the month and year in which you obtained your first license and the State from which it was issued.)
AND
Experience: Applicants must have seven (7) years of post-bar admission experience as a licensed attorney preparing for, participating in, and/or appealing court or administrative agency proceedings at the Federal, State or local level. Qualifying trial experience involves cases in which a complaint was filed with a court or administrative agency, or a charging document (e.g., indictment, notice of violation, or information) was issued by a court, administrative entity, a grand jury, or appropriate military authority. Relevant administrative experience includes cases in which a formal procedure was initiated by a governmental administrative body.
NOTE: Qualifying experience is calculated only after bar admission.
IN DESCRIBING YOUR EXPERIENCE, PLEASE BE CLEAR AND SPECIFIC. WE MAY NOT MAKE ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING YOUR EXPERIENCE. If your resume does not support your assessment questionnaire answers, we will not allow credit for your response(s). Ensure that your resume contains your full name, address, phone number, email address, and employment information. Each position listed on your resume must include: From/To dates of employment (MM/YYYY-MM/YYYY or MM/YYYY to Present); agency/employer name; position title; Federal grade level(s) held, if applicable; hours, if less than full time; and duties performed. In addition, any experience on less than a full time basis must specify the percentage and length of time spent in performance of such duties.
Additional information
This is an Excepted Service position, subject to a probationary period. The initial appointment is for a period not to exceed 24 months. Conversion to a permanent position is contingent upon appointment by the Attorney General.
Additional positions may be filled from this announcement within 90 days of certificate issuance.
Alternative work schedule options are available. Immigration Judges’ tour of duty may include Saturdays and Sundays.
There is no formal rating system for applying veterans’ preference to Immigration Judge appointments in the excepted service; however, the Department of Justice considers veterans’ preference eligibility as a positive factor in Immigration Judge hiring. Applicants eligible for veterans’ preference must claim their status when completing their application in the online application process and attach supporting documentation. (See the “Required Documents” section.)
Many vacancies (see below vacancy link for locations): Location Negotiable After Selection
Travel
50% or less – You may be expected to travel for this position.
Relocation Expenses
Not authorized
* * *
Department Policies
Equal Employment Opportunity: The U.S. Department of Justice is an Equal Opportunity/Reasonable Accommodation Employer. Except where otherwise provided by law, there will be no discrimination because of race, color, religion, national origin, sex – including gender identity, sexual orientation, or pregnancy status – or because of age (over 40), physical or mental disability, protected genetic information, parental status, marital status, political affiliation, or any other non-merit based factor. The Department of Justice welcomes and encourages applications from persons with physical and mental disabilities. The Department is firmly committed to satisfying its affirmative obligations under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, to ensure that persons with disabilities have every opportunity to be hired and advanced on the basis of merit within the Department of Justice. For more information, please review our full EEO Statement.
Reasonable Accommodations: This agency provides reasonable accommodation to applicants with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation for any part of the application and hiring process, please notify the agency. Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis.
Outreach and Recruitment for Qualified Applicants with Disabilities: The Department encourages qualified applicants with disabilities, including individuals with targeted/severe disabilities to apply in response to posted vacancy announcements. Qualified applicants with targeted/severe disabilities may be eligible for direct hire, non-competitive appointment under Schedule A (5 C.F.R. § 213.3102(u)) hiring authority. Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to contact one of the Department’s Disability Points of Contact (DPOC) to express an interest in being considered for a position. See list of DPOCs.
Suitability and Citizenship: It is the policy of the Department to achieve a drug-free workplace and persons selected for employment will be required to pass a drug test which screens for illegal drug use prior to final appointment. Employment is also contingent upon the completion and satisfactory adjudication of a background investigation. Congress generally prohibits agencies from employing non-citizens within the United States, except for a few narrow exceptions as set forth in the annual Appropriations Act (see, https://www.usajobs.gov/Help/working-in-government/non-citizens/Links to other government and non-government sites will typically appear with the “external link” icon to indicate that you are leaving the Department of Justice website when you click the link.). Pursuant to DOJ component policies, only U.S. citizens are eligible for employment with the Executive Office for Immigration Review, U.S. Trustee’s Offices, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Unless otherwise indicated in a particular job advertisement, qualifying non-U.S. citizens meeting immigration and appropriations law criteria may apply for employment with other DOJ organizations. However, please be advised that the appointment of non-U.S. citizens is extremely rare; such appointments would be possible only if necessary to accomplish the Department’s mission and would be subject to strict security requirements. Applicants who hold dual citizenship in the U.S. and another country will be considered on a case-by-case basis. All DOJ employees are subject to a residency requirement. Candidates must have lived in the United States for at least three of the past five years. The three-year period is cumulative, not necessarily consecutive. Federal or military employees, or dependents of federal or military employees serving overseas, are excepted from this requirement. This is a Department security requirement which is waived only for extreme circumstances and handled on a case-by-case basis.
Veterans: There is no formal rating system for applying veterans’ preference to attorney appointments in the excepted service; however, the Department of Justice considers veterans’ preference eligibility as a positive factor in attorney hiring. Applicants eligible for veterans’ preference must include that information in their cover letter or resume and attach supporting documentation (e.g., the DD 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty and other supporting documentation) to their submissions. Although the “point” system is not used, per se, applicants eligible to claim 10-point preference must submit Standard Form (SF) 15, Application for 10-Point Veteran Preference, and submit the supporting documentation required for the specific type of preference claimed (visit the OPM website, www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/SF15.pdfLinks to other government and non-government sites will typically appear with the “external link” icon to indicate that you are leaving the Department of Justice website when you click the link. for a copy of SF 15, which lists the types of 10-point preferences and the required supporting document(s). Applicants should note that SF 15 requires supporting documentation associated with service- connected disabilities or receipt of nonservice-connected disability pensions to be dated 1991 or later except in the case of service members submitting official statements or retirement orders from a branch of the Armed Forces showing that their retirement was due to a permanent service-connected disability or that they were transferred to the permanent disability retired list (the statement or retirement orders must indicate that the disability is 10% or more).
USAO Residency Requirement: Assistant United States Attorneys must reside in the district to which appointed or within 25 miles thereof. See 28 U.S.C. 545 for district specific information.
* * *
This and other vacancy announcements can be found under Attorney Vacancies and Volunteer Legal Internships. The Department of Justice cannot control further dissemination and/or posting of information contained in this vacancy announcement. Such posting and/or dissemination is not an endorsement by the Department of the organization or group disseminating and/or posting the information.
Updated December 1, 2023
*****************
Yes, I’ve been highly critical of EOIR, particularly the BIA. But, to change the system for the better, we need the “best and brightest judges” at the “retail level” — the U.S. Immigration Courts!
In the process of denying asylum to a family targeted by gangs in Mexico, the BIA says:
The Immigration Judge’s finding that the cartel was motived by a desire to control the respondents’ land rather than their family membership is a permissible view of the evidence and is not clearly erroneous.
This negative finding by the IJ was “permissible,” not “compelled.” That language admits that other fact-findings on the same evidence could also be “permissible.” Much depends on the individual Immigration Judge’s frame of reference and willingness to look for “reasons to protect” rather than defaulting to “reasons to reject.”
So, what if the IJ were able to see and understand asylum from the standpoint of the applicant, rather than defaulting to the EOIR “any reason to deny” approach? Fairer fact-findings below would require more careful review by the BIA. Rather than just being able to mindlessly affirm adverse findings below, the BIA would basically be legally bound to uphold more positive findings unless “clearly erroneous.”
Of course in their haste to deny some BIA panels are prone to violate the “clearly erroneous” standard to “get to no.” But, that increases the chances of Circuit reversal. See, e.g., Crespin Valladares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117 (4th Cir. 2011) (my case from Arlington).
Additionally, DHS can’t and doesn’t appeal every asylum grant, particularly when they are “fact bound.” I actually had ICE Assistant Chief Counsel say on the record in waiving appeal that while they respectfully disagreed with my fact-findings, they recognized that they were not “clearly erroneous” for purposes of appeal. (Other times they actually agreed after I had stated my detailed findings and analysis, sometimes actually repeating during closing arguments the basic analysis I would have reached on the record we had just made.)
Better judging below can actually cut off and discourage backlog building “let’s spin the bottle” appeals by DHS encouraged by the BIA’s systemic failure to consistently uphold the rights of asylum seekers and their “unduly restrictive” interpretations of asylum law!
Buried amongst the morass of poor administration and bad appellate judging at EOIR, many “true expert” IJs are making great decisions and saving lives on a daily basis. One of the “best kept secrets” at EOIR — often intentionally obscured by both EOIR and the media (not to mention GOP White Nationalist nativists) — is that as of this summer over half of all those who passed “credible fear” — 55% — received asylum grants if they were actually able to get to merits hearings at today’s backlogged EOIR!See, e.g., https://humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Asylum-grant-rates-fact-sheet-August-2023.pdf.
That’s an impressive rate, given that the system is stacked against asylum applicants! It also highlights the total insanity of today’s discussions on the Hill of how to artificially heighten standards to bar asylum seekers and promote more arbitrary wrongful denials of life-saving protection. What’s needed is better judging and more realistic and humane policies, NOT more cruelty and misapplications of asylum law!
As I have pointed out along with others, asylum grant rates would be much higher with better judges at EOIR and better precedents from the BIA. Better guidance would mean more cases granted at the Asylum Office and Immigration Court levels and a more timely and efficient system that advances and promotes due process, rather than inhibiting it!
But, it can’t all be done “from the outside!” Better Immigration Judges — true asylum experts with “hands on” experience representing applicants before EOIR and the Asylum Office — are essential to rebuilding EOIR as a functional court system.
For example, one of the expert recommendations from the very recent Women’s Refugee Commission study of asylum reception, resettlement, and processing was that: “One pro se assistance goal is to incentivize immigration judges to take a closer look at pro se asylum cases.”
But, this laudable goal presupposes Immigration Judges who are experts in asylum law and able to “work their way through” some of the inherent barriers to justice in pro se Immigration Court cases rather than submitting to the “artificial production pressures and any reason to deny culture” that still exists at much of EOIR. Sadly, not all current IJs have this ability. Moreover, the BIA has provided defective leadership and guidance. EOIR judicial training on asylum does not measure up to much of that readily available in the private/NGO sector. See, e.g.,VIISTA Villanova.
Many practitioners who have contacted me here at “Courtside” lament that their lives and their client’s futures would be better if they only were appearing before Immigration Judges who actually understood asylum law from a protection standpoint. They are frustrated by having their fine presentations and great arguments “shrugged off” with “predetermined boiler plate denials” citing negative language from the BIA — often ignoring what actually happened or was proved at trials.
Instead of being destined to forever be frustrated by EOIR’s shortcomings, YOU now have a chance to “be that judge” — the one who understands asylum law, has seen the defects in EOIR decision-making, who doesn’t view denial as “preordained,” and will require both parties fairly to meet their burdens. (Ironically, there are many places where the asylum regulations still place the burden of proof on DHS, even if many IJs and BIA panels are unwilling to enforce them.)
So, get in those applications for EOIR judgeships! It’s a great way to show leadership by improving the system from the inside while saving lives in the process! Better judges for a better America — starting at the “retail level!”
Don’t just complain about the awful mess @ EOIR! Get on the bench and do something about it! Public Domain
Excerpts:
Now, those of you who read my blog immigrationcourtside.com or have heard me speak before, or both, know that I am an outspoken critic of the last four Administrations’ gross mismanagement and misdirection of our Immigration Courts. So, you might well ask why I am here recruiting YOU to become part of a court system that I have consistently lampooned and characterized as dysfunctional, FUBAR, and badly in need of long-overdue reforms.
A better question might be why AG Garland, VP Harris, Deputy AG Lisa Monaco, and Associate AG Vanita Gupta AREN’T here today actively recruiting you to apply to become Immigration Judges in their system. It’s a hugely important court, perhaps the largest in the Federal Government, that cries out for excellence, practical immigration scholarship, and badly needs a much more diverse, representative, and expert judiciary to achieve equal justice for all in America.
The short answer is because I CARE, and THEY DON’T! I have a vision of a model court system unswervingly dedicated to due process, fundamental fairness, great practical scholarship, best judicial practices, fantastic public service, and equal justice for all! THEY DON’T!
After two largely fruitiness and frustrating years of the Biden Administration’s bungling immigration and social justice mis-steps, it’s painfully clear that the needed management, personnel, operational, and expertise reforms needed at EOIR AREN’T going to come from above.
But, if you have been in Immigration Court and thought “Hey, there is a better, more informed, more efficient, more just way to run this railroad, why isn’t it happening,” THIS is YOUR chance to get on board and change the direction of EOIR and the millions of lives and livelihoods that depend on it! See that the next generations of dedicated immigration lawyers won’t face some of the unnecessary and counterproductive roadblocks and bad experiences that you have had to deal with in seeking justice for your clients before EOIR!
. . . .
Not surprisingly, asylum grant rates dropped precipitously during the Trump years. Although they have rebounded some under Biden, they still remain below the 2012 levels. It’s certainly not that conditions have substantially “improved” in major “sending countries.” If anything, conditions are worse in most of those countries than in the years preceding 2012.
So, if the law hasn’t changed substantially and country conditions haven’t improved, what has caused regression in asylum grant rates at EOIR? It comes down to poor judging, accompanied by inadequate training, too much emphasis on “churning the numbers over quality and correctness,” and a BIA that really doesn’t believe much in asylum law and lacks the expertise and commitment to consistently set and apply favorable precedents and end disgraceful inconsistencies and “asylum free zones” that continue to exist.
Some of the most disgraceful, intentional asylum misinterpretations by Sessions and Barr now have been reversed by Garland. Unfortunately, he failed to follow-up to insure that the correct standards are actually applied, particularly to recurring circumstances. It’s one of many reasons that the Biden Administration struggles to re-establish a fair and efficient legal asylum system at the Southern Border — notwithstanding having two years to address the problems!
But, it doesn’t have to be this way! Recently, as I noted earlier, a number of notable “practical scholar experts” have been appointed to the Immigration Judiciary. When such well-qualified jurists reach a “critical mass” in the expanding EOIR, systemic changes and improvements in practices and results will happen.
The “dialogue” among Immigration Judges from government backgrounds and those from the private/NGO sector will improve. Lives will be saved. Life-threatening inconsistencies and wasteful litigation to correct basic mistakes at all levels of EOIR will diminish. The EOIR system will resume movement toward the former noble, but now long abandoned, vision of “through teamwork and innovation, being the world’s best administrative tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all!”
. . . .
So, warriors of the NDPA, check out USA Jobs, make those applications for EOIR judgeships! Storm the tower from below! Make a difference in the lives of others, stand up for due process and fundamental fairness for all persons, and help save our democracy! Become better judges for a better America! If not YOU, then who?
You can watch my full webinar here:
AILA Webinars shared the following meeting recording with you.
Topic: How to become an EOIR judge
Date: Jan 11, 2023 11:42 AM Eastern Time (US and Canada)
“Hey ladies, not every woman in Guatemala is hanging up there with you (yet), so what’s the problem,” says Circuit Judge Patty Shwartz of the 3rd. Cir.“ “She struggled madly in the torturing Ray” Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Chavez-Chilel v. Atty. Gen., 3rd Cir., 12-09-21, published
PANEL: SHWARTZ, PORTER, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
OPINION: Judge Patty Shwartz
KEY QUOTE:
Chavez-Chilel’s proposed PSG lacks particularity. “[N]ot every immutable characteristic is sufficiently precise to define a [PSG],” id. at 552, and courts have concluded that a proposed PSG of all women in a particular country “is overbroad[] because no factfinder could reasonably conclude that all [of a country’s] women had a well-founded fear of persecution based solely on their gender,” Safaie v. INS, 25 F.3d 636, 640 (8th Cir. 1994) (addressing Iranian women).8 Reasons to depart from this general rule are not present here. For example, in Hassan v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 513 (8th Cir. 2007), the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recognized the PSG of all Somali women because “all Somali females have a well-founded fear of persecution based solely on gender given the prevalence of” female genital mutilation. Id. at 518; see also Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 797–98 (9th Cir. 2005) (same); In re Kasinga, 21 I. & N. Dec. 357, 365–66 (B.I.A. 1996) (recognizing PSG of “young women” in a particular tribe in Togo due to pervasive practice of female
8 In Perdomo v. Holder, 611 F.3d 662, 668–69 (9th Cir. 2010), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit disagreed with the BIA’s conclusion that “all women in Guatemala” was too broad a group to qualify as a PSG and remanded for further analysis. That case rested on the Ninth Circuit’s two-part definition of a PSG, which recognized any group “united by a voluntary association, including a former association, or by an innate characteristic that is so fundamental to the identities or consciences of its members that members either cannot or should not be required to change it.” Id. at 666 (quotation marks and emphasis omitted). This definition is not consistent with our Court’s three requirements for a PSG, see S.E.R.L., 894 F.3d at 540, so we decline to follow the reasoning in Perdomo.
14
genital mutilation). Here, by contrast, there is no record evidence that all Guatemalan women share a unifying characteristic that results in them being targeted for any form of persecution based solely on their gender. Cf. A.R. 170–73, 182 (Chavez-Chilel’s testimony that she knew of no other women who suffered sexual or domestic violence); A.R. 232 (report explaining that one-third more Guatemalan women experience sexual or domestic violence against them than women in Paraguay). Accordingly, while the size of the group standing alone would not disqualify a group from being a PSG, Cece v. Holder, 733 F.3d 662, 674–75 (7th Cir. 2013), Chavez- Chilel has failed to demonstrate that her proposed PSG is sufficiently particularized. Thus, her alleged fear of persecution based upon membership in such a group does not provide a basis for asylum. Because Chavez-Chilel cannot prove her asylum claim, she cannot meet the higher standard to obtain withholding of removal. See Blanco v. Att’y Gen., 967 F.3d 304, 315 (3d Cir. 2020). As a result, the IJ and BIA correctly denied her request for asylum and withholding of removal.9
This is a seriously flawed analysis. The court conflates psg “particularity” with nexus. Obviously, not every woman in Guatemala need fear persecution for some to be persecuted on that basis!
Suppose a few Jews escaped Nazi persecution. Does that mean Jews weren’t a PSG? Suppose only 10% of Poles were killed by the Nazis because of their ethnicity. Does that mean Poles were not a PSG? Suppose only 40% of Roma in a particular country are exterminated? Does that make Roma not a PSG? What if every Catholic in a particular country doesn’t have the exact same fear of persecution? Does that mean that Catholics don’t have a “well-founded fear”of persecution? Does that mean that Catholicism isn’t “one central reason” for persecution? Of course not, except in the uninformed minds of Judge Shwartz and her panel colleagues!
Obviously “women in Guatemala” is 1) fundamental to identity; 2) particularized (it clearly excludes non-women); and 3) distinct in Guatemalan society (and every other country in the world). Indeed, like family “women” and “men” are among the oldest, most fundamental, readily recognizable “particular social groups” in human existence!
I’m not the only critic of this outrageous misconstruction of asylum law!
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
“Sir Jeffrey” Chase of the Round Table 🛡⚔️ says:
The court completely misconstrued the standard for determining particularity:
Here, by contrast, there is no record evidence that all Guatemalan women share a unifying characteristic that results in them being targeted for any form of persecution based solely on their gender.
Particularity of course is a clear marker for group inclusion, and does not require evidence that everyone in the group is being targeted for persecution – compare, e.g. family or land owners.
Professor Geoffrey Hoffman Immigraton Clinic Director University of Houston Law Center
Our friend and “practical scholar” colleague, Professor Geoffrey Hoffman of the University of Houston Law Center, adds:
Appears also to ignore the “once central reason” asylum rule in that the court is erroneously say gender must be “sole” reason (page 15, use of word “solely”)
So court got it wrong on 2 counts – not “all” women in Guatemala must be persecuted to form a valid PSG and gender need not be “sole reason” for the persecution.
Another colleague who practices in the 3rd Circuit sums it up succinctly and bluntly: “Awful!”
Dan Kowalski Online Editor of the LexisNexis Immigration Law Community (ILC)
In addition to being legally wrong on a number of points, as pointed out by Dan Kowalski at LexisNexis Immigration Community, the court’s decision is horrible policy:
Note that the IJ DID grant CAT relief, and the government did NOT appeal that grant.
The “good news” is that the CAT grant prevents Ms. Chavez-Calel from being returned to torture and persecution in Guatemala. However, by misapplying asylum law, the court basically places her in an indefinite “limbo status.”
She therefore is deprived of the right to fully integrate into our society by getting a green card and becoming a citizen. The court also strips her of any realistic path to exercising political rights! What sense does manipulating the law to intentionally create disenfranchised subclasses in American society make when better alternatives are available?
To add insult to injury, in this decision the Third Circuit joined other Circuits and the BIA in giving DHS and EOIR a “pass” on their intentional decision not to comply with the INA requirements for issuing a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) to commence removal proceedings.
Obviously, these “ivory towerists” have never experienced the actual mess that occurs when overworked, understaffed Immigration Court clerks manually mail out subsequent notices, by regular U.S. Mail, using addresses haphazardly entered by DHS personnel in the chaos that often exists at the border and upon release from DHS detention.
Perhaps, in their exalted positions, these Article IIIs no longer have to rely on the ever-deteriorating service of the U.S. Postal service. This morning, I delivered a “mini-stack” of mis-delivered U.S. Mail to my next door neighbor. We seem to get mis-delivered mail on a weekly basis. And, I live in a reasonably “upscale” neighborhood, if I do say so myself — one where folks know all the neighbors and take the time to “re-route” misdirected mail. Think there are places America where that doesn’t happen?
What do these judges think “delivery accuracy” is in the communities and situations where most Immigration Court respondents live? Maybe, there was a good reason why Congress required the NTA, which, unlike subsequent EOIR notices, is often served personally, to contain accurate information on the time and place of their hearing.
Maybe, we need Federal Judges who live in the “real world” rather than abstract one they have constructed where the lives of migrants are at issue! Maybe, we need more Federal Judges who have seen and experienced the consequences of “poor and uninformed judging” on immigrant and ethnic communities in the U.S.!
At a time when the Supremes’ righty majority appears to be intent on dismantling half a century of established women’s rights, the Third Circuit’s wrong-headed decision is a further “body blow” to both the humanity and human rights of women throughout the world!
Judge Schwartz is an Obama appointee. Her panel colleagues are GOP appointees. We deserve better from our life-tenured Federal Judiciary! Much, much better!
Elizabeth Gibson Attorney, NY Legal Assistance Group Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
COVID-19 & Closures
Note: Policies are rapidly changing, so please verify information with the government and colleagues.
EOIR Status Overview & EOIR Court Status Map/List: Hearings in non-detained cases at courts without an announced date are postponed through, and including, February 19, 2021. NYC non-detained remains closed for hearings.
Vox: The Biden administration announced that, starting Thursday, it will no longer enroll asylum seekers newly arriving on the southern border in a Trump-era program that has forced tens of thousands to wait in Mexico for a chance to obtain protection in the United States. The Homeland Security Department urged anyone currently enrolled in the program, known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) or colloquially as the “Remain in Mexico” policy, to “remain where they are, pending further official information from U.S. government officials.”
AP: With the clock winding down on his term, U.S. President Donald Trump shielded tens of thousands of Venezuelan migrants from deportation Tuesday night, rewarding Venezuelan exiles who have been among his most loyal supporters and who fear losing the same privileged access to the White House during the Biden administration.
ImmProf: There’s a lot to unpack there. First: eliminating one-year deadline for filing asylum claims. Second: increasing “protections for U visa, T visa, and VAWA applicants.” Third: raising the cap on U visas for 10,000 to 30,000. Fourth: expanding protections for foreign nationals assisting U.S. troops. But see GOP Lawmakers Propose Major Immigration Restrictions.
WaPo: Homeland security nominee Alejandro Mayorkas told senators he would carry out President-elect Joe Biden’s immigration overhaul while intensifying efforts to combat domestic extremism, during a hearing Tuesday that highlighted Republican opposition to his confirmation.
TRAC: While the Trump administration hired many new immigration judges and implemented a range of different strategies aimed in part at reducing the Immigration Court backlog, the backlog grew each month. Some of Trump’s changes in court operations arguably slowed case processing. However, the primary driver of the exploding backlog was not only the lack of immigration judges but the tsunami of new cases filed in court by the Department of Homeland Security.
SFChron: Interviews with dozens of attorneys across the country and current and former government officials, as well as internal documents obtained by The Chronicle, show the problems have festered for years. The Justice Department has long lacked a strong system for reporting and responding to sexual harassment and misconduct.
Vera: Gov. Cuomo reaffirmed his commitment to funding the Liberty Defense Project, which provides essential legal services for immigrants across New York State. This is excellent news for families facing separation, deportation and other horrors caused by the federal government’s actions.
A district court judge issued a nationwide stay of the effective date of the 12/18/20 EOIR final fee review rule and a preliminary injunction to enjoin most of its implementation. The rule was set to go into effect on 1/19/21. (CLINIC, et al., v. EOIR, et al., 1/18/21) AILA Doc. No. 21011933
White House Chief of Staff Ronald A. Klain issued a memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies instituting a regulatory freeze pending review. AILA Doc. No. 21012090
Advance copy of a document that will be published in the Federal Register on 1/25/21, delaying the effective date of the final rule “Security Bars and Processing,” which was scheduled to become effective on 1/22/21. The effective date is delayed until 3/21/21. AILA Doc. No. 21012143
Acting DHS Secretary Pekoske issued a memorandum directing DHS components to conduct a review of immigration enforcement policies, and setting interim policies for civil enforcement during that review. Beginning 1/22/21, DHS will pause removals of certain noncitizens ordered deported for 100 days. AILA Doc. No. 21012136
President Biden issued an Executive Order revoking EO 13768 of 1/25/17, and directing the DOS Secretary, the Attorney General, the DHS Secretary, and other officials to review any agency actions developed pursuant to EO 13768 and to take action, including issuing revised guidance, as appropriate. AILA Doc. No. 21012135
President Biden issued a proclamation revoking EO 13780, PP 9645, PP 9723, and PP 9983. The proclamation directs the DOS secretary to direct embassies/consulates, consistent with visa processing procedures, including any related to COVID-19, to resume visa processing consistent with the revocations. AILA Doc. No. 21012002
President Biden issued an EO, which, among other things, directs government officials to assess CDC’s order requiring a negative COVID test from airline passengers traveling to the U.S., and to take “further appropriate regulatory action” to implement public health measures for international travel. AILA Doc. No. 21012300
In light of a CDC order issued on 1/12/21, President Trump issued a proclamation on 1/18/21, effective 1/26/21, removing travel restrictions from the Schengen Area, the U.K., Ireland, and Brazil. (86 FR 6799, 1/22/21) AILA Doc. No. 21011930
DHS announced that it is suspending new enrollments in the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) Program and will cease adding individuals into the program effective 1/21/21. DHS advised current MPP participants to remain where they are, pending further information. AILA Doc. No. 21012001
On 1/20/21, President Biden issued a memorandum directing the DHS Secretary, in consultation with the Attorney General, to take all actions he deems appropriate, consistent with applicable law, to preserve and fortify DACA. (86 FR 7053, 1/25/21) AILA Doc. No. 21012130
On 1/20/21, President Biden issued a memo deferring through 6/30/22, the removal of any Liberian national, or person without nationality who last habitually resided in Liberia, who is present in the U.S. and who was under a grant of DED as of 1/10/21. (86 FR 7055, 1/25/21) AILA Doc. No. 21012131
On 1/20/21, President Biden issued an executive order revoking prior presidential actions that sought to exclude undocumented immigrants from the apportionment base following the 2020 census. (86 FR 7015, 1/25/21) AILA Doc. No. 21012134
President Biden issued a proclamation terminating the national emergency declared by Proclamation 9844, and continued on 2/13/20 and 1/15/21. The proclamation directs officials to pause work on construction on the southern border wall and to develop a plan to redirect funds and repurpose contracts. AILA Doc. No. 21012132
On 1/19/21, President Trump issued a memo directing DHS and DOS to defer, with certain exceptions, for 18 months the removal of any Venezuelan national, or individual without nationality who last habitually resided in Venezuela, who is present in the U.S. as of 1/20/21. (86 FR 6845, 1/25/21) AILA Doc. No. 21012030
The U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari, vacated the judgment of the Ninth Circuit, and remanded for further consideration in light of DHS v. Thuraissigiam. (ICE, et al. v. Padilla, et al., 1/11/21) AILA Doc. No. 21011934
The BIA ruled that §58-37-8(2)(a)(i) of the Utah Code, which criminalizes possession or use of a controlled substance, is divisible with respect to the specific “controlled substance” involved in a violation of that statute. Matter of Dikhtyar, 28 I&N Dec. 214 (BIA 2021) AILA Doc. No. 21012237
The court vacated and remanded the BIA’s denial of the asylum and withholding of removal claims of the petitioner, who feared that he would be subjected to harm on account of his work as a paid contractor for the U.S. Army during the war in Iraq. (Al Amiri v. Rosen, 1/11/21) AILA Doc. No. 21012039
Vacating in part the district court’s decision, the court held that the plaintiffs had pled sufficient facts to allege a plausible claim that DHS unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed adjudication of their U visa petitions. (Fernandez Gonzalez, et al. v. Cuccinelli, et al., 1/14/21) AILA Doc. No. 21012048
The court upheld the BIA’s conclusion that the petitioner did not demonstrate due diligence because he had waited approximately eight months after the court’s decision in Lugo-Resendez v. Lynch to file his current motion to reopen under INA §240(c)(7). (Ovalles v. Rosen, 1/6/21) AILA Doc. No. 21011943
The court held that even if the BIA had erred in denying withholding of removal to the petitioner, inadmissibility was not a collateral consequence of the BIA’s decision, because the petitioner would still be subject to his February 2012 removal order. (Mendoza-Flores v. Rosen, 12/29/20) AILA Doc. No. 21011942
The court held that, based on the totality of the circumstances, including petitioner’s young age and her inability to travel from New York to Memphis for the hearing, the petitioner had established exceptional circumstances justifying her failure to appear. (E. A. C. A. v. Rosen, 1/12/21) AILA Doc. No. 21012040
The court held that the BIA’s ultimate hardship conclusion is the type of mixed question over which it has jurisdiction to review after the Supreme Court’s decision in Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, but found that petitioner failed to show the requisite hardship. (Singh v. Rosen, 1/7/21) AILA Doc. No. 21011944
The court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s determination that the petitioner had failed to establish the requisite nexus between his fear of persecution from the Sinaloa Cartel upon return to Mexico and his family membership. (Meraz-Saucedo v. Rosen, 1/15/21) AILA Doc. No. 21012044
The court held that the petitioner was entitled to have his request for administrative closure considered as a proper exercise of discretion under law, including BIA precedents and the factors set forth in Matter of Avetisyan and Matter of W-Y-U. (Zelaya Diaz v. Rosen, 1/15/21) AILA Doc. No. 21012041
The court affirmed the BIA’s decision denying petitioner’s request for deferral of removal to Somalia, finding that substantial evidence supported the IJ’s and BIA’s conclusions that he was unlikely to be tortured by Al-Shabaab due to his minority-clan membership. (Hassan v. Rosen, 1/15/21) AILA Doc. No. 21012045
The court held that, in seeking the petitioner’s removal, DHS could choose to rely on a claim that the petitioner had committed crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMTs), rather than on the alternative claim that she had committed immigration fraud. (Herrera Gonzalez v. Rosen, 1/4/21) AILA Doc. No. 21011945
The court ordered rehearing en banc and vacated its prior decision in Cheneau v. Barr, which held that the petitioner did not derive citizenship from his mother’s naturalization because his claim was foreclosed by the court’s precedent. (Cheneau v. Rosen, 1/6/21) AILA Doc. No. 21011948
The court held that the district court had correctly concluded that the Flores Settlement Agreement was not terminated by new regulations adopted by HHS and DHS in 2019, and that the government did not show that changed circumstances justified termination. (Flores v. Rosen, 12/29/20) AILA Doc. No. 21011946
The court held that, under the Special Agricultural Worker program (SAW), a noncitizen who was inadmissible at the time of his adjustment to temporary resident status may be removed after his automatic adjustment to permanent resident status. (Hernandez Flores v. Rosen, 12/30/20) AILA Doc. No. 21011947
Where the petitioner had filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 8 USC §2241 arguing that his immigration arrest and re-detention was retaliation for his protected speech, the court reversed the district court’s denial of the petition and remanded. (Bello-Reyes v. Gaynor, 1/14/21) AILA Doc. No. 21012047
The court held that the IJ had provided the pro se petitioner with a full opportunity to present testimony, and found the BIA did not err in concluding that petitioner’s description of generalized violence failed to meet his burden to show targeted persecution. (Hussain v. Rosen, 1/11/21) AILA Doc. No. 21012046
The court upheld the BIA’s finding that petitioner’s Florida convictions for money laundering and workers’ compensation fraud were aggravated felonies because each conviction involved fraud in which the amount of loss to the victim exceeded $10,000. (Garcia-Simisterra v. Att’y Gen., 12/30/20) AILA Doc. No. 21012038
The NY County Supreme Court approved a proposed settlement in Colaj v. Roberts benefiting a class of asylum applicants with work authorization who were denied Safety Net Assistance between 8/7/14 and 11/21/17. Under the agreement, the applicants will get a certain amount of back benefits.AILA Doc. No. 21011935
EOIR issued guidance on the implementation of an enhanced case flow processing model for non-status, non-detained cases with representation in removal proceedings. Memo is effective 12/1/20. AILA Doc. No. 20120130
DOS provided a report from the NVC showing the total number of immigrant visa applicants on the waiting list in the various family- and employment-based preference categories and subcategories subject to the numerical limit as of 11/1/20. The figures only reflect petitions received by DOS. AILA Doc. No. 21012232
EOIR issued a policy memo (PM 21-15) reiterating and memorializing EOIR’s policy regarding adjudicator independence and impartiality. The memo notes that it remains EOIR policy that adjudicator decisions should be based solely on the record before the adjudicator and the applicable law. AILA Doc. No. 21012033
Duckworth: Combat Veteran and U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) is urging President Joe Biden to take immediate action to prevent the deportation of Veterans, repatriate deported Veterans, strengthen the military naturalization process and remove barriers to accessing VA care faced by Veterans living broad.
CUNY Immigration Seminar Series, Spring 2021: Feb 5: Holding Fast, Feb 19: Hyper Education, Mar 5: Citizenship Reimagined, Mar 12: The President and Immigration Law, Mar 26: The Browning of the New South, Apr 9: Reuniting Families, Apr 23: Represented But Unequal, Apr 30: Pursuing Citizenship in the Enforcement Era.
A better Monday right off the bat, as I had predicted and hoped! But, the work has just begun!
However welcome the Biden Administration’s immediate actions are, they have barely “touched the tip of the iceberg” on the human rights, civil rights, and human dignity abuses left behind by the just-departed kakistocracy.
There is a mess in the Federal Judiciary, from the lowest levels (EOIR) to the highest levels (Supremes). For example, the Supremes’ totally wrong-headed remand of ICE v. Padilla (described in Elizabeth’s report) shows a deficient Court that overtly fails to uphold the Constitution for asylum seekers and whose false and stilted jurisprudence continues to advance Jim Crow, White Nationalism, and Dred Scottification well into the 21st Century. Totally outrageous!
Let’s think about the Supremes in “real life” terms! The most vulnerable among us — asylum seekers who are being openly abused by our Government while their lives are being trashed by our legal “system” get the shaft from El Supremos. But, yesterday the same Supremos issued corrupt traitor Prez Trump a “free pass” by going along with a corrupt scheme to “run out the clock” on “emoluments clause cases” that those seeking to uphold the rule of law had won below!
Suffering, death, and unfairness to the most vulnerable; free passes to the powerful and overtly corrupt! The problems with our failing justice system begin at the top and obviously have filtered down to places like EOIR where nobody expects any accountability for “going along to get along” with the Trump-Miller White Nationalist, racist, degradations of humanity!
Quoting Justice Sonia Sotomayor: “This is not justice!” Not even close!
Judge Garland must end the White Nationalist mess at EOIR by replacing (what passes for) administration and the BIA immediately, while quickly developing due process-expert-equal justice-human rights-diversity criteria and meaningful public participation in the judicial appointment process for the Immigration Courts. Then apply those criteria not only to new appointments, but also to retention decisions for the existing judiciary which is the product of a skewed “insider only,” “prosecutor and hard liner biased” defective system.
Some Immigration Judges are well qualified, fair, and well respected; some are not. Judge Garland needs to figure out quickly who should serve, who shouldn’t, and who the best-qualified, fairest, and most universally respected “experts” are to create “the world’s best administrative judiciary” that will serve as a model for a better Article III Judiciary!
This is also the first step to reform throughout the Federal Judiciary all the way up to the failed Supremes. A functioning due-process-oriented, practical, progressive, independent Immigration Judiciary should become a source of better Article III Judges who handle high volume and promote best practices while actually improving due process and efficiency. A big winner for America!
A “model Immigration judiciary” (in place of the “Star Chambers”) will also be the centerpiece of a new independent legislative Article I Immigration Court that Judge Garland must push aggressively to insure that his reform work is institutionalized and is not destroyed by a future DOJ kakistocracy.
As one of my esteemed judicial colleagues in the NAIJ said, immediately and radically reforming the current EOIR while pushing forward with Article 1 legislation requires the “ability to walk and chew gum at the same time.”
Surely, Judge Garland, Vanita Gupta, Lisa Monaco and the rest of the incoming team at Justice have the demonstrated ability to do just that!
It’s up to all of us in the NDPA, the human rights and immigration advocacy community, the civil rights community, and the “good government movement” to keep pressure on Judge Garland and his team to fix EOIR and get the Federal Judicial reform movement moving at full speed. Raise hell if you have to, but don’t let this issue be delayed or “back burnered!”
This is not a “tomorrow” issue! Folks are suffering, dying, and the justice system is deteriorating — from the Supremes to“America’s Star Chambers” every day that the current EOIR due process and fundamental fairness disaster remains unaddressed. Courageous lawyers who have fought to save our democracy from the “creeping and creepy kakistocracy” are being outrageously abused in “Star Chamber Courts” every day that the Biden Administration fails to take bold corrective action @ EOIR!
🇺🇸⚖️🗽Justice @ Justice Can’t Wait! Fix The EOIR Clown Show 🤡🦹🏿♂️ Now! Due Process Forever!
Perhaps you’ve reserved some optimism for the whole “Barrett’s a mom and a Catholic so there must be some compassion there” thing. Sorry, but no. In her confirmation hearings, she spoke about how the George Floyd video was “very, very personal” for her family, and that she and her children “wept together” over what must have been the zillionth police murder in her history as a lawyer and mother. But her mentor, the late Antonin Scalia, seemed to think it was constitutional to put innocent people to death, despite his ultra-Catholicism. There’s no reason to believe that any sort of ideological consistency will prevail simply because of a judge’s familial status or bizarre metaphysical beliefs, and those factors made no apparent difference in Brad’s case.
Here’s where this gets complicated: In saying that being part of this horrendous decision should disqualify a judge from serving on the Supreme Court, by extension, I’m saying that damn near every federal judge is similarly unqualified. Almost none of them believe that cops should be held accountable for killing mentally ill people who call for help. This sort of thinking, in which cops are extended every benefit of every doubt, feasible or unfeasible, is the norm. Barrett didn’t even write the opinion in Brad’s case. It was written by a liberal judge who, like all her colleagues (of whatever political persuasion), was willing to write the police a blank check. That’s how our courts have operated for decades, and even in a post-BLM society, few of those in robes have the intestinal fortitude to do anything different.
So I am unmoved by Justice Barrett’s faith. I am unmoved by her status as a working mother of seven. I am particularly unmoved by her fake expression of sympathy for George Floyd, whose case she had nothing to do with, when she couldn’t spare any for the people who actually appear before her. I’m unmoved because I’ve seen so little compassion for grieving parents like Matt and Gina throughout my career, from any federal judge, let alone the Federalist Society drones who have lately taken over the judiciary. The basic inability to do what’s right for families like the Kings should be disqualifying. Not just for Amy Coney Barrett, but for the whole lot of ‘em.
A version of this originally appeared in LEO Weekly.
Civil rights lawyer and law prof, writing about the Midwest, the untold horrors of the justice system, and the ongoing battle between the law and humanity.
************************
Read Dan’s complete article chronicling the tone-deaf mishandling of the police shooting death of a young man (his clients’ son) suffering from mental health issues.
This echoes what I’ve been saying on Courtside about the need for a “new breed of better, more progressive Federal Judges” who recognize the compelling human side of the law and why the Constitutional requirements of due process, equal protection, and fundamental fairness are there in the first place. They exist to protect individuals from tyranny and government overreach, not to be ignored, watered down, or woodenly distinguished away to protect government abusers from accountability or to further ideological agendas (primarily, but not exclusively those developed by right wingers) out of touch with the most vulnerable levels of humanity they are supposed to be serving.
Life tenure means that Coney Barrett and the rest of her unqualified colleagues will be around for a long time. But, change needs to start somewhere, now!
In my experience, internal pushback, dissent, and constant confrontation of the complicit, complacent, judicial status quo with an aggressive implementation of due process, fundamental fairness, and a commitment to human rights and the best interpretations of the law can over time play a critical role in improving the law, changing results, and perhaps most important, saving lives!⚖️🗽👩⚖️🧑🏽⚖️👨🏻⚖️🇺🇸 That, not the hollow ideological agendas of Coney Barrett and others like her, is what “good judging” is really all about!
Intentional lack of compassion, empathy, and humanity (“Dred Scottification” of the “other”) have been themes of Trump, Miller, Wolf, Sessions, Barr, Rosenstein, Nielsen, Pompeo and the other neo-fascist toadies and moral misfits who have gleefully served the regime over the past four years. But, lack of overall resolve and courage to stand up and uniformly and authoritatively “just say no” to these toxic, anti-American, anti-humanity policies and to hold the “perps” accountable for their systemic lawlessness has plagued the Federal Judiciary, with a feckless and often downright complicit Supremes’ majority “leading” the way.
The current sorry state of our democracy, where GOP demagogues, who falsely swore to uphold our Constitution, openly spread lies, knowingly false narratives, and total BS in an attempt to incite violence, undermine our duly elected incoming President, and destroy democratic institutions, including the courts, is in part a reflection of the sad failure of our life-tenured Federal Judiciary to perform its core Constitutional function. That is, to stand up for the Constitution, the rule of law, and individual law human rights in the face failures by the other two branches of Government to uphold their Constitutional responsibilities.
Compare the (finally) unified position of the judiciary on the frivolous election challenges by Trump and his cronies with the failure to stand up for the legal and human rights of asylum seekers, refugees, immigrants, and migrants from the “git go.” Even now, the Courts have failed to sanction Trump and his lawyers for their unethical behavior in bringing frivolous civil suits, with no supporting evidence, for the specific purpose of undermining a free and fair election and using the legal system to attack the legitimacy of the duly elected President-elect and his incoming Administration. “Corruptly weaponizing the law for improper purposes” is clearly inappropriate and unethical. Yet, folks like Rudy and Sydney Powell retain their law licenses and are free to continue to abuse and undermine the system with frivolous litigation.
Dan points to the “ongoing battle between the law and humanity.” That’s the problem! The law should and must be about defending and advancing humanity in the face of tyranny and injustice. We need judges who stand for human justice. For, as MLK, Jr., said “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere!”
Better judges for a better America! 🇺🇸Not just a slogan; a requirement for our democracy to survive!
