"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.
“Gerardo A. Portillo petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming his order of removal and denying his application for adjustment of status. Because we find that a conviction under Massachusetts General Laws (“MGL”) ch. 269, § 11C is not categorically a firearm offense as defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(C), we grant the petition for review, vacate the decision below, and remand for further proceedings. … Accordingly, without resorting to “legal imagination,” we conclude that MGL ch. 269, § 11C sweeps more broadly than the federal offense, and Portillo need not produce an actual case to demonstrate that overbreadth. … For the reasons stated above, we grant the petition for review, vacate the BIA’s opinion, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision.”
Congrats to the NDPA “litigation team” of Klein, Church, & Gillespie!
Notably, the unanimous 1st Circuit did a detailed 24-page analysis to get this one right. This is the type of scholarship and effort one might expect, but doesn’t consistently get, from the BIA.
Remarkably, this case has now been pending for more than six years at EOIR.Now, largely as a consequence of EOIR’s, toxic “how can we get to no” bias, present over the past several Administrations, it’s back to “square one” with no end in sight.
THAT’S how a system builds uncontrollable backlog! Maybe pruning out the “deadwood” and bringing in “practical scholar-experts” as judges at the appellate and trial levels wouldn’t solve all the problems that have been building up for decades at EOIR. But, it sure would be a great start on a better future!
Emily Garcia Litigation Reporter Bloomberg Law PHOTO: talkingbiznews.comThis phase of the Inquisition is over. But, torture is still widely practiced worldwide. US Officialdom has shown little enthusiasm for carrying out its mandatory protection responsibilities under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). PHOTO: Public Realm
The Supreme Court recently removed one procedural hurdle for noncitizens seeking humanitarian relief but the high court’s ruling clears up no substantial issues about a law they’ll make their claims under, immigration attorneys say—allowing some relief seekers to be sent back to torturous conditions.
Estrella Santos-Zacaria, a Guatemalan transgender woman, asked for federal review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s decision denying her protection under the Convention Against Torture. In a unanimous decision, the justices said federal judges can weigh in on BIA’s decisions before discretionary administrative remedies are exhausted. In Santos-Zacaria’s case, her petition may be sent back to BIA for further review but that doesn’t guarantee relief.
While lawyers are hopeful that earlier review by a federal court will facilitate a smoother process for their clients, they express concerns that immigration judges and the BIA too readily dismiss the risk of torture, and say it shouldn’t be so difficult to get humanitarian relief.
CAT protections, including deferral and withholding of removal, allow noncitizens who aren’t eligible for asylum to remain in the US. To receive protection, a noncitizen must show an immigration judge that if they are deported, it’s more likely than not that they will be tortured with government acquiescence or participation. Unlike asylum, protections under the Convention are mandatory and serious criminal convictions can’t disqualify a noncitizen. But protections are especially difficult to win, said Eleni Bakst, a lawyer at the Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights Coalition.
. . . .
Paul Schmidt, a former immigration judge and chairman of the BIA between and 2001, said the process for evaluating claims under the Convention isn’t scientific. There’s no formula to plug in that will tell the odds of someone being tortured. “It’s sort of in the mind of the beholder,” Schmidt said.
. . . .
As an immigration judge, Schmidt said he and other immigration judges relied heavily on country conditions reports published by the US Department of State. Asked if he believed the reports were an adequate representation of a country, Schmidt said “certainly not.”
Bakst said statistics provided by other countries can also be inaccurate. In El Salvador, the government doesn’t allow monitoring bodies into its prisons so data on inmate torture is incomplete.
Pushing back against questionable reports and statistics, immigration advocates are aware that immigration judges and the BIA may dismiss their client’s risk of torture, and their client may be tortured anyway.
Such was the case for Patrick Julney, a client of CAIR Coalition who was denied deferral under the Convention for failure to show that the likelihood of torture was more than 50% and deported to Haiti. Bakst said that “immediately upon his arrival in Haiti, he was imprisoned and tortured.” Julney was denied access to food, water, and medicine.
Estelle McKee, a clinical immigration law professor at Cornell Law School, represented a schizophrenic man from El Salvador who was denied CAT relief. After his deportation, McKee hired a Salvadorean attorney to track down her client.
She said the attorney couldn’t even enter her client’s village because it was gang-controlled.
“I don’t have much hope that he survived,” McKee said.
McKee and other immigration attorneys agree that the Supreme Court’s decision will speed up the humanitarian claims process, though results may vary. Julney’s case was reviewed by the Third Circuit, but his outcome was unchanged.
. . . .
************************
Reads Emily’s full, well-written article at the above link.
A Government colleague once remarked to me that “the U.S. should never have signed the CAT.” Obviously, that private view has permeated and driven USG policy on implementing the CAT, particularly at the DOJ where it was immediately treated as “PNG” because of its lack of exclusionary clauses. Even “bad guys” aren’t supposed to be returned to torture (in terms of legal theory, if not reality).
There is no objective evidence that torture is on the decline worldwide. See, e.g., https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/torture/. Yet the mandatory protection required by the CAT remains elusive and quite arbitrary within the U.S. legal system.
One of the best examples of how Government officials who should be insuring that the legal protections under CAT are fairly and reasonably applied to achieve the Convention’s purposes are instead promoting an “any reason to deny” culture is former AG John Ashcroft’s precedent decision in Matter of J-F-F-, 23 I&N Dec. 912 (A.G. 2006). There, Ashcroft reversed a CAT grant by the IJ and the BIA to an unrepresented respondent. In the process, Ashcroft established the “enhanced test” that to gain CAT protection, the respondent must “establish that each step in the hypothetical chain of events is more likely than not to happen.”
In other words, this is an official invitation, some might say directive, to IJs to “lengthen the chain of causation until it breaks” (which it inevitably will, in most cases) and protection can be denied.
Moreover, many CAT claims, like this one, involve unrepresented respondents. The chances of an unrepresented respondent understanding the “chain of causation” or what it means to prove “each step is more likely than not to occur” are very slim.
Additionally, even if they did understand, since many of the unrepresented respondents are in detention, they would have little or no realistic chance of obtaining the type of detailed, timely expert testimony and comprehensive documentation, far beyond the DOS Country Reports (which, by the way are only available in English), necessary to overcome Ashcroft’s “de facto presumption of denial” and prove that every step of the “hypothetical chain” is “more likely than not” to happen.
Effectively, every problem mentioned by Emily and expert practitioners in this article is essentially (intentionally) magnified by J-F-F- and other anti-CAT administrative precedents.
CAT relief is mandatory, thus suggesting a high obligation on the part of IJs and other Government officials to insure non-return to torture. Yet, Ashcroft chastises the IJ involved in J-F-F- for essentially insuring that the respondent exercised his legal right to apply for CAT and helping him develop the record. Ashcroft even took the extraordinary step of disqualifying this IJ from any “hypothetical” future proceedings involving this respondent.
At the beginning of the BIA’s quest to interpret CAT (ironically at the same time Bush Administration lawyers at DOJ were secretly searching for legal pretexts to justify torture), I dissented from an unduly restrictive BIA precedent Matter of J-E-, 23 I&N Dec. 291, 304 (BIA 2002), Paul Wickham Schmidt, Board Member, dissenting, joined by Board Members John W. Guendelsberger, Noel Ann Brennan, Cecelia M. Espenoza, and Juan P. Osuna.
There, I stated:
The majority concludes that the extreme mistreatment likely to befall this respondent in Haiti is not “torture,” but merely “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.” The majority further concludes that conduct defined as “torture” occurs in the Haitian detention system, but is not “likely” for this respondent. In short, the majority goes to great lengths to avoid applying the Convention Against Torture to this respondent.
We are in the early stages of the very difficult and thankless task of construing the Convention. Only time will tell whether the majority’s narrow reading of the torture definition and its highly technical approach to the standard of proof will be the long-term benchmarks for our country’s implementation of this international treaty.
Although I am certainly bound to follow and apply the majority’s constructions in all future cases, I do not believe that the majority adequately carries out the language or the purposes of the Convention and the implementing regulations. Therefore, I fear that we are failing to comply with our international obligations.
I conclude that the respondent is more likely than not to face officially sanctioned torture if returned to Haiti. Therefore, I would grant his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture and the implementing regulations. Consequently, I respectfully dissent.
More than two decades after J-E-, my fears and predictions of officially-sanctioned non-compliance with CAT unfortunately continue to be proved correct.
I also note with pride that our Round Table of Former Immigration Judges ⚔️🛡 filed an amicus brief before the Supremes in Santos-Zacaria supporting the interpretation that eventually prevailed.
PROSECUTORIAL HISTORY: In 897, at the “Cadaver Synod,” Pope Stephen VI appointed himself to prosecute the corpse of his dead predecessor, Pope Formosus. (Spoiler alert: He got a conviction.) In 2023, DHS has decreed that prosecuting cases in person before EOIR is no longer worth their valuable time. PAINTING: Jean-Paul Laurens (1870) —Public Realm
Provided by a veteran immigration practitioner:
DHS No Appear 1DHS No Appear 2
*************************
Notably, the four categories of “mandatory appearance” described by the Deputy Chief Counsel apply to only an infinitesimally small percentage of the roughly 2 million cases currently pending before the Immigration Courts.
Compare this with the treatment of the private bar who experience:
* Aimless reshuffling and rescheduling of their already-prepared cases, often without notice or with inadequate notice of the new hearing date;
* Arbitrary and capricious denials by some Immigration Judges of reasonable motions to continue;
* Possible disciplinary referrals for failure to appear at a scheduled hearing when listed as counsel of record.
Would the DOJ submit a similar missive to U.S. District Court Judges unilaterally announcing that they would only “selectively appear” in criminal and civil cases where the U.S. Government is a party? I doubt it!
So, what’s an Immigration Judge who does not want to perform DHS’s job for them to do? Contempt of court, you say? After all, the IJ’s authority to hold any party or counsel in Immigration Court proceeding in contempt is right there in plain language in the INA. See, INA section 240(b)(1).
Ah, but there is a catch! A big one! Although the contempt provision was added by Congress more than a quarter of century ago, AGs of both parties have steadfastly refused to promulgate the necessary implementing regulations.
Evidently, the theory is that while IJs might be qualified to issue potential death sentences to migrants in Immigration Court, they can’t be trusted to fairly and reasonably use their contempt authority on lawyers who, after all, are mostly U.S. citizens and whose livelihood might be adversely affected. Essentially, the life of a migrant is worth less than a monetary fine for contempt to a U.S. lawyer.
Additionally, there apparently was a special concern about giving IJ’s authority to regulate the conduct of their “fellow Government attorneys” at INS, and later DHS. After all, that would be interfering with another Government agency’s “sacrosanct” authority to regulate and discipline (or not) its own employees.
In many ways, under Garland, the Immigration Courts are losing what limited public respect the might still have possessed and accelerating the move backwards to an “inquisitorial model” to replace the “adversary model” for decison-making. Ironically, this reverses over a half century of efforts by Congress, reformers, and sometimes the Executive itself to make Immigration Courts function as part of the adversary system — in other words, like “real” courts of law.
As one informed expert commenter stated upon learning of this latest development:
As we have all been saying, (1) EOIR doesn’t view itself as part of an ecosystem which also includes ICE, the private bar, non-profits, law school clinics, interpreters, USCIS, etc.; and (2) EOIR is run at it’s upper level by mindless, gutless people suffering from a complete lack of imagination existing in a bubble.
As a practical matter, I assume ICE is strategically choosing not to appear in hearings before IJs who deny everything? If not, it could actually work in your favor. In truth, the UNHCR model doesn’t envision asylum being heard in adversarial hearings; as Paul has articulately stated, it sees asylum as a collaborative effort between adjudicator and asylum seeker.
For a “practical application” of the “collaborative effort” model promoted by the UNHCR, see Matter of S-M-J-, 21 I&N Dec. 722 (BIAS 1997).
Donald M. Kerwin, Senior Research Associate, University of Notre Dame
In forwarding this article, Don says: “The report makes the case that the backlog has nothing to do with the immigration courts and everything to do with systemic, unresolved problems in the broader US immigration system.”
The US immigration court system seeks to “fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly administer and interpret US immigration laws” (DOJ 2022a). It represents the first exposure of many immigrants to due process and the rule of law in the United States, and occupies an integral role in the larger US immigration system. Yet it labors under a massive backlog of pending cases that undermines its core goals and objectives. The backlog reached 1.87 million cases in the first quarter of FY 2023 (Straut-Eppsteiner 2023, 6). This paper attributes the backlog to systemic failures in the broader immigration system that negatively affect the immigration courts, such as:
•
Visa backlogs, United States Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) application processing delays, and other bottlenecks in legal immigration processes.
•
The immense disparity in funding between the court system and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agencies that feed cases into the courts.
•
The failure of Congress to pass broad immigration reform legislation that could ease pressure on the enforcement and court systems.
•
The lack of standard judicial authorities vested in Immigration Judges (IJs), limiting their ability to close cases; pressure parties to “settle” cases; and manage their dockets.
•
The absence of a statute of limitations for civil immigration offenses.
•
Past DHS failures to establish and adhere to enforcement priorities and to exercise prosecutorial discretion (PD) throughout the removal adjudication process, including in initial decisions to prosecute.
•
The location of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), which oversees US immigration courts, within the nation’s preeminent law enforcement agency, the Department of Justice (DOJ).
•
The misconception of many policymakers that the court system should primarily serve as an adjunct to DHS.
•
A past record of temporary judge reassignments and government shutdowns.
The paper supports a well-resourced and independent immigration court system devoted to producing the right decisions under the law. Following a short introduction, a long section on “Causes and Solutions to the Backlog” examines the multi-faceted causes of the backlog, and offers an integrated, wide-ranging set of recommendations to reverse and ultimately eliminate the backlog. The “Conclusion” summarizes the paper’s topline findings and policy proposals.
*********************************
This is a “treasure trove” of information about systemic failure of our Immigration Courts, for which I am deeply grateful to Don & Evin.
So, is EOIR a symptom or a cause of immigration dysfunction, or a mixture of both?
I’m inclined to believe that notwithstanding the evidence described in the article that EOIR is largely a “victim” of deeper problems in our immigration system, there is a strong case to be made that more principled Attorneys General, more courageous and talented EOIR personnel, and a Democratic Party with democratic values and a spine could have thrust EOIR into a due process and legal expertise leadership role, thereby making the current immigration system operate more fairly, efficiently, and in the public interest.
It’s a shame that we’ll never know the truth. That just leaves commentators and scholars to analyze the carnage and to speculate on “what might have been” or “what could be” in a different political atmosphere.
This is perhaps interesting, even significant, from an historical standpoint. But, the practical effect remains to be seen.
If I could have just one immigration “reform, it would be an Article I EOIR! Without due process, all other reforms and improvements are doomed to failure!
The BIA’s approach to statutory interpretation under Chevron tends to be one-sided in favor of DHS Enforcement. IMAGE: Wikimedia Commons
BIA HEADNOTE:
(1) A conviction for burglary of a building under section 140.25(1)(d) of the New York Penal Law is not categorically an aggravated felony burglary offense under section 101(a)(43)(G) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G) (2018), because the statute is overbroad and indivisible with respect to the definition of “building” under New York law.
(2) A conviction for displaying what appears to be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, or other firearm while committing burglary under section 140.25(1)(d) of the New York Penal Law necessarily involves the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another and therefore constitutes an aggravated felony crime of violence under section 101(a)(43)(F) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F).
FOR THE RESPONDENT: Yuriy Pereyaslavskiy, Esquire, Albany, New York
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Donald W. Cassidy, Associate Legal Advisor
BEFORE: Board Panel: GOODWIN and WILSON, Appellate Immigration Judges. Concurring and Dissenting Opinion: BROWN, Temporary Appellate Immigration Judge.
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION: Denise G. Brown, Temporary Appellate Immigration Judge
I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion that holds that second degree burglary under section 140.25(1)(d) of the New York Penal Law is categorically an aggravated felony crime of violence under section 101(a)(43)(F) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F) (2018). As an initial matter, I have reservations that this case is an appropriate means through which to establish binding precedent on this issue as the Immigration Judge did not reach it. While the parties have had an opportunity to address the issue through supplemental briefing, we lack the benefit of the Immigration Judge’s reasoning. It is our role to “review” questions of law de novo, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii) (2023), but there is no underlying decision regarding whether the respondent was convicted of an aggravated felony crime of violence for us to review here.
Further, I disagree with the majority’s analysis by which it concludes that a violation of section 140.25(1)(d) of the New York Penal Law is categorically a crime of violence. Section 140.25(1)(d) provides that a person is guilty of burglary in the second degree:
when he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building with intent to commit a crime therein, and when
. . . [i]n effecting entry or while in the building or in immediate flight therefrom, he or another participant in the crime
…
. . . [d]isplays what appears to be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm . . . .
N.Y. Penal Law § 140.25(1)(d) (McKinney 2017). A crime of violence under section 101(a)(43)(F) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F), is “an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another.” 18 U.S.C. § 16(a) (2018).
I disagree with the majority that second degree burglary under section 140.25(1)(d) includes as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another person. In my view, second degree burglary under section 140.25(1)(d) does not include any element that requires the presence of a person other than the defendant. In the absence of an element that requires the presence of a person, the majority’s conclusion that this offense is a crime of violence is unavailing. See Borden v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1817, 1825 (2021) (“The phrase ‘against another,’ when modifying the ‘use of force,’ demands that the perpetrator direct his action at, or target, another individual.”).
The majority’s analysis heavily relies on case law involving robbery to support its conclusion that second degree burglary under this subsection is a crime of violence. But under New York law, robbery always involves forcible stealing from a person and burglary does not. In United States v. Ojeda, 951 F.3d 66, 71 (2d Cir. 2020), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected the defendant’s argument that it was possible to commit New York first degree robbery with the aggravating factor of the display of an
apparent weapon without the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force. The court held that the defendant’s argument ignored the foundational element being aggravated, i.e., forcible stealing, which is defined in New York to include the use or threatened immediate use of physical force upon another person. Id. at 72. Forcible stealing is an element for every degree of robbery in New York and “that element categorically requires the use of physical force.” Id. Thus, New York robbery always includes as an element the use or threatened use of physical force against another person, regardless of whether an apparent weapon is displayed. Accordingly, the New York robbery statutes are distinguishable from the burglary statute at issue here, and thus the case law relied upon by the majority relating to robbery is not persuasive in this context. For the same reason, the case law cited by the majority relating to assault is likewise unpersuasive.
The majority also relies on the definition of “display” in the New York model jury instructions to conclude that a display of an apparent weapon must be in front of a person. The majority concludes that “display” in the context of section 140.25(1)(d) necessarily means a conscious display of an apparent weapon to a victim. “Display” as described by the model jury instructions does not constitute the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another person because, as the Supreme Court explained in Borden, “against the person of another” means “in opposition to” and expresses “a kind of directedness or targeting” rather than being akin to “waves crashing against the shore.” Borden, 141 S. Ct. at 1825–26. However, the language of the model jury instructions—i.e., describing display to be “manifest[ing] the presence of an object that can reasonably be perceived” as a weapon—does not require the type of directedness or targeting described in Borden. N.Y. Crim. Jury Instr. & Model Colloquies, Penal Law § 140.25(1)(d) (May 2018). The language instead appears to contemplate that a person be “the mere recipient” of the display. Borden, 141 S. Ct. at 1826.
Even if the majority’s conclusion were correct that display of an apparent weapon necessarily contemplates the presence of a person to perceive it and that it necessarily involved conduct directed at another person as contemplated by Borden—a conclusion not supported by the actual language of section 140.25(1)(d)—there is nothing in the statute that requires the person perceiving the display to be the victim of the crime, rather than a bystander or another defendant.
The majority’s conclusion that an offense under section 140.25(1)(d) is categorically a crime of violence also assumes that the crime a defendant intends to commit is necessarily a “confrontational crime.” But there is nothing in the statute that connects the display of an apparent weapon with
the crime the defendant has “intent to commit [in the building],” and thus nothing in the statute that requires the crime a defendant has “intent to commit [in the building]” to be a confrontational crime, as the majority concludes. N.Y. Penal Law § 140.25.
For these reasons, I am not persuaded by the majority’s conclusion that an offense under section 140.25(1)(d) of the New York Penal Law is categorically a crime of violence. I would instead conclude that it is not and that therefore the respondent is not removable as charged.
******************************
Thanks for speaking out, Judge Brown, against the BIA’s one-sided approach to statutory interpretation that almost always favors DHS over better and more reasonable interpretations offered by individuals. Then, the Article III Courts compound the problem by giving “Chevron deference” to the BIA’s one-sided jurisprudence!
Dissent matters!
Here’s Judge Brown’s official EOIR bio:
Denise G. Brown
Attorney General Merrick B. Garland appointed Denise G. Brown as a temporary Appellate Immigration Judge in July 2021. Judge Brown earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1992 from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and a Juris Doctor in 1995 from the Catholic University of America. From July 2007 to July 2021, she has served as an attorney advisor, Board of Immigration Appeals, Executive Office for Immigration Review. During this time, from March to September 2019, she served on detail as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Virginia, and from January to July 2017, she served on detail as a temporary Immigration Judge at the Headquarters Immigration Court, EOIR. From December 1999 to July 2007, she served as an Associate General Counsel at the Office of General Counsel, Department of the Air Force. Judge Brown is a member of the District of Columbia Bar.
This class will cover the constitutional and political framework for the U.S. Immigration System, enforcement and adjudication agencies, immigrants, nonimmigrants, removals and deportations, detention and bond, immigration hearings, judicial review, grounds for removal and inadmissibility, “crimmigration,” immigration reform, “Chevron” deference, refugee and asylum status and other international protections. It will also include analyzing major immigration cases like INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987) (well-founded fear) and Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1996) (female genital mutilation).
A bipartisan duo of Hispanic women Tuesday introduced the most robust immigration proposal to date this Congress, a significant collaborationas a new generation of lawmakers pushes for meaningful reform of the nation’s immigration systemafter decades of failed attempts.
For six months, Reps. Maria Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.) and Veronica Escobar (D-Tex.) have been quietly negotiating on key issues where Republican and Democrats have previously sought changes, while leaning on their lived experiences as lawmakers representing border districts with majority Hispanic constituencies.
The result is a roughly 500-page bill called the Dignity Act that, among other things, would provide billions of dollars for border security measures, create pathways to citizenship for some undocumented migrants already in the United States, update the legal immigration process, and establish “humanitarian campuses” on the U.S. border that would process asylum claims in 60 days.. . . . .
Salazar and Escobar were joined at a news conference Tuesday by four original co-sponsors who are all women: Reps. Hillary J. Scholten (D-Mich.), Kathy E. Manning (D-N.C.), Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-Ore.) and Del. Jenniffer González-Colón (R-Puerto Rico.). Rep. Michael Lawler (N.Y.), a vulnerable Republican representing a Democratic-leaning district, signed onto the measure late Monday and also attended. Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.) also signed on Tuesday.
. . . .
The bill’s introduction comes after House Republicans passed a border security bill this month along party lines; House Republican leaders have said since last year that consideration of a large-scale immigrationoverhaul would not happen until a border security plan had passed the chamber.
Asked whether broad immigration legislation could be considered this year, Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) appeared to suggest last week that it would not happen until a border security plan is signed into law.
“We’ve got to first start with border security,” he said, before adding that it would mean getting such a bill to the president’s desk. “If we get that done, then you can start talking about the interior problems that exist.”
. . . .
“Nothing is off the table,” Salazar said when asked about the prospects of a discharge petition, a procedural effort that would allow them to bypass the regular pathway for a bill to reach the floor.
Escobar then responded, “All it takes to make this happen is 218 people in the House of Representatives saying that they’re ready for a real solution.”
****************************
Read the complete article at the above link.
The myth that “border security” is unrelated to taking a more practical, humane, and realistic approach to migration generally shows how determined GOP leadership is NOT to address immigration problems in a fair and constructive manner and to “tune out” those interested in a potential bipartisan solution.
For those who don’t already know her, Rep. Hillary Scholten is, to my knowledge, the only EOIR attorney ever elected to Congress and has, therefore, seen how broken and in need of reform our system is at the “grass roots level.” So, her support of this measure is very significant.
Here’s a summary of the bill, known as “The Dignity Act of 2023:”
I haven’t seen the full text of the bill. But, from my perspective, the most disappointing aspect of this effort is the apparent failure to deal with the #1 most “solvable” and long, long overdue aspect of due process and fundamental fairness affecting immigration and the overall U.S. legal system: Creation of an independent, Article I U.S. Immigration Court focused solely on due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices!
Women find “trial by ordeal” can be the order of the day at Garland’s BIA:
Woman Being “Tried By Ordeal” 17th Century Woodcut Public Realm Source: Ancient Origins Website https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160Woman Being “Tried By Ordeal” 17th Century Woodcut Public Realm Source: Ancient Origins Website https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160
Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:
CA11 on VAWA, “Extreme Cruelty,” Chevron: Ruiz v. Atty Gen.
“Esmelda Ruiz, a native and citizen of Peru, appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals’ determination that she is ineligible for relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2), a provision whose language was originally adopted as part of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 and that outlines the conditions under which certain “battered spouse[s] or child[ren]” qualify for discretionary cancellation of removal. As relevant here, it requires a petitioning alien to show that she “has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty” by her spouse or parent. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2)(A)(i). Ruiz contends that the Immigration Judge and the BIA made two errors in refusing her cancellation request. First, she maintains that, as a matter of law, they misinterpreted the statutory term “extreme cruelty” to require proof of physical—as distinguished from mental or emotional—abuse. And second, she asserts that, having misread the law, the IJ and the BIA wrongly concluded that she doesn’t qualify for discretionary relief. We agree with Ruiz that the IJ and the BIA misinterpreted § 1229b(b)(2) and thereby applied an erroneous legal standard in evaluating her request for cancellation of removal. Accordingly, we grant her petition for review and remand to the BIA for further consideration. … For the foregoing reasons, we agree with Ruiz—and hold— that the BIA misinterpreted 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2). The term “extreme cruelty” does not require a petitioning alien to prove that she suffered physical abuse in order to qualify for discretionary cancellation of removal; proof of mental or emotional abuse is sufficient to satisfy the “extreme cruelty” prong of § 1229b(b)(2)’s five-prong standard. We therefore GRANT the petition in part and REMAND to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Not only did the supposedly “expert” BIA get the standard completely wrong, but Garland’s OIL continued to throw up specious arguments defending the BIA’s abusive treatment of women!
When you start with “No,” and then “reason” backwards to get there, bad things happen. Frankly, the Biden Administration was elected to “clean house” 🧹 at EOIR and to bring systemic due process, expertise, best practices, and impartiality to our nation’s dysfunctional immigration tribunals — with literally millions of lives and the future of democracy at stake! Why haven’t they done it? How do they continue to get away with it?
Lindsay Toczylowski Executive Director, Immigrant Defenders “ I always tell the new immigration attorneys at Immigrant Defenders Law Center to never forget just how stacked against our clients the odds are in immigration court.“
Lindsay writes on Linkedin:
Barometer of whether an asylum system is functioning is not “keeping the numbers low” at the border. We expected as T42 ended to see a temporary uptick due to pent up demand, but seeing the opposite indicates new deterrence measures are making asylum inaccessible to those who need protection the most.
It is obvious to those of us on-the-ground that despite no “lines” at the ports of entry there are many people here in Tijuana desperate to seek protection in the US, as evidenced by crowd at our Immigrant Defenders Law Center legal clinic today. People want to avail themselves of a safe, fair and orderly system.
This is currently impossible.
There were more than 200 people at the shelter, mostly families with small kids. When we asked whether or not people had been able to register with CBPone, most raised their hands that they had. When we asked whether they had an appt, only four had successfully made one. 4 out of 200.
We encountered excruciating cases like this asylum seeking mom & her daughter w/ severe autism. She asked if there is a special process for ppl like her, given her daughter needs medical attn, but we have to tell her to just keep trying the app. She has been waiting for months.
We continue to encounter cases where asylum seekers are unable to register with CBPone app at all. We finally registered a mom traveling alone w/ 2 babies via one of our atty’s phones, and now she can try for an appt. She has family in Los Angeles area who are waiting for her.
For people suffering from PTSD & other mental health conditions related to the horrors they fled, the constant state of anxiety waiting for an appointment is hell. One of the moms told me that every night she & her daughter cry and pray that it will be the day they can finally get help.
I am immensely proud of our San Diego based cross border team for continuing to show up and keep fighting despite the odds.
*******************************
Well said, Lindsay! Thanks for all you and your colleagues do for due process in America!
Eliza C. Klein, a retired immigration judge, said the asylum case backlog “creates a second class of citizens.”Credit…Taylor Glascock for The New York Times
Eliza C. Klein, who left her position as an immigration judge in Chicago in April, said the latest increase in illegal border crossings will strain the understaffed work force as they prioritize migrants who crossed recently.
That will leave some older cases to languish even longer, she said.
“This is a great tragedy because it creates a second class of citizens,” Ms. Klein, who started working as an immigration judge in the Clinton administration, said of those immigrants who have been waiting years for an answer to their case. The oldest case Ms. Klein ever adjudicated had been pending in the court for 35 years, she said.
“It’s a disgrace,” Ms. Klein said. “My perspective, my thought, is that we’re not committed in this country to having a just system.”
While crowds of migrants continued to seek refuge in the United States after the lifting of Title 42, U.S. officials said the border remained relatively orderly. About 10,000 people crossed the border on Thursday, a historically large number, but that dropped significantly to about 6,200 on Friday.
Tens of thousands of migrants continued to wait in makeshift camps on both sides of the border for a chance to request sanctuary in the United States. The administration remained concerned about overcrowding; Border Patrol held more than 24,000 migrants in custody on Friday, well over the agency’s maximum capacity of roughly 20,000 in its detention facilities.
. . . .
Mimi Tsankov, the president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, said that to truly address the backlog, the Biden administration would need to do more than simply hire more judges. She said that the government should increase funding for better technology and bigger legal teams, and that Congress should reform the nation’s immigration laws.
“The immigration courts are failing,” said Samuel B. Cole, the judge association’s executive vice president. “There needs to be broad systemic change.”
. . . . .
Judge Charles Honeyman, who spent 24 years as an immigration judge and retired in 2020, said he came away from his job believing the United States would need to do a better job of deterring fraud while protecting those who would be harmed in their home country.
When handling an asylum case, Mr. Honeyman said he would assess the person’s application and examine the state of their home country by reading reports from the State Department and nonprofits. Many of the applicants lacked attorneys; he believes some cases that he denied might have turned out differently if the migrants had had legal representation.
In trying to root out fraud, he would compare a person’s testimony with the answers they had given to an asylum officer or Border Patrol agent.
. . . .
*******************************
Read the full article at the link.
EOIR ABUSES ASYLUM SEEKERS — The Problem Goes Deeper Than The Number Of Judges: Quality & Culture Matter!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
U.S. Immigration Judge (Retired)
Courtside Exclusive
May 16, 2023
While the NYT article notes that the majority of asylum cases are eventually denied on the merits, this data is often presented in a misleading way by the Government, and unfortunately, sometimes the media. According to TRAC Immigration, during the period Oct 2000 to April 2023, approximately 43% of asylum seekers who received a merits decision were granted asylum or some other type of relief. Approximately 57% were denied. https://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/asylum/
Even in an overall hostile system, where individuals are often required to proceed without lawyers, and grant/denial rates among Immigration Judges vary by astounding levels (so great as to present prima facie due process issues), asylum seekers succeed on the merits of their claims at a very respectable rate. In a properly staffed and administered system where the focus was on due process and fundamental fairness for individuals, that number would almost certainly be substantially higher.
Moreover, the data suggests that toward the end of the Obama Administration and during the entire Trump Administration, the asylum system was improperly manipulated to increase denials.
I think there are three reasons for the precipitous decline in asylum grant rates, largely unrelated to the merits of the claims. First, Attorneys General Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr overruled some of the leading administrative precedents supporting grants of asylum. In the process, they made it crystal clear that they considered Immigration Judges to be their subordinate employees within the political branch of Government and that denial, deportation, and assistance to their “partners” at DHS Enforcement (actually DHS is a party before EOIR, not a “partner”) were the preferred results at EOIR.
Second, in greatly expanding the number of Immigration Judges, Sessions and Barr appointed almost exclusively from the ranks of prosecutors and government attorneys, even elevating an inordinate number of individuals with no immigration and human rights experience whatsoever. Not only were well-qualified individuals with experience representing individuals in Immigration Court largely passed over and discouraged from applying, but some of the best Immigration Judges quit or retired prematurely as a matter of conscience because of the nakedly anti-immigrant pro enforcement “culture” promoted at EOIR.
Additionally, the nationwide appellate court and precedent setter, the BIA, was expanded and “packed” with some Immigration Judges who denied virtually all of the asylum cases coming before them and had reputations of hostility to the private bar and asylum seekers. Remarkably, Attorney General Garland has done little to address this debilitating situation at the BIA.
Third, since the latter years of the Obama Administration, when a vastly overhyped “border surge” took place, political officials of both parties have improperly “weaponized” EOIR as a “deterrent” to asylum seekers, focusing on expeditious denials of asylum rather than the due process and expert tribunal functions the agency was supposed to serve. The result has been a “culture of denial and deportation” with particular emphasis on finding ways to “say no” to women and individuals of color seeking asylum.
The NYT Article also mentions that asylum merits decisions require a higher standard of proof than “credible fear determinations.” That’s true. But the suggestion that the standards are much higher is misleading. In fact, the standards governing merits grants of asylum before the Asylum Office and EOIR are supposed to be extremely generous.
In the seminal case, INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, the Court said that “well-founded fear” is a generous standard, one that could be satisfied by a 10% chance of persecution. In implementing this holding, the BIA found in Matter of Mogharrabi that asylum could be granted even where the chances of persecution were substantially less than probable.
There is as also a regulation, 8 C.F.R. 208.13, issued under the Bush I Administration, that creates a rebuttable presumption of future persecution based on past persecution.
The problem is that none of these generous and remedial provisions relating to asylum has ever been properly, consistently, and uniformly applied within EOIR. As someone who during my time on the bench took these standards to heart, I found that a substantial majority of merits asylum cases coming before me could and should be granted under a proper application of asylum law.
Consequently, I am skeptical of judges who deny virtually all asylum claims. Likewise, I question the claims by political officials of both parties who pretend, without actual knowledge, that almost all asylum applicants at the border are “mere economic migrants” who deserve to be quickly and summarily removed.
Actually, under some circumstances, severe economic hardships can amount to persecution. Moreover, under the legally required “mixed motive” analysis for asylum, an economic aspect does not automatically obviate other qualifying grounds.
So, at its root, “credible fear” is actually an even more generous application of what is already supposed to be (but often isn’t in reality) a very generous standard for asylum. The alleged “disconnect” between the number of individuals found to have credible fear and the number actually granted asylum on the merits appears to be more a function of defective and overly restrictive decision-making at EOIR than it is of unjustified generosity of Asylum Officers screening for credible fear. It’s also important to remember that at the credible fear stage, individuals haven’t had time to marshal the substantial corroborating evidence eventually required (some would say unrealistically and unreasonably) in formal merits asylum hearings before EOIR.
Finally, just aimlessly increasing the number of Immigration Judges, without solving the systemic legal, logistical, management, quality control, training, and “cultural” problems infecting EOIR creates its own set of new problems.
Recently, a veteran practitioner before EOIR wrote the following:
In about eleven years, our local DMV went from twelve (12) judges in Baltimore and Arlington in 2012 to a hundred (100) judges in 2023 (8 BAL, 18 HYA, 30 WAS, 9 FCIAC, 14 RIAC, 21 STE). That’s an increase of 733.33%. This seismic expansion has resulted in many attorneys being overscheduled for individual hearings, which has an adverse effect on our clients, our ethical obligations, due process, and mental health.
Well-prepared attorneys, many serving pro bono or “low bono,” are absolutely essential to due process and fundamental fairness in Immigration Court, particularly in cases involving asylum and other forms of protection. For EOIR to schedule cases in a manner that does not take into consideration the legitimate needs and capacities of those practicing before their courts is nothing short of malpractice on the part of DOJ leadership.
There is a silver lining here. The EOIR judicial hiring program gives NDPA stars a chance to get on the bench at the retail level level, bring much needed balance and perspective, and to develop the credentials for future Article III judicial appointments. Since change isn’t coming “from the top,” we need to make it happen at the “grass roots level!” Keep those applications coming!
For my colleague Judge “Sir Jeffrey” Chase, Judge Maria Baldini-Potermin is the name that jumps out:
Maria T. Baldini-Potermin, Immigration Judge, Chicago Immigration Court
Maria T. Baldini-Potermin was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in May 2023. Judge Baldini-Potermin earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1990 from the University of Dayton and a Juris Doctor in 1997 from the University of Minnesota Law School. From 2008 to 2023, she was the owner and managing attorney at Maria Baldini- Potermin and Associates PC in Chicago. During this time, from 2009 to 2023, she served as the author of “Immigration Trial Handbook,” a book she co-authored from 2008 to 2009. Also, from 2009 to 2021, she served as the update editor for “Immigration Law and Crimes” . From 2009 to 2021, she also served as a member of the board of directors of the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, where she served as board chair and interim executive director in 2019. From 2007 to 2008, she was an associate immigration attorney at Gostynska Frakt Ltd., and from 2001 to 2007, at Scott D. Pollock and Associates PC in Chicago. From 1999 to 2001, she served as a National Association of Public Interest Law (NAPIL) Equal Justice Fellow with the Midwest Immigrant Rights Center (now National Immigrant Justice Center) in Chicago. From 1997 to 1999, she served as a NAPIL Equal Justice Fellow with the Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota (Oficina Legal) in Saint Paul, Minnesota. From 1996 to 1997, she served as an immigration law clerk at Guyton Law Office in Saint Paul, Minnesota. From 1994 to 1997, she trained law students at the Asylum Law Project in Minneapolis. From 1992 to 1994, she served as an accredited representative, and from 1991 to 1992, as a paralegal, with the South Texas Pro Bono Asylum Representation Project (ProBAR) in Harlingen, Texas. From 1990 to 1991, she served as a paralegal with the Brownsville Catholic Charities Canada Asylum Project in Brownsville, Texas. Judge Baldini-Potermin is a member of the Illinois State Bar and the Minnesota State Bar. She is admitted to practice before the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
For me, it’s Judge Angela Munro whom I worked with on training for the Annual Conference during my time at EOIR:
Angela Munro, Immigration Judge, Boston Immigration Court
Angela Munro was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in May 2023. Judge Munro earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2000 from Brown University, a Master of Arts in 2004 from the Fletcher School at Tufts University, and a Juris Doctor in 2008 from Northeastern University School of Law. From 2010 to 2023, she served as an attorney advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals, EOIR. From 2008 to 2010, she served as a judicial law clerk at the Boston Immigration Court entering on duty through the Attorney General’s Honors Program. Judge Munro is a member of the Massachusetts Bar and the New York State Bar.
Another bio that caught my eye is Judge Hannah B. Kubica who once practiced at Joyce & Associates in Boston with my long-time friend and Round Table colleague Judge Bill Joyce.
Hannah B. Kubica, Immigration Judge, Boston Immigration Court
Hannah B. Kubica was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in May 2023. Judge Kubica earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2005 from Vanderbilt University and a Juris Doctor in 2008 from the Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law. From 2016 to 2023, she was in private practice as an associate, and later as a senior associate, at McHaffey & Nice LLC in Boston where she represented noncitizens before EOIR and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security. During her time in private practice, she provided pro bono services at Rian Immigrant Center, formerly the Irish International Immigrant Center. From 2016 to 2011, she was in private practice as an associate at Joyce & Associates PC in Boston. From 2011 to 2008, Judge Kubica was in private practice at GNP Law Firm in the greater Boston area, and at Weir & Partners LLC in Philadelphia. Judge Kubica is a member of the Massachusetts Bar and the Pennsylvania Bar.
********************************
Congrats and good luck to all of the new Judges. Remember: The job is about due process, fundamental fairness, practical scholarship, and best practices, NOT “pleasing your handlers” or making DHS Enforcement happy!
We’re “making progress” in getting more NDPA practical scholars on the ImmigrationBench! But, we need even more to fundamentally change the culture at EOIR and to make due process the overriding mission, as it was supposed to be! So, NDPA’ers, keep those judicial applications coming!
Dems control the composition of one of the most consequential Federal Appellate Tribunals, the BIA. Is THIS really the look that they want to project? https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
Dan Kowalski reports for Lexis Nexis Immigration Community:
CA1 on Changed Country Conditions (Guatemala) – Mendez Esteban v. Garland
“[T]he 2017 report and the testimony from Mendez do not — together or independently — establish that changes in Guatemala have fundamentally altered the specific conditions that gave rise to Mendez’s substantiated claim of political persecution. Accordingly, the BIA’s conclusion that DHS rebutted Mendez’s presumption of well-founded fear is not supported by substantial evidence. We therefore find Mendez statutorily eligible for asylum. … [W]e grant the petition for review as to Mendez’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal. We deny the petition as to Mendez’s claim for CAT protection. We accordingly affirm the denial of Mendez’s CAT claim, vacate the denials of Mendez’s political opinion-based asylum and withholding of removal claims, and remand to the IJ for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“Appellant Ishmael Kosh petitions us to review the order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) that terminated his asylum status and denied his applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. He maintains that the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) improperly sought to terminate his asylum status in asylum-only proceedings because he first entered the United States under the Visa Waiver Program. Per Kosh, that limiting program no longer applies to him, so he is entitled to complete-jurisdiction removal proceedings instead. In such unlimited proceedings, asylees can raise an adjustment-of-status claim as a defense to removal. We conclude that, if Kosh re-entered the country as an asylee without signing a new Visa Waiver Program form limiting his defenses, he is entitled to complete-jurisdiction proceedings. We thus grant his petition for review, vacate the BIA’s decision, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
As many practitioners know, the BIA’s continual bogus “fundamentally changed circumstances” findings for countries where the human rights conditions have remained abysmal for decades, certainly NOT materially improving, and in most cases in the Northern Triangle getting worse, are an endemic problem. Following a finding of past persecution, ICE, not the respondent, bears the burden of proof!
If that burden were honestly and expertly applied, considering individualized fear of harm, ICE would rebut the presumption by a preponderance of the evidence in only a minuscule percentage of cases. Certainly, that was my experience over 21 years on both the trial and appellate benches at EOIR.
Moreover, in this and most other cases of past persecution, even if ICE were able to satisfy its burden of rebutting the presumption of future persecution by a preponderance of the credible evidence, the respondent would be a “slam dunk” for a grant of discretionary asylum on the basis of “other serious harm.” It’s not clear that any of the three judicial entities that considered this case understood and properly applied the “other serious harm” concept.
The BIA’s chronic failure to fulfill its proper role of insuring a fair application of asylum and other protection laws and to provide guidance “shutting down” IJs who routinely manufacture bogus reasons to deny is a systemic denial of due process and failure of judicial professionalism. That it continues to happen under a Dem Administration pledged to restore the rule of law and due process for asylum seekers is astounding, deplorable, and a cause for concern about what today’s Dems really stand for!
This case should have been granted by the IJ years ago. An appeal by ICE on this feeble showing should have been subject to summary dismissal.
That cases like Mendez Esteban are still aimlessly kicking around Garland’s dysfunctional system in an elusive search for justice is a serious indictment of the Biden Administration’s approach to asylum and to achieving long overdue, life-changing, and readily achievable reforms that are within their power without legislative action. It also helps explain why Garland has neither reduced backlogs nor sufficiently improved professionalism, even with many more IJs on the bench.
Practical tips for fighting against bogus “presumption rebuttals” by IJs under 8 CFR 208.13:
Insist that the IJ actually shift the burden to ICE to rebut the presumption of future persecution based on past persecution.
Use the regulatory definition of “reasonably available” internal relocation to fight bogus IJ findings. For example, countries in the Northern Triangle are “postage stamp sized” and plagued by nationwide violence and corruption. The idea of “reasonably available internal location” under all the factors is prima facie absurd! (A “better BIA” would have already pointed this out in a precedent.)
Argue for a discretionary grant of asylum even in the absence of a current well founded fear based on 1) “compelling circumstances” arising out of the past persecution (“Chen grant”), and/or “other serious harm” under the regulations — a much broader concept than persecution that does NOT require nexus to a protected ground.
Knowing and using the law aggressively to assert your client’s rights, making the record, and exhausting all appellate options are the best defenses to biased, anti-asylum, often disconnected from reality denials of life-saving relief to your clients!
Knightess of the Round Table — Somebody’s listening to our message! Too bad the Biden Administration doesn’t! It would save lots of time, resources, and lives if they did!
JUSTICE JACKSON delivered the opinion of the Court.
Under 8 U. S. C. §1252(d)(1), a noncitizen who seeks to challenge an order of removal in court must first exhaust certain administrative remedies. This case presents two questions regarding that statutory provision. For the rea- sons explained below, we hold that §1252(d)(1) is not juris- dictional. We hold further that a noncitizen need not re- quest discretionary forms of administrative review, like reconsideration of an unfavorable Board of Immigration Appeals determination, in order to satisfy §1252(d)(1)’s exhaustion requirement.1
. . . .
***********************
Read the full opinion at the link.
So, why is a Dem Administration under AG Garland taking anti-immigrant positions that can’t even garner a single vote on the most far-right Supremes in recent history?
Incredibly, the DOJ made the absurdist argument that, in violation of the statute, an additional unnecessary layer of procedural BS should be inflicted on individuals already dealing with the trauma of a dysfunctional system running a 2 million plus backlog and a BIA with more than 80,000 un-adjudicated appeals at last count! Where’s the common sense? Where’s the competence? Where’s the “better government” that the Biden Administration promised?
Meanwhile, our Round Table continues to put our centuries of collective experience in due process, fundamental fairness, and practical problem solving to use! The Biden Administration might not be paying attention. But, many others, including Article III Judges, are taking advantage and listening.
Matter of Morales-Morales, 28 I&N Dec. 714 (BIA 2023)
BIA Headnote:
(1) The Board of Immigration Appeals has authority to accept what are otherwise untimely appeals, and consider them timely, in certain situations because 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38(b) (2022) is a claim-processing rule and not a jurisdictional provision. Matter of Liadov, 23 I&N Dec. 990 (BIA 2006), overruled.
(2) The Board will accept a late-filed appeal where a party can establish that equitable tolling applies, which requires the party to show both diligence in the filing of the notice of appeal and that an extraordinary circumstance prevented timely filing.
FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mario Salgado, Esquire, San Francisco, California
Notably, but perhaps predictably for those who follow the BIA’s generally “respondent/due process unfriendly” jurisprudence, the “good news” that the BIA has belatedly decided to follow the 2d, 5th, and 9th Circuits on equitable tolling is “tempered” by the result in this case — denial of the motion to reconsider and accept the appeal!
Evidently, among its 82,000+ backlog, the BIA was unable to identify a case where correctly applying equitable tolling would actually BENEFIT the respondent, rather than just requiring a different, largely contrived, analysis to “get to no!”This continues a depressing and highly inappropriate long-standing tendency of the BIA to provide negative examples of how to apply potentially remedial rules.
Presumably, after 17 years of the BIA’s wrong-headed precedent Matter of Liadov, everyone understands that the BIA is “programmed to deny.” What’s needed is “reprogramming”to recognize and grant motions based on “equitable tolling.”
It’s also remarkable that the “highest tribunal” of a dysfunctional organization, notorious for losing files; failing to provide timely, correct notice; cancelling hearings without notice on the hearing date; switching Immigration Judges without notice in a system where the identity of the judge is too often “outcome determinative;” and “cutting” DHS and itself almost endless “breaks” and “exceptions” for their sloppy, lazy, and sometimes ethnically questionable practices sees fit to “pontificate” so self-righteously on what’s “due diligence” and “extraordinary circumstances” for the private bar. The “message” is pretty clear: Denial is the “preferred” (or default, or de facto presumed) result!
If either of the foregoing concepts were applied to EOIR and DHS with the same stringency they are to individuals and their representatives, both agencies would have been forced out of business long ago!
This system is totally screwed up! Dems must ask themselves why Garland and his senior leadership have failed to “unscrew it,” and what can be done to deal with their democracy-and-life-threatening indolence and inattention to quality jurisprudence, due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices.
Pooja Asnani reports from Sanctuary For Families NY:
Hi all,
I wanted to share a recent asylum grant won by my colleagues, Deirdre Stradone, Amalia Chiapperino, and Kelly Becker-Smith, before IJ McKee at the NYC immigration court.
Client is Honduran Garifuna woman who survived DV and gang violence, and, importantly for the grant of asylum, forced sterilization. Below is a quick summary of the case, and I’m highlighting this asylum grant because our team, specifically Deirdre, has been seeing more and more cases of forced sterilization among Central American women.
Respondent is a forty-five-year-old Honduran Garifuna woman who has been the victim of forced sterilization, severe verbal, physical, and sexual violence, robbery and death threats by gang members, and intentional deprivation of law enforcement assistance and medical attention due to her race and gender. Overwhelming evidence affirms the horrific practice of forced sterilization against Garifuna women, as well as the high levels of domestic and gang violence in Honduras that take place with impunity. The evidence shows that government authorities largely fail to respond to complaints of abuse, or when they do respond, fail to do so effectively.
Deirdre has been collaborating with the Mt. Sinai Human Rights program to study the forced sterilization of Central American women, a topic she had encountered over and over again in her asylum cases, with the researchers agreeing that this particular violation of human rights is likely more common than is being research and reported. Deirdre has found several reports and studies conducted regarding indigenous, mainly Garifuna, women living with HIV who have been victims of this practice. As you all probably know, and stemming from the response to China’s one-child policy, forced sterilization is defined in the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) as “per se persecution on account of political opinion.”
I wanted to share this because we’re realizing that that it may be a more wide-spread practice than we initially thought, and often times, clients don’t even realized they have been sterilized when they come to us. We have been asking specific questions about this in our intakes, and often have been sending our clients to get a medical evaluation to determine whether they have been sterilized. Unfortunately, we have had a several clients discover in the course of our representation that they had been sterilized without their consent, and we believe that many other women may have experienced this without realizing.
While we have worked on several cases with similar facts, but interestingly, this is the first asylum case we have had were the IJ (McKee) granted specifically based on the forced sterilization claim (political opinion), and not on the ARCG DV claim.
Our team at Sanctuary is working to put together a training to help issue-spot, discuss common fact patterns, and how to prepare and brief these cases; stay tuned for more details.
CC’ing the team who worked on this case, including Deirdre, if folks have questions.
Thanks,
Pooja
Deirdre Stradone Attorney Sanctuary for Families NYKelly Becker-Smith Attorney Sanctuary for Families NYAmalia Chiapperino Sanctuary for Families NY
********************
Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration Community:
Christina Brown writes: “I wanted to share the attached decision in case it is helpful to others. IJ Burgie granted the asylum claim of an indigenous Guatemalan applicant finding past persecution based on severe economic deprivation (DHS failed to rebut). She also granted based on a pattern and practice of severe economic persecution of indigenous Guatemalans.”
Many congrats and much appreciation to all involved!
Even as the Biden Administration and GOP nativists push their “big myth” that most seeking asylum at the Southern Border are “mere economic migrants” not “true refugees,” these results from those fortunate enough to have expert lawyers, fair Immigration Judges, and reasonable time to prepare, document, and present continue to show the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the racially-biased restrictionist claims. Indeed, to get to the “any reason to deny” nonsense, which also is often mis-employed by the BIA, one has to intentionally ignore or misconstrue both the real country conditions in the Northern Triangle and the inclusive “at least one central reason” mixed motive language of the INA.
These are NOT “one offs!”No, they are actually recurring situations! A properly functioning, fair, expert BIA, committed to a correct and generous interpretation of asylum laws, would have incorporated these and other recurring “grant” situations into a series of binding precedents. These, in turn, would allow lawyers, Asylum Officers, IJs, and ACCs to recognize and prioritize these cases for “fast track grants.”
That, in turn, would enable many asylum applicants to be timely admitted in legal asylum status, work authorized, and on the way to green cards and naturalization. Significantly, it would also avoid the largely self-created, self-aggravated, ever-growing EOIR backlogs that seem to “drive” the “haste makes waste,” sloppy, “any reason to deny” decision-making that still exists throughout our broken and biased asylum system.
The REAL problem here its that meritorious cases like or similar to these that require expert recognition, proper preparation and documentation, and officials committed to “protection not rejection,” are likely to be summarily rejected and wrongfully pushed back across the border by the “Biden/Miller Lite” procedures and toxic official attitudes toward asylum now being promoted by both the Administration and the GOP.
It’s disturbingly clear that the needed positive changes in the immigration legal system are NOT “coming from the top” in the Biden Administration. Consequently, in addition to recruiting, training, and mentoring ever more members of the NDPA (including non-attorney accredited representatives), to hold the system accountable, it is ESSENTIAL that we get more NDPA “practical experts” on the Immigration Bench to spread and force due process, fundamental fairness, and best interpretations/practices on a resistant system from the “retail level” — the “grass roots” if you will.
That requires that NDPA experts with the qualifications apply for Immigration Judge vacancies en masse! You can’t be selected if you don’t apply! And, without better Federal Judges at all levels not only will injustice continue to prevail for immigrants, but our entire democracy will be imperiled! Better judges for a better America!
Yes, as I have acknowledged in prior posts, EOIR can be a tough place to work. But, human lives and the future of our democracy depend on our changing the system, from “the bottom up” if that’s the only way. This system is too important, with too much at stake, to be left to the whims and false agendas of tone-deaf politicos and inept, “go along to get along” bureaucrats!
