BIA – Page 18 – immigrationcourtside.com

☠️⚖️FAILNG JUSTICE: IMMIGRATION JUDGES 👩🏽‍⚖️ NEED INDIVIDUAL LAW CLERKS, NOT MORE FALLS CHURCH BUREAUCRACY & FAILED GIMMICKS! — With “Garland’s Courts” Flunking 😰 “All Three Prongs Of Due Process,” Law Clerks Would Immediately Improve Quality & Save Lives!

Nicholas Bednar,JD
PhD Candidate
Vanderbilt University
PHOTO: SSRN Author Webpage

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4189963

The Public Administration of Justice

93 Pages Posted: 19 Aug 2022

Nicholas Bednar

Vanderbilt University, Department of Political Science

Date Written: August 14, 2022

Abstract

Adjudicatory agencies decide who receives social-welfare benefits, which inventions deserve patents, and which immigrants get to remain in the United States. Scholars have argued that agency adjudication lacks sufficient structural and procedural protections to ensure unbiased decision-making. Yet these critiques miss a key problem with agency adjudication: the lack of adjudicatory capacity. This Article argues that low-capacity agencies cannot satisfy the Due Process Clause’s demand for accurate decision-making. To produce accurate decisions, adjudicatory agencies need sufficient levels of capacity: (1) material resources, (2) expert adjudicators, and (3) support staff. When agencies lack these resources, their adjudicators rely on various coping mechanisms to manage their workloads. They shorten hearings, make assumptions about respondents’ claims based on appearance, or take other steps to reduce the cognitive burdens associated with a high workload. Yet these coping mechanisms introduce error into the decision-making process. Often, these errors are not random and, instead, bias against one party to the dispute.

This Article uses the Immigration Courts as a case study of this phenomenon. The Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR)—the agency charged with adjudicating the removal of noncitizens from the United States—suffers from severe understaffing and has amassed a backlog of over 1.7 million cases. Analyzing over 1.5 million removal proceedings and 32,000 personnel records, this Article uses causal and statistical methods to examine the effect that one element of adjudicatory capacity (i.e., law clerks) has on outcomes in the Immigration Courts. This analysis finds that providing an Immigration Judge with one law clerk decreases the likelihood of removal by 5.2 percentage points and increases the likelihood of an asylum grant by 4.4 percentage points. These effects are significant and exceed the effect sizes of other known contributors to bias, such as the IJ’s prior employment and appointing president.

Why do adjudicatory agencies, like EOIR, appear starved for resources? This Article argues that neither Congress nor the president have sufficient electoral incentives to invest in these agencies. As a result, adjudicatory agencies will continue to make systematic errors without intervention. However, the Due Process Clause demands accurate systems of agency adjudication. If Congress and the president will not uphold their duty to build capacity within these agencies, then courts must reform administrative-law doctrine to promote due process. By reimagining the law of agency adjudication from a public-administration perspective, courts can provide agencies with the flexibility they need to manage their workloads while protecting the due-process rights of the respondents who appear before agency adjudicators.

Keywords: Administrative Law, Immigration, Due Process, Bureaucratic Capacity

Suggested Citation:

Bednar, Nicholas, The Public Administration of Justice (August 14, 2022). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4189963 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4189963

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

I agree with Bednar’s “bottom line:” With neither Congress nor the Executive motivated to bring EOIR into line with Constitutional Due Process, the task falls to the Article IIIs. Some judicial decisions have exposed the glaring, unacceptable constitutional and quality-control flaws in EOIR’s embarrassing and life-threatening dysfunction. Sadly, however, for the most part Article IIIs, starting with the Supremes, have failed to take the decisive action necessary to end the unjust nonsense at EOIR and require even minimal systemic reforms.

Notably, a PhD candidate with a JD knows exactly how to begin addressing the massive due process failure @ EOIR in a practical, easily achievable manner! But, nearing the midpoint of the Biden Administration, a distinguished former Federal Judge, once only a Mitch McConnell away from the Supremes, doesn’t “get it?”

On the DC Circuit, Garland had four individual Judicial Law Clerks. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-chicagoans-clerked-for-merrick-garland-03-18-20160324-story.html.

And, with due respect, 1) he issued far fewer opinions annually than an average Immigration Judge (fewer than 50 compared with 700+); 2) few of his decisions involved the potential “life of death” or at least “life-determining” consequences of decisions in Immigration Court. See generally, https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/10/empirical-scotus-the-singular-relationship-between-the-d-c-circuit-and-the-supreme-court/

One individual, personally selected, law clerk for each Immigration Judge seems like a very “modest ask.” Why hasn’t Garland “picked this low hanging fruit?”

Perhaps he needs to listen to Nicholas Bednar rather than out of touch politicos and bureaucrats at DOJ and EOIR! As Bednar points out, EOIR is a prime model of disastrous, horrible, failed “public administration of justice.” The public and the individuals whose lives hang in the balance deserve much better!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-31-22

DOJ’s IMITATION OF DHS “SERVICE CENTERS” IN VA MIGHT OFFER LITIGANTS A CHANCE AT BETTER LAW! 😎 — Hon. Jeffrey Chase Points Out How DOJ’s Efforts To “Dumb Down” 😩 Immigration Courts & Replace Judicial Decision-Making With “Rote Adjudication” Could Unintentionally Give Individuals A Better Due Process Option!

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2022/8/16/the-4th-circuit-on-jurisdiction

Blog Archive Press and Interviews Calendar Contact

The 4th Circuit on Jurisdiction

On June 30, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a decision that might not have received the attention it deserved. The end result of the court’s published decision in Herrera-Alcala v. Garland was to affirm an Immigration Judge’s denial of asylum based on a lack of credibility.1

But before reaching the merits, the court addressed a jurisdictional issue, and that is where our interest lies. At his removal proceeding, the petitioner was detained at a Louisiana correctional facility, which placed him physically within the territory of the Fifth Circuit. For some reason, the Administrative Control Court (which is where the administrative record for the case was created and maintained, and where documents were filed by the parties) having jurisdiction over that Louisiana correctional facility was in Fort Snelling, Minnesota, which is physically located within the Eighth Circuit’s jurisdiction.

However, the immigration judge who conducted the hearing remotely by video and rendered the decision was sitting at the Immigration Adjudication Center in Falls Church, Virginia, which is within the geographic jurisdiction of the Fourth Circuit. So after the BIA dismissed the petitioner’s appeal, his counsel sought review with the Fourth Circuit. The Department of Justice moved to change venue to the Fifth Circuit, arguing that the petitioner’s location was determinative. And an amicus brief filed by an immigrants’ rights group took the position that venue properly belonged in the Eighth Circuit, where the control court was located.

The Fourth Circuit resolved the question of jurisdiction using the language of the relevant statute. Since 8 U.S.C. section 1252(b)(2) states that the “petition for review shall be filed with the court of appeals for the judicial circuit in which the immigration judge completed the proceedings,” the court interpreted that to mean it is the location of the judge that determines jurisdiction. And as the judge in this case was in Virginia, it found proper jurisdiction to be with the Fourth Circuit.

The decision yields an immediate benefit, as there are presently nineteen Immigration Judges sitting in the two Immigration Adjudication Centers that are located within the Fourth Circuit’s jurisdiction (in Falls Church and Richmond, VA). Based on the Fourth Circuit’s ruling, any of the thousands of noncitizens whose cases were heard by one of these Virginia-based judges now have the option of seeking judicial review in the Fourth Circuit.

The impact of this becomes apparent when we look at the BIA’s precedent decision in Matter of L-E-A-.2 In that case, the Board held that the respondent’s family constituted a valid particular social group for asylum purposes, but then denied asylum by finding that a nexus had not been established between that family membership and the feared persecution. In fact, the decision created an unreasonably high standard for nexus in a commonly occurring type of asylum claim. But the decision contains a footnote recognizing that the Fourth Circuit holds a significantly different view of nexus in such cases, adding that L-E-A- did “not arise in the Fourth Circuit.”3

Although the Board doesn’t go as far as saying so, applying Fourth Circuit case law to the facts of L-E-A- would have resulted in a grant of asylum. As I discussed in far greater depth in this blog post in December, the Fourth Circuit has repeatedly reversed the Board on nexus, citing the latter’s error of focusing on why the persecutor targeted the group in question, instead of asking why they targeted the asylum applicant themself. For example, if the group in question is a family, it doesn’t matter if the persecutor is targeting that family for an unprotected reason such as money, revenge, or self-preservation. Per the Fourth Circuit, if the asylum seeker themself wouldn’t be targeted if not for their membership in that family, then nexus has been established, regardless of the reason the family is at risk in the first place.4

In addition to its more favorable take on nexus, the Fourth Circuit is also among the handful of circuits to consider verbal death threats to constitute persecution.5 This is important, because one who has been threatened in those circuits has thus established past persecution, causing burdens of proof regarding future fear and internal relocation to then shift to the government to rebut, and further opening the possibility for humanitarian grants of asylum even where the government meets its burden of rebuttal.6

The Fourth Circuit has also imposed on Immigration Judges a strong obligation under international law to fully develop the record in hearings involving asylum claims, particularly (but not exclusively) where the respondent is pro se, and considers an IJ’s failure to meet this obligation to be “presumptively prejudicial.”7 Any attorney who is representing on appeal an asylum applicant who appeared pro se below where the IJ had been sitting in Virginia might want to review the record to see if the duties imposed by the Fourth Circuit to develop the record, which includes a “broad and robust duty to help pro se asylum seekers articulate their particular social groups,” was satisfied.8

In spite of the above-listed benefits, advocates have identified a potential downside to the ruling in Herrera-Alcala should the Fourth Circuit’s view on jurisdiction be adopted nationwide. To illustrate this concern, I’ll use a hypothetical example arising in a circuit such as the Fourth with a body of case law favorable to asylum applicants. Let’s imagine that after briefing and documenting the claim in line with that circuit’s law, the presiding judge in Baltimore is out sick on the day of the merits hearing. A deserving asylum seeker could have a likely grant of asylum upended if a judge stationed in a jurisdiction with far less favorable case law is enlisted to hear the case by video under EOIR’s “No Dark Courtrooms” policy.9 While the intent behind substituting in a remote judge might be an innocent one, the impact on the asylum seeker of unexpectedly having to overcome a much tougher standard for nexus or a narrower definition of persecution could be devastating, as the Matter of L-E-A- example illustrated.

The Fourth Circuit’s view is presently limited to the Fourth Circuit. But should it come to be the universal rule, while whether a particular circuit will accept jurisdiction over a petition for review is beyond EOIR’s control, the agency may itself still choose which circuit’s case law its own Immigration Judges should apply in individual cases before the Immigration Courts. EOIR would do well to look to the example of USCIS, which advises its asylum officers conducting credible fear interviews that where there is disagreement among the circuits as to the proper interpretation of a legal issue, “generally the interpretation most favorable to the applicant is used when determining whether the applicant meets the credible fear standard.”10

I mentioned above the Fourth Circuit’s recognition of the duty of Immigration Judges to ensure that the record is fully developed in asylum claims. Scholars credit that obligation to the legal requirement on nations to implement treaties in good faith. For example, in discussing the adjudicator’s duty to develop the record in asylum cases, two leading international refugee law scholars explain the duty to implement treaties in good faith as holding states “not simply to ensuring the benefits of the Convention are withhold from persons who are not refugees, but equally to doing whatever is within their ability to ensure recognition of genuine refugees.”11

But shouldn’t that same obligation apply to not only developing the evidence of record, but also to deciding which law to apply when, as in Herrera-Alcala, there is more than one option? If there is an obligation on our government to do everything in its ability to ensure recognition of genuine refugees, then isn’t that obligation breached where an individual sitting in a geographic area in which the law deems her deserving of asylum is then denied protection because the judge being beamed into that courtroom is sitting in a place with less enlightened precedent?

Copyright Jeffrey S. Chase 2022. All rights reserved.

Notes:

Herrera-Alcala v. Garland, Nos. 20-1770, 20-2338, ___ F.4th ___ (4th Cir. June 30, 2022).

Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2017).

Id at 46, n.3.

Perez Vasquez v. Garland, 4 F.4th 213, 222 (4th Cir. 2021).

See Sorto-Guzman v. Garland, No. 20-1762, ___ F.4th ___ (4th Cir. Aug. 3, 2022) (restating the court’s repeated holding that “the ‘threat of death’ qualifies as persecution.”); Bedoya v. Barr, 981 F.3d 240, 246 (4th Cir. 2020) (emphasizing that “under our precedent, as we have repeatedly explained, a threat of death qualifies as past persecution”).

8 C.F.R. §§1208.13(b)(1), 1208.13(b)(3)(ii), and 1208.13(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Matter of D-I-M-, 24 I&N Dec. 448 (BIA 2008); Matter of L-S-, 25 I&N Dec. 705 (BIA 2012).

Arevalo Quintero v. Garland, 998 F.3d 612, 642 (4th Cir. 2021) (italics in original).

Id. at 633.

March 29, 2019 Memo of EOIR Director, “No Dark Courtrooms,” OOD PM 19-11.

USCIS Asylum Division Officer Training Course, Credible Fear of Persecution and Torture Determinations (Feb. 13, 2017), at 17.

James C. Hathaway and Michelle Foster, The Law of Refugee Status (2d Ed.), Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014, at 119.

AUGUST 16, 2022

PREVIOUS

Can Keathley Be Applied More Broadly?

NEXT

Correcting Course?

ARCHIVE

Blog | Archive | Press and Interviews | Calendar | Contact

Sign up with your email address to receive news and updates.

SIGN UP

We respect your privacy.

<img src=”https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/593d84191e5b6ca18cb547ee/1576527959952-C9MO449EII0SH3V1X9M7/Screen+Shot+2019-12-16+at+3.24.24+PM.png” alt=”Screen Shot 2019-12-16 at 3.24.24 PM.png” />

Jeffrey S. Chase is an immigration lawyer in New York City. Jeffrey is a formerImmigration Judge and Senior Legal Advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals.He is the founder of the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, which was awarded AILA’s 2019 Advocacy Award.Jeffrey is also a past recipient of AILA’s Pro Bono Award.He sits on the Board of Directors of the Association of Deportation Defense Attorneys, and Central American Legal Assistance.

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

At the “Legacy INS,” the acronym for what were then called “Remote Adjudication Centers” was “The RACK” — with good reason! Once upon a time, EOIR went out of the way to emphasize the differences with, and independence from, INS — it ran “courts” not “adjudication centers,” and it was comprised of “judges” NOT “adjudicators.”

Indeed, I can remember a past (in person) IJ National Conference where a senior DOJ official received a rather chilly reception for referring to the IJs in the room as “highly paid immigration examiners who worked for the AG.”

But, times change, and passage of time does not always bring progress. In many important ways EOIR is going backwards. Over the years, particularly 2017-2021, it probably has become more “politicized, compromised, weaponized, and subservient to immigration enforcement” than it was when it operated within the “Legacy INS.” Now, its bloated hierarchical bureaucracy, unmanageable backlogs, lousy public service, and emphasis on “productivity” and carrying out DOJ policies, looks more and more like DHS — the successor to the agency from which it declared “independence” back in 1983. What an unforgivable mess!

Star Chamber Justice — The “RACK” “processes” another “adjudication.”

Here’s a recent post with my “take” on Herrera-Alcala. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2022/07/02/⚖%EF%B8%8Fvenue-venue-whos-got-the-venue-the-4th-circuit-herrera-alcala-v-garland/

As a “vet” of thousands of Televideo Hearings during my 13+ years on the bench at Arlington, I can definitively say that they are inferior to in person hearings, for many reasons. But, sometimes bureaucratic attempts to “depersonalize” justice, cut corners, and achieve bureaucratic goals produce unanticipated outcomes!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-28-22

🤯HASTE MAKES WASTE — DEFENDING IT’S WORSE: IJ’s Due Process Errors During 4-Min. Hearing 11 Years Ago Touch Off 4 Years Of Litigation Ending In Another Crushing Rebuke Of Garland’s DOJ By 4th Cir! — As Judge Wayne Iskra said, “This system is broken!”

U.S. v. Fernandez-Sanchez, 4th Cir., 08-25-22, published

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/204061.P.pdf

WYNN, Circuit Judge:

Bonifacio Fernandez Sanchez, a Mexican citizen who migrated to the United States

illegally as a minor in 2006, was deported in 2011 following a four-minute removal hearing. During that hearing, the immigration judge neglected to advise Fernandez Sanchez about his eligibility for voluntary departure or inform him of his right to appeal. Then, in his written summary order, the immigration judge indicated that Fernandez Sanchez had waived his right to appeal—even though this was never discussed during the hearing.

In the years since, Fernandez Sanchez has returned to the United States and been deported multiple times. Upon discovering him in the country once again in 2018, the Government opted to arrest and charge him with illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Fernandez Sanchez moved to dismiss his indictment, arguing that the 2011 deportation order underlying his § 1326 charge was invalid.

The district court agreed, finding that the immigration judge’s failure to advise Fernandez Sanchez regarding his eligibility for voluntary departure rendered his 2011 removal fundamentally unfair. However, while this appeal was pending, we effectively rejected the district court’s reasoning in United States v. Herrera-Pagoada, 14 F.4th 311 (4th Cir. 2021). Fernandez Sanchez nevertheless maintains that the district court’s decision must be affirmed on an alternative basis: that the immigration judge’s denial of his right to appeal also prejudiced him. We agree, and therefore affirm the dismissal of Fernandez Sanchez’s indictment.

. . . .

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

To me, it sounds like the 4th Circuit having “buyer’s remorse” about their questionable decision in United States v. Herrera-Pagoada, There, the court found that an IJ’s erroneous failure to advise a respondent of the availability of pre-hearing voluntary departure (“VD”) was not a constitutional violation because there was no constitutional right to be advised of potential relief from deportation, even though a DOJ regulation required it! Huh?

But, here the court finds that the IJ’s improper failure to advise of the availability of prehearing VD combined with his failure to advise of appeal rights WAS a due process violation. Why? Because, if properly advised, the individual probably would have appealed, been successful, received a remand from the BIA, and then received VD from the IJ, thus avoiding deportation. Huh?

The problem here is that as currently staffed and operated by the Executive, EOIR is one “walking, talking violation of due process.” If Congress won’t solve the problem by enacting a long overdue Article I Immigration Court, then the Article IIIs need to “take the bull by the horns!”

They should place this entire, festering conflict of interest, and hotbed of substandard quasi-judicial performance OUT of the control of the nation’s Chief Prosecutor, the AG. Until Congress acts to establish a constitutionally compliant system, EOIR should be placed under the supervision of an independent, expert “Special Master” qualified to fairly administer one of the nation’s most important, yet totally dysfunctional and highly unfair, court systems!

Interestingly, much of the court’s reasoning is based on the premise that on appeal the BIA would have corrected the IJ’s clear errors. But, as those who follow Federal immigration litigation are aware, the BIA’s “assembly line” appellate review, sensitivity to due process, and willingness to apply precedent favoring the respondent are often as slipshod and driven by undue haste as this 4-minute IJ hearing.

Ironically, the IJ who mishandled this case is generally regarded as one of the “best in the business” — experienced, knowledgeable, fair, and sensitive to the rights of individuals coming before him. So, while this screw-up might be an aberration for this particular IJ, it’s clearly not a systemic rarity.

In the haste makes waste, hopelessly backlogged, “anything goes” “world of EOIR” goofs like this are likely happening every hour of every day that the Immigration Courts are in session. But, since many folks are unrepresented or underrepresented, some mistakes are simply buried or deported.

Indeed, I had my share of 4-minute (or less) “hearings” during 13 years on the bench. Inevitably, I made some mistakes — some were caught, some inevitably weren’t. Hopefully, I learned from the ones brought to my attention. With “Master Calendars” often consisting of upwards of 50 cases in a 3-hour “slot” in a courtroom overflowing with humanity — and the need to provide stressed out interpreters court clerks, counsel, and me with suitable “breaks” — you can do the math!

Once I did a 100 case Televideo Master in Ohio where 1) I had no files; 2) the ICE ACC who had been detailed to the hearing location had no files; and 3) the interpreter spoke a language other than the one of the majority of the respondents on the calendar. Afterwards, I told the then Chief IJ that I had spent the day in “Clown Court!’” 🤡 He was not amused.

To quote my friend and former colleague retired Judge Wayne Iskra: “This system is broken!” “Numbers,” “final orders,” “expediency,” and “productivity” to satisfy bureaucratic enforcement goals or to support Government myths about immigrants drive the EOIR system. Due process, fundamental fairness, compliance with the statute and regulations, and meaningful analysis are not this dysfunctional system’s focus. But, they must be!

Clearly, “dedicated dockets,” regulatory time frames, form orders, remote “Adjudication Centers,” and other “designed to fail” gimmicks tried under Garland are NOT going to solve the chronic quality-control and due process problems plaguing EOIR!

In other words, EOIR as currently constituted and “operated” is a “due process sham!” The 4th Circuit and other Article IIIs need to “dig deeper” into the glaring constitutional and professional quality problems plaguing Garland’s broken Immigration Courts! If neither he nor Congress will solve the problems, somebody must!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-26-22

😰IMMIGRATION 101: SUMMER GRADES POSTED: GARLAND, BIA, & OIL GET “F’s” FROM 1ST (FRENTESCU TEST) & 3RD (CATEGORICAL TEST) CIRS! — Meanwhile, NDPA Litigators Get “A+’s”

Dunce Cap — With lives on the line, the BIA’s performance leaves something to be desired.
PHOTO: Creative Commons

From Dor v. Garland, 1st Cir.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/20-1694P-01A.pdf

Given our familiarity with the record at this point, we are prompted to note that it is not at all apparent to us how an application of the Frentescu factors to Dor’s case would lead to a particularly-serious-crime determination. For instance, consider again the June 1 incident — the BIA relied on a police officer’s assessment that Dor had a “large amount” of marijuana on him, but this on-the-scene appraisal by an officer is largely irrelevant to an immigration-law-driven determination that a crime is particularly serious pursuant to the guiding statutes, especially when the actual amount (25 grams, a small amount) is available. See Matter of Castro Rodriguez, 25 I. & N. at 703; Moncrieffe, 569 U.S. at 194 n.7. Consider, too, that while the BIA identified the type of sentence imposed as a Frentescu factor but never mentioned (or weighed) Dor’s sentences, we observe that

– 23 –

Dor received lenient sentences with respect to both offenses (a two-year probation and a one-year suspended sentence that never went into effect since Dor completed a violation-free probation period).

As to Dor’s involvement in trafficking as part of the calculus here, based on the amount in question, and again on the face of this record, this characterization seems ambitious. The May 20 offense officers observed Dor sell “20 bucks[‘ worth]” of marijuana to another individual; the June 1 incident revealed Dor had in his possession a digital scale, a large amount of U.S. currency, and 25 grams of marijuana.

Bottom line: The BIA’s particularly-serious-crime conclusion is devoid of any actual application of the Frentescu factors, and even if we considered it a solid application of the law to Dor’s case, we still do not have a sufficiently rational explanation of the BIA’s particularly-serious-crime conclusion as to Dor’s minor marijuana offenses, and a rational explanation is necessary to ensure Dor was appropriately precluded from obtaining the humanitarian relief he seeks.

DEAN’S LIST: A+‘s go to :

Edward Crane, with whom Philip L. Torrey, Crimmigration Clinic, Harvard Law School, Shaiba Rather, Lena Melillo, and Katie Quigley, Law Student Advocates, Crimmigration Clinic, Harvard Law School, were on brief, for petitioner.

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

From Vurimindi v. AG, 3rd Cir.

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/191848p.pdf

In sum, the Government has identified no evidence that supports divisibility. The statute, the case law, and the available state court documents all support the opposite conclusion.11 Because Pennsylvania’s stalking statute is indivisible as to intent, we apply the categorical approach. And under the categorical approach, Section 2709.1(a)(1), which sweeps more broadly than its generic counterpart in the INA, is not a categorical match. Vurimindi’s offense of conviction therefore does not qualify as a removable offense.

DEAN’S LIST: A+‘s go to DLA Piper’s:

Courtney Gilligan Saleski

https://www.dlapiper.com/en/us/people/s/saleski-courtney-gilligan/

and

Rachel A.H. Horton

https://www.dlapiper.com/en/us/people/h/horton-rachel/

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

Interestingly, the BIA’s defective decision in Dor involved improper reliance on police reports. This comes just as a new NIJC report shows how improper reliance by EOIR on police reports means that “racism and inequities in the criminal legal system and policing carry over into the immigration system.” https://default.salsalabs.org/T59538212-844f-4d6d-ade1-0428b5eef400/e9c83407-de3b-4bcf-a318-704cbcd599a2.

The Dor case also presents a familiarly outrageous characteristic of American immigration policy — still going strong in the era of Biden, Harris, and Garland — “Dred Scottification” — that is systemic injustice — directed at Black Haitian refugees. Indeed, Dor is lucky to be in the “system” at all — no matter how biased and poorly functioning. Following in the footsteps of the overtly racist and xenophobic Trump Administration, under Biden more than 25,000 potential Haitian refugees have been arbitrarily returned under Title 42 with no process at all — not even the “veneer of due process” provided by EOIR! See https://www.wola.org/2022/05/weekly-u-s-mexico-border-update-title-42-ruling-family-self-separations-more-drownings-haiti-expulsion-flights/.

The cases described above have been pending for three and six years, respectively. EOIR presents the worst of both worlds: lengthy delays and backlogs without due process and careful expert consideration of the issues involved. Injustice at a high cost, in more ways than one!

After trips to three levels of our broken immigration justice system, countless hours of legal time, and untold trauma and uncertainty for the individuals subjected to this dysfunctional system, these cases remain far from final resolutions. Now they go back into Garland’s incredible nearly two million case backlog!

Sometimes, the BIA uses this as an opportunity to invent a new “bogus theory of denial.” Other times, the files get lost or reassigned. In other words, they are subject to EOIR’s “specialty:” “Aimless Docket Reshuffling!”

Garland doesn’t lose any sleep over it because: 1) not his life on hold, 2) not his time and money being wasted, and 3) he isn’t paying attention! This is unacceptable public service! Plain and simple! And, there appear to be few, if any, real consequences for anybody except the individuals whose lives and futures are at stake and their (often pro bono) lawyers!

How completely “out of touch” is Garland? He has put bogus, “Mickey Mouse” time limits on new asylum adjudications. Doing incompetent and biased adjudications faster isn’t going to solve the problem. It will actually make backlogs worse and more importantly, increase the number of defective asylum denials — already at beyond unacceptable levels.

You can’t fix a broken system by making it “pedal faster!” Why, after all these years, Garland doesn’t understand that “fundamental rule of Goverment bureaucracy” is totally beyond me!

The obvious solution: Put emphasis on getting these cases right at the first instance. That means “canning” the “anti-immigrant default and assembly line process” and getting expert IJs willing to rule in favor of individuals where appropriate and a revamped BIA of expert judges willing to issue precedents favorable to individuals and insure that IJs properly follow them. It also means a BIA who will follow precedent even where it doesn’t produce a “DHS Enforcement-friendly result.”

Additionally, “lose” OIL’s often-dilatory or quasi-frivolous arguments designed to cover up EOIR failures and block justice! (HINT: The Assistant AG, Civil, one of the key sub-cabinet positions at DOJ, and OIL’s “boss,” remains unfilled approaching the halfway point of the Biden Administration.) This system is broken from top to bottom, including the litigation “strategy” that attempts to shield unfair and legally incorrect EOIR decisions from critical substantive review by Article III judges independent from the Executive.

Yes, Garland recently has “pruned” some of the deadwood at EOIR and brought in a few widely-respected expert “real judges.” That’s some progress.

But, he’s barely scratched the surface of the anti-immigrant culture, “haste makes waste” atmosphere, and shoddy decision making at EOIR and the poorly conceived litigation strategies at OIL! In particular, the dysfunctional DOJ immigration bureaucracy glaringly lacks inspired progressive due-process-committed, human-rights-focused, racial-justice-sensitive leadership willing to stand up for individual rights against Government overreach and abuses!

Of course, the “real” solution is to get the Immigration Courts out of DOJ and into an independent Article I structure. But, unfortunately, that isn’t going to happen tomorrow.

In the meantime, there is plenty that Garland could be doing to improve due process and professionalism and to “pave the way” for the eventual transition to Article I. The more dysfunctional Garland makes his system the more difficult and rocky that transition will be.

Garland isn’t getting the job done! Everyone who cares about the future of our nation and the rule of law should be asking why and demanding better from Garland and his “asleep at the switch” lieutenants!

High-powered lawyers like Courtney Saleski, National Co-Chair of DLA’s White Collar Practice, who successfully litigated Vurimindi in the 3rd Circuit have some “juice.” They need to team up with the ABA, FBA, AILA, ACLU, Human Rights First, NIJC, the NAACP, Catholic Conference, HIAS, and other human rights and civil rights groups and “camp on Garland’s doorstep” until he “pulls the plug” on his dysfunctional, unprofessional EOIR and brings in due-process-focused competence! How many resources and human lives can our nation afford to waste on Garland’s EOIR disgrace?

Alfred E. Neumann

Individuals whose lives are subject to systemic injustice and their hard-working, often pro bono, attorneys might “dissent” from Garland’s dilatory approach to long overdue due process reforms and key personnel changes in his stunningly dysfunctional Immigration Courts!
PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-24-22

🇺🇸⚖️🗽AN AMERICAN LEGAL HERO LEAVES BEHIND LEGACY OF COURAGE, SCHOLARSHIP, INNOVATION, COMPASSION: A HEARTFELT TRIBUTE TO HON. WILLIAM VAN WYKE BY HON. “SIR JEFFREY” CHASE!

Judge William Van Wyke (D – Aug. 14, 2022)
U.S. Immigration Judge (Ret.)
Member Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
“A True Due Process Visionary”
PHOTO: the world.com

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2022/8/22/william-van-wyke-2

William Van Wyke

On August 14, the immigration law community lost a true giant. William Van Wyke, a former Immigration Judge, advocate, and scholar unexpectedly passed away.

How does one capture William’s essence? I’m going to attempt to do so through his own words (in bold), taken from both public sources and emails he wrote to his former Immigration Judge colleagues in conversations after his retirement from the bench.

“The fearful and crude ideas get put into practice by reflex; compassionate and thoughtful ones wait around until everyone agrees with them. – William” – April 1, 2021 email.

My first real impression of William came from reading his 1992 article “A New Perspective on ‘Well-Founded Fear,” which appeared in AILA’s conference handbook that year.1 In very simple, easy to understand language, WIlliam turned the existing method of asylum adjudication on its head, using an easy to apply concept that correctly brought the process in line with international law. It was absolutely brilliant. Thirty years later, we are still waiting around for the government agencies overseeing asylum adjudication to agree with it.

Prior to authoring that article, WIlliam had spent nine years pioneering the representation of Central American refugees before the Immigration Courts in Washington and Baltimore, beginning this work when the 1980 Refugee Act was still new.

“’We have a law that was intended to be generous, that, when it is well understood, would cover many cases — many, many more cases — than those that are granted,’ Van Wyke says.” – Quote in Eyder Peralta, “Why A Single Question Decides The Fates Of Central American Migrants,” NPR, Feb. 25, 2016.

In one 1990 case in which his clients were denied asylum, William succeeded in persuading the Immigration Judge to rule that those clients could not be deported to their native El Salvador as long as the civil war continued there. William achieved this result by arguing customary international law, and analogizing a refugee’s flight from war to the customary practice of allowing a ship in distress the right to enter a port without authorization. The Washington Post quoted an immigration law authority who called the decision “one of the most impressive victories ever in an immigration court.” The decision was the subject of a law review article the following year.3

“My own experience is that people with anti-immigrant sentiments, whether in INS, DHS, EOIR or anywhere else, have always cringed at the idea of an IJ giving an unrepresented person sufficient information to make genuinely informed decisions… I remember a talk by Janet Reno at one of our conferences 20 years ago when she mentioned ‘compassion’ 12 times — I counted them. But try to actually be compassionate in specific cases in a legally appropriate and consequential way and you’re accused of overstepping judicial bounds. Didn’t I know that compassion is supposed to be a decoration, not something that actually helps the people before us?” – Email, Sept. 18, 2019

William’s appointment as an Immigration Judge in March, 1995 sent a message of hope to the immigration law community. On the bench, William maintained his methodical, detail-oriented approach. Early in his career on the bench, William reported that the INS trial attorneys had given him the nickname “the Van Wyck Expressway,” a reference to the similarly named NYC roadway that most know from traveling to or from JFK Airport. When William pointed out to one of those INS attorneys that his courtroom actually moved quite slowly, the attorney responded: “So does the Van Wyck Expressway.”

While we were both on the bench, I heard that William had developed a highly unique seating plan for his courtroom, and asked him about it one day. He showed it to me, explaining in detail his deeply thought out reasoning for the placement of every chair in the room. I don’t remember the specifics so many years later, but it was a perfect example of the strong sense of responsibility WIlliam felt towards all who set foot in his courtroom.

That sense of responsibility became even more heightened when WIlliam transferred from the court in New York to what he used to call “plain old York,” meaning the detained immigration court in York, Pennsylvania, located inside of the York County Prison.4

In one case he heard there, a non-citizen sat in jail awaiting approval of a green card petition filed by his U.S. citizen wife that could have saved him from deportation. But approval of visa petitions is not something an immigration judge can do; that power lies with the same government agency that was seeking the non-citizen’s deportation (at the time, that was INS; it is now DHS). After continuing the case multiple times to allow for a decision on the visa petition, WIlliam was repeatedly informed by INS’s attorney that no action had been taken. The INS attorney further refused to inquire as to when a decision might be expected, and insisted that rather than wait, the non-citizen should be ordered deported.

Although at the time such action required the consent of both parties, WIlliam took the bold step of administratively closing the case over the government’s objection, writing a detailed decision explaining the necessity of doing so under the facts presented.

Remarkably, rather than appeal William’s denial to the Board of Immigration Appeals, the INS attorney privately and most improperly contacted the Chief Immigration Judge by phone, who in turn improperly reopened the matter and placed it back on for hearing.

In a decision that should be required reading for all EOIR management, WIlliam fired back at both INS and his own higher-ups, stating that it would be a “manifest injustice” to deport the respondent “simply because INS has not performed its Congressionally-mandated adjudication in a timely fashion.”

Detailing the extensive efforts he had undertaken to get INS to adjudicate the visa petition, WIlliam further noted that “[t]he asymmetry of ordering one party, but asking, begging, pleading and cajoling the other party hearing after hearing without effect, can only diminish the court as an authoritative and independent arbiter in the public’s eyes.”

WIlliam took the INS and the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge to task for their unethical ex parte communication, and the latter’s unauthorized action in response to such conversation:

The Chief Immigration Judge is an administrative and policy officer without appellate or other legal authority to overrule the immigration judge’s procedural decisions in the case, see 8 CFR 3.9, 3.1(b), and ethical rules require the Chief Immigration Judge as well as immigration judges to refrain from taking action in a specific case following an ex parte communication about the case by one of the parties.

William further noted that his “decision to close the case temporarily was not a mere administrative one subject to OCIJ’s general direction, but a legal decision made as an integral part of the adjudicatory process in an individual case.” William cautioned that the private communication, which denied opposing counsel the right to be heard, protected INS from having to defend its position in an appeal to the BIA, thus giving

a procedural and tactical advantage to the INS by demonstrating to respondent, rightly or wrongly, that an INS call to the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge may be enough to undo what the immigration judge does in open court, while encouraging the INS to continue to seek results from the OCIJ privately that it might not be able to get from the BIA publicly.

William concluded:

Unable to establish or enforce the standards of conduct that this judge believes must apply, he will recuse himself from further consideration of the case. In the court’s view, only the OCIJ, which went beyond mere administrative action to direct a particular course of action in this case, is in a position to cure the appearance of impropriety its intervention has produced. The court will therefore refer this case back to the Chief Immigration Judge for whatever action he may deem fit and appropriate.

The extraordinary nature of the matter was reported in an article in the New York Times.5

In retirement, William was a member of our Round Table that filed an amicus brief in an important case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Velasco-Lopez v. Decker. The case challenged the practice of requiring a detained non-citizen to themself prove that they would not pose a flight risk or danger to the community in order to warrant their release from detention. In its precedent decision, the circuit court agreed that such burden should be borne by the government, and not the detainee.

I share here part of William’s response to the decision

In this decision, the important starting point is that due process applies to every person in their relation to the power of government. This principle humanizes immigrant “others” and shows that when Big Government (i.e. the kind that wields power in favor of the already rich and already powerful) treads on anyone, everyone’s rights are in jeopardy. The principles relevant in bond decisions –– having ties to our communities and not being a danger to others –– are strong values that most of us honor and share, whether recent immigrants or earlier-generation immigrants, and should make all of us resist limitations on our freedom by the coercive power of jailing people.

I don’t know if they still staple those little yellow cards with red print onto files of jailed immigrants that used to say, “RUSH: detained at government expense.” Years ago when I was at York I wrote to… EOIR General Counsel, to ask if we couldn’t change those cards to be more humane, to say, “RUSH: person deprived of liberty,” or at least more neutral: “person deprived of liberty at government expense.” A change, of course, was “unnecessary” because everyone already knew the immigrants’ hardship, even if our boss’s reminder focused only on the government’s. Maybe they’ll change the cards now to remind adjudicators: “Rush: this person should not be deprived of freedom unless the government quickly decides he/she lacks any community ties AND is dangerous.” I won’t hold my breath, though.

I will conclude by saying that just recently, I set about researching a narrow legal issue that I would imagine most Immigration Judges would resolve in a few pages at most. I came across a decision that William had written on the topic shortly before his retirement from the bench that was exactly what I was looking for. It was 39 pages single spaced, and of course, absolutely brilliant.

On behalf of your fellow judges, and of all who have appeared in Immigration Court, thank you, William, for being you, for never lowering your standards. You restored the hope of so many in the power of law to make a positive difference in people’s lives, and so often showed that there was a way forward when we thought there was none. You are already greatly missed.

Notes:

William Van Wyke, “A New Perspective on Well-Founded Fear,” 1992-93 Immigration & Nationality Handbook(AILA, 1992) at 497.

Carlos Sanchez, “Lawyer’s Persistence Helps Reshape Immigration Law,” Washington Post, March 31, 1991.

Cookson, II, Charles W. “In Re Santos: Extending the Right of Non-Return to Refugees of Civil Wars.” American University International Law Review 7, no. 1 (1991): 145-171.

The York Immigration Court was closed on July 31, 2021.

Eric Schmitt, “Two Judges Do Battle in an Immigration Case,” NYT, June 21, 2001.

978 F.3d 842 (2d Cir. 2020). The author recognized the outstanding representation in this matter by the petitioner’s counsel, Julie Dona (who argued the case) and Aadhithi Padmanabhan of the Legal Aid Society, and to Souvik Saha of Wilmer Hale for his remarkable assistance in drafting our amicus brief.

AUGUST 22, 2022

NEXT

Can Keathley Be Applied More Broadly?

ARCHIVE

Blog | Archive | Press and Interviews | Calendar | Contact

Sign up with your email address to receive news and updates.

SIGN UP

We respect your privacy.

<img src=”https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/593d84191e5b6ca18cb547ee/1576527959952-C9MO449EII0SH3V1X9M7/Screen+Shot+2019-12-16+at+3.24.24+PM.png” alt=”Screen Shot 2019-12-16 at 3.24.24 PM.png” />

Jeffrey S. Chase is an immigration lawyer in New York City. Jeffrey is a former Immigration Judge and Senior Legal Advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals.He is the founder of the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, which was awarded AILA’s 2019 Advocacy Award.Jeffrey is also a past recipient of AILA’s Pro Bono Award.He sits on the Board of Directors of the Association of Deportation Defense Attorneys, and Central American Legal Assistance.

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

My first real impression of William came from reading his 1992 article “A New Perspective on ‘Well-Founded Fear,” which appeared in AILA’s conference handbook that year.1 In very simple, easy to understand language, WIlliam turned the existing method of asylum adjudication on its head, using an easy to apply concept that correctly brought the process in line with international law. It was absolutely brilliant. Thirty years later, we are still waiting around for the government agencies overseeing asylum adjudication to agree with it.

. . . .

William spent those years trying to persuade the government of the proper application of the new law. However, INS and the newly created EOIR remained largely mired in the Cold War-influenced view of asylum that preceded the 1980 changes. And under that Cold War approach, Central Americans fleeing pro-U.S. regimes had nearly no chance to obtain asylum

A 1991 Washington Post article documented how this institutional resistance only caused William to be more persistent and creative in his legal approach.2

Kind of says it all about the entrenched, continuing, institutional resistance at EOIR to correct, generous, fair, practical interpretations of asylum law and other immigration and human rights laws! That’s what helps generate uncontrollable backlogs and brings our entire justice system into disrepute! Worst of all, it threatens the lives of those denied justice by its legal misinterpretations and mis-applications of the law!

What does it say about an institution that no longer touts or actively pursues its noble one-time-vision of “through teamwork and innovation, be the world’s best administrative tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all?” Ironically, William’s life and achievements embody that now-defunct “EOIR vision.” But, nobody in “management” actually acknowledged that during his often-difficult tenure there.

Encouragingly, a number of Garland’s recent judicial appointments are distinguished, expert, widely respected “practical scholars” in the “Van Wyke mold.” Unfortunately, it’s going to take immediate and dramatic changes in moribund, uninspired EOIR leadership and in the “any reason to deny” BIA to overcome the “Cold War mentality,” anti-immigrant bias, assembly line procedures, “institutionalized go along to get alongism,” and unacceptably poor performance of EOIR. Right now, it’s still drag on our entire justice system that puts the future of our nation at risk!

No wonder we already miss William, his outspoken courage, and his wisdom so much. There is a void in our justice system right now where fierce due-process-focused, creative, humane, practical scholars should be leading the way in our institutions of justice!

It’s up to the “new generation” of the NDPA to break down the walls of official resistance by Garland and other short-sighted bureaucrats and politicos who lack the vision to make racial justice, immigrant justice, and equal justice for all realities rather than disingenuous unfulfilled rhetoric! Guys, your lives and those of your descendants might depend on it! So, dial up the pressure on the intransigents, many of them in the Biden Administration you helped to elect and who expect your support and votes again this Fall!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-24-22

💨 FROM THE ROCKIES & THE HIGH PLAINS, THE WINDS OF TRUTH BLOW AWAY THE BS & SHOW HOW GARLAND’S BIA & THEIR SCOFFLAW INTERPRETATIONS HAVE BUILT BACKLOGS — “This petition for review represents the latest chapter in the Government’s ongoing efforts to dig itself out of a hole it placed itself in,” says 10th Cir. in Estrada-Corona v. Garland!

Kangaroos — It’s easy guys, we just do what DHS Enforcement and our political bosses want and we can keep hopping around forever! Backlogs! Ha, the bigger the bigger they get, the more “secure” our jobs!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/
Creative Commons License

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

CA10 Stop-Time Victory: Estrada-Cardona v. Garland

Estrada-Cardona v. Garland

“The Attorney General may allow otherwise-removable aliens to remain in the country if, among other things, they have accrued 10 years of continuous physical presence in the United States. We call this form of discretionary relief “cancellation of removal.” Under the statutory “stop-time rule,” the period of continuous physical presence ends (A) when the alien is served with a notice to appear, or (B) when the alien has committed certain criminal offenses. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1). Nothing more, nothing less. In the latest installment of “What Triggers the Stop-Time Rule?” the Government asks us to hold that the issuance of a final order of removal is a third, extra-statutory event sufficient to stop the clock. The plain language of the statute supports no such conclusion. Declining to read ambiguity into a statute where none exists, we hold a final order of removal does not stop the accrual of continuous physical presence. … This petition for review represents the latest chapter in the Government’s ongoing efforts to dig itself out of a hole it placed itself in. … After years of statutory short-circuiting, the Government finds itself in the uncomfortable position of being wrong. … Because Congress unambiguously replaced the final-order rule with the stop-time rule, the BIA’s application of the final-order rule was legal error. Petitioner continued to accrue continuous physical presence after the immigration judge issued the order to voluntarily depart. … [W]e hold that because the BIA seems to have considered change-in-the-law equitable tolling arguments before, the BIA abused its discretion in this case by failing to “announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted.” … We cannot discern why the BIA found no extraordinary circumstance which would warrant equitable tolling, so the BIA abused its discretion. … On remand, the Government is free to argue that Petitioner should not be granted sua sponte reopening or equitable tolling. This opinion is expressly limited to two conclusions. First, the BIA’s application of the final-order rule was legal error. Second, the BIA’s explanations for denying sua sponte reopening and equitable tolling constituted, as a procedural matter, an abuse of discretion. For the reasons stated herein, we GRANT the petition for review and REMAND to the BIA for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.”

[Hats way off to Jennifer M. Smith and Mark Barr!]

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

“For years, if not decades, the Government sent aliens “notices to appear” which failed to include all the information required by § 1229(a)—like the “time and place at which the proceedings will be held.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1)(G)(i). For countless aliens, the only obstacle to being eligible for cancellation of removal was the Government’s position that a time-and-place-to-be-set notice to appear still triggers the stop-time rule. In Pereira, the Supreme Court rejected the Government’s atextual interpretation and held a “putative notice to appear that fails to designate the specific time or place of the [alien]’s removal proceedings is not a ‘notice to appear under section 1229(a),’ and so does not trigger the stop-time rule.” 138 S. Ct. at 2113–14. In one fell swoop, the Supreme Court cleared the way for many aliens, like Petitioner, to seek cancellation of removal.

But the Government quickly erected a new hurdle.”

The BIA could and should have prevented this debacle by insisting from the git go that the statute (“the law”) be followed by DHS and EOIR. Instead, at the behest of DHS, and perhaps to prevent tens of thousands of long-term residents who had received statutorily defective notices from seeking relief, the BIA misinterpreted the statute time after time.

The real stupidity here is that the requirement the BIA was pretzeling itself to avoid was hardly “rocket science” or burdensome: Serve a notice containing the actual date, time, and place of the hearing! One might ask what purpose is served by a so-called “Notice to Appear” that doesn’t notify the individual of where and when to appear?

Moreover, when the BIA started issuing their incorrect precedents, DHS and EOIR had a then-existing system — called “interactive scheduling” — that would have complied with the statute. The problem was that the “powers that be” at DOJ, EOIR, and DHS consciously decided NOT to use that system.

The apparent reason was the belief that complying with the law might have interfered with DHS arbitrarily filling the Immigration Courts with large “numbers” of cases to meet various enforcement “priorities” set from “on high.” Rather than doing its job, the BIA chose time and again to “go along to get along” with this nonsense!

Over and over, EOIR lets bogus DHS or Administration “enforcement priorities” or “improperly using the legal system as a deterrent” subvert due process, fundamental fairness, best interpretations, and practical solutions!

And, although Biden and Harris campaigned on a platform of bringing the rule of law and rationality back to immigration, the absurdity and illegality continues under Garland. He even sent OIL in to waste the time of the Article IIIs by mounting essentially frivolous defenses to the BIA’s malfeasance.

Perhaps worst of all, in addition to being denied timely justice, individuals and their lawyers dealing with Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR often are falsely blamed for causing the backlogs that are the primary result of DHS/EOIR incompetence and political meddling by unqualified bureaucrats. The latter don’t understand what really happens in Immigration Court and how to properly, fairly, and efficiently administer such a large and important court system.

The backlogs will continue to grow and the US justice system will crater because of bad immigration decisions generating skyrocketing litigation. Garland must replace the BIA with real expert appellate judges committed to fair, humane, and reasonable interpretations of immigration and human rights laws — without regard to whether those correct interpretations will be “career enhancing” or “career preserving.” In other words, judges who put justice before personal or institutional “survival.” Competent, expert, independent-minded judicial administrators with the guts to keep DOJ and DHS bureaucratic meddlers “at arm’s length” are also required.

Folks who could do the job are out here. But, that’s the problem! They belong in the key judicial judicial and administrative positions at EOIR where they can put any end to the due-process denying, backlog building dysfunction.

EOIR Clown Show Must Go T-Shirt — “EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept

Everyone committed to the future of American justice should be asking themselves why Garland hasn’t recruited and hired the right “Team Due Process” for EOIR! American justice can’t afford more of Garland’s inept, “go along to get along,” “afraid to say no to DHS enforcement” BIA and the rest of the EOIR “Deadly Clown Show” largely left over from past, failed Administrations!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-20-21

⚖️ NDPA STALWART MICHAEL MEHR BEATS DOWN MATTER OF CORDERO-GARCIA (Obstruction of Justice) IN 9TH — Dissenting Trump Judge VanDyke Goes Ballistic — Accuses Colleagues Of “Playing Dirty” By Occasionally Ruling In Favor Of Individuals In Immigration Cases!

Here’s a report from Nate Raymond @ Reuters:

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/trump-appointed-judge-says-9th-circuit-playing-dirty-prevent-deportations-2022-08-15/

(Reuters) – A conservative judge appointed by former President Donald Trump on Monday accused his colleagues on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals of playing “dirty” in a “trainwreck” of rulings to prevent immigrants from being deported.

U.S. Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke’s criticism came in a dissent to a 2-1 decision holding a Mexican native’s California conviction for dissuading a witness from reporting a crime was not a deportable offense under federal immigration law.

VanDyke, who has become known for a string of dissents since joining the liberal-leaning court in 2020, noted he had not been shy in criticizing the San Francisco-based court’s “abysmal and indefensible immigration precedents.”

He said the 9th Circuit for more than a decade has been “doing everything in our power (and much not) to upset” the Board of Immigration Appeals’ “reasonable” interpretation of what constitutes an offense related to obstruction of justice.

The BIA in this case had concluded Fernando Cordero-Garcia committed such an offense after he was convicted in California of sexual battery without restraint, sexual exploitation by a psychotherapist and dissuading a witness from reporting a crime.

“My colleagues in the majority should be embarrassed,” VanDyke wrote. “Perhaps not for their wrong decision today–to err is human, after all, even for those in robes. But they should be troubled by our court’s jaw-dropping, always-increasing, epic collection of immigration gaffes.”Cordero-Garcia’s lawyer, Michael Mehr, declined to comment.

Cordero-Garcia, who entered the country in 1965 as a lawful permanent resident, was a psychologist for the County of Santa Barbara Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health Services department who prosecutors said sexually assaulted patients, the ruling said.

Two appointees of Democratic presidents — U.S. District Judge Barry Moskowitz, a visiting judge on the court, and U.S. Circuit Judge Andrew Hurwitz — ruled for Cordero-Garcia in overturning the BIA’s decision on the obstruction offense.

Moskowitz, writing for the majority, said he was not writing on a “clean slate,” as the 9th Circuit in 2020 ruled an “obstruction of justice” offense must be connected to ongoing or pending criminal proceedings.

The California law Cordero-Garcia was convicted under, by contrast, does not require any connection to an ongoing or pending proceeding or investigation, making it “not an appropriate comparator” to obstruction under federal law.

VanDyke, though, said the 9th Circuit’s approach had created a “lopsided circuit-split,” with the majority acknowledging its ruling ran counter to decisions by the 1st and 4th U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals.

The case is Cordero-Garcia v. Garland, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 19-72779.

For Cordero-Garcia: Michael Mehr of Mehr & Soto

For the United States: Rebecca Hoffberg Phillips of the U.S. Department of Justice

Read more:

Trump-appointed judge blasts 9th Circuit’s ’embarrassing’ immigration rulings

In barbed dissents, Trump appointees call

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

Here’s a link to Matter of Garcia-Cordero, 27 I&N Dec. 652 (BIA 2019) which was reversed by the 9th Circuit:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwip-puUns75AhUlk4kEHaQXAisQFnoECAMQAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.justice.gov%2Feoir%2Fpage%2Ffile%2F1210991%2Fdownload&usg=AOvVaw2IVnTOUmhzqK0ppatf4rr7

While VanDyke has been eager to rip into his colleagues for critically reviewing BIA rulings, rather than just “rubber stamp deferring,” he is no stranger to controversy. He received the coveted “not qualified to serve” rating from the ABA and has been characterized as an “unqualified hack” by Joe Patrice over at abovethelaw.com. https://abovethelaw.com/2021/12/ninth-circuit-judge-has-had-it-with-trump-judges-insulting-dissents/.

Interestingly, a chunk of the dissent is dedicated to showing that Mr. Cordero-Garcia is a louse. However, that doesn’t seem to have much to do with the legal application of the “categorical test” to his crime in the immigration context. For all its difficulties, Congress was well aware that courts had historically applied the “categorical test” as opposed to the “sounds like a bad guy” approach when they enacted the statutory language in question.

Curiously, VanDyke castigates his majority colleagues for “result oriented” decision making. But it seems highly unlikely that either District Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz, who wrote the opinion, or Circuit Judge Andrew Hurwitz would have chosen Mr. Cordero-Garcia’s situation as one to “throw out a lifeline.”

What’s more likely is that they fairly applied controlling Circuit precedent notwithstanding the highly unsympathetic individual involved. By contrast, critics have characterized VanDyke as an ideologue — driven by a far-right agenda — whose main focus on the bench has been “writing vitriolic Town Hall editorials to publish in F.4th.” Id.

From a due process standpoint, one of the most severe problems undermining our entire justice system today is the disturbingly poor performance of the BIA which often functions as a “rubber stamp” on incorrect anti-immigrant decisions by Immigration Judges, many of them appointed during the Trump Administration with questionable credentials, at best. That’s when the BIA isn’t busy serving as a “shill” for DHS Enforcement — often bending the law or going out of their way to sustain ICE appeals from correct decisions below that grant relief or benefit individuals. BIA precedents favorable to asylum seekers and other migrants are few and far between — despite an obvious lack of immigration and human rights expertise among many Trump appointees to the immigration bench.

The problem is compounded when reviewing Circuit Courts ignore the glaring Constitutional conflict of having a “court” that is “owned” by an enforcement agency (and was blatantly “weaponized” against migrants by Sessions and Barr) and the poor quality decision making, lack of scholarship, and overt bias that plagues EOIR. “Rubber stamp deference” to BIA decisions that do not deserve it is a systemic problem for the Article IIIs, actively encouraged by the Supremes judge-created Chevron and Brand X doctrines of undue deference. From this perspective, VanDyke and many (not all) of his Trump colleagues are a big part of the problem — not the solution!

Michael K. Mehr ESQ!
Senior Partner
Mehr & Soto LLP
Santa Cruz, CA
PHOTO: Website

Many congrats to Michael Mehr for vigorously and successfully litigating this complex issue in the 9th Circuit. It’s telling to compare the “quiet competence” of dedicated, expert advocates like Mehr with the “bombastic grandstanding” of VanDyke and others in the xenophobic right. Mehr and others in the NDPA have honed their their advocacy and scholarship skills by decades of giving a “voice” to those who otherwise are seldom “heard” by the powers that be.

Undoubtedly, given the circuit split, this eventually will end up at the Supremes. There, VanDyke’s fellow Trump appointees could well agree with him. But, that might be more reflective of problems with the composition of today’s Supremes than with the law. Stay tuned!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-17-22

🔌👎🏽GARLAND MUST “PULL THE PLUG” ON HIS FAILED APPELLATE COURT — BIA “DEFIES” EVIDENCE TO MOCK DUE PROCESS & DENY ASYLUM, SAYS 3RD CIR! — OGEE v. AG (Ghana)

Read the 3rd Circuit’s (unfortunately) unpublished decision here:

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/202423np.pdf

Key quote:

The IJ credited Bimpong’s testimony, and the BIA did not disturb this finding. Yet the BIA concluded that Bimpong’s persecution was a personal land dispute that lacked any nexus to his membership in the Ashanti tribe. In doing so, the BIA deferred to the IJ’s conclusion that “the record is devoid of any evidence indicating that the [Enzema] Tribe targeted the applicant because of membership in the Ashanti Tribe.” AR 97 (emphasis added). That conclusion defies the record, which is replete with evidence that Bimpong’s tribal affiliation was a central reason for his persecution. See, e.g., AR 157, 162-63, 167–68, 185, 596, 598. For example, Bimpong testified that members of

the Enzema “did not want the land that [he] possessed to be owned by non-members of 4

the Enzema tribe,” AR 596, and that he “was a target of persecution because of [an] intertribal dispute between the Enzema tribe and Ashanti tribe.” AR 598.

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

Typical BIA BS prejudged, form denial “boilerplate.” “Devoid of evidence” — gimmie a break! We tried (obviously unsuccessfully) to eliminate this type of non-analytical nonsense several decades ago. It’s indicative of a totally broken system that is unfair and biased against migrants! Why is Garland allowing this continuing systemic injustice?

Demand that Garland replace his inept, unprofessional, unconstitutional, “Trump holdover” BIA with real judges who are experts in immigration, asylum, human rights, and fully committed to due process and fundamental fairness!

To quote my good friend and Round Table 🛡 colleague, Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase:

At the IJ level, the ACIJs have to be charged with determining if the IJ actually doesn’t know the law, or if they are choosing not to follow it. Of course, you need ACIJs who actually know immigration law, which isn’t always the case anymore. If it’s the former, you schedule additional training; if it’s the latter, they may need to suspend or remove the IJ. That should be a priority for the next Chief IJ.

But why isn’t this being caught at the BIA level? They continue to act as a rubber stamp. There have been a few cases just in the past couple of weeks where the errors were really major and apparent.

A BIA that would “rubber stamp” denials without question or meaningful analysis so that OIL could then argue “deference” to railroad refugees and other individuals entitled to relief out of the country is precisely what Barr and Sessions intended to create. In other words, a “parody of justice” that would carry out the White Nationalist restrictionist agenda without giving it any thought. And, it’s no coincidence that this unconstitutional agenda falls hardest on the backs of asylum seekers and other migrants of color. It also serves to reinforce the vile concept that individuals of color in the U.S. are not equal under the law.

The real question here is why Garland hasn’t effectively changed the system by bringing in real judges who are experts in immigration and human rights and who would be fair to all coming before his Immigration Courts regardless of race or status? “Gradual change” is unacceptable when individuals (and their conscientious representatives) are being subjected to deadly quasi-judicial incompetence on a daily basis. Tell Garland you’ve had enough!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-16-22

⚖️NDPA SUPERSTAR BEN WIN-OGRAD WINS A BIGGIE IN 4TH ON IJ CONDUCT — Tinoco Acevedo v. Garland

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community!

CA4 on IJ Conduct: Tinoco Acevedo v. Garland

Tinoco Acevedo v. Garland

“Petitioner Rodolfo Josue Tinoco Acevedo appeals an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial of his application for cancellation of removal. Because the BIA failed to address whether Tinoco Acevedo’s case should be remanded to a new immigration judge (“IJ”) under Matter of Y-S-L-C-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 688 (BIA 2015), we grant Tinoco Acevedo’s petition for review, vacate the order of removal, and remand to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. … Rather than opine as to the exact grounds on which the BIA decided that the applicant was entitled to a new hearing before a new IJ in Matter of Y-S-L-C-, we remand for the BIA to interpret its precedent and address Tinoco Acevedo’s argument in the first instance. … we grant Tinoco Acevedo’s petition for review, vacate the order of removal, and remand for the BIA to consider whether Tinoco Acevedo is entitled to a new hearing before a different IJ because the initial IJ’s conduct—both during and following the hearing—failed to satisfy the high standard expected of IJs under Matter of Y-S-L-C-. PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; VACATED AND REMANDED.” [Note: The IJ was Roxanne C. Hladylowycz.]

[Hats off once again to IRAC superlitigator Ben Winograd!]

Daniel M. Kowalski

Editor-in-Chief

Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

cell/text/Signal (512) 826-0323

@dkbib on Twitter

dan@cenizo.com

Free Daily Blog: www.bibdaily.com

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

Yet another example of the BIA not being familiar with and applying their own precedents where they could be favorable to the respondent. Any old boilerplate BS will do as long is the result is “dismiss and remove.”

It’s one thing for the BIA to articulate “high standards” for IJ conduct in Matter of Y-S-L-C-. It’s quite another to consistently enforce them where the lives of migrants are at stake!

It was a particularly bad idea for the BIA to spring this haphazard “good enough for government work” approach when Ben Winograd is appellate counsel. Winograd knows the BIA and 4th Circuit precedents better than most BIA judges. And, unlike the latter, he’s willing to stand up for immigrants’ legal rights!

It would be better for Garland and American justice — not to mention those seeking justice in Immigration Court, too often in vain — if brilliant, due-process-oriented “practical scholars” like Ben Winograd replaced the “holdover BIA judges” who aren’t up to the job of “guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” Remarkably, there was a time in the past when that long disregarded judicial essential was the “vision” of EOIR.

Ironically, the Article III Judges of this 4th Circuit panel (Chief Judge Gregory, Circuit Judges Motz and Wynn) understand the critical requirements for EOIR judging better than AG Garland! That’s a problem (although, concededly, outside the “World of EOIR” Garland has had his best week as AG)!

This opinion was written by Chief Judge Roger Gregory. He continues to be a leader among Article III Judges who take due process and immigrants’ rights seriously! He’s also someone who “gets” the clear connection between immigrant justice (or, in too many cases lack thereof) and racial justice.

With the Chief Immigration Judge position now vacant, Judge Garland has a golden opportunity to appoint a “Judge Gregory clone” to that critical position. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=30193&action=edit. That would also be a wise course for Garland to take to replace the current glaringly inadequate leadership at his failing BIA! How about Chief Appellate Immigration Judge/Chairman Ben Winograd?

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-13-22

☠️⚰️🏴‍☠️ TITLE 42 CAUSES DEATH @ THE BORDER: Rachel Monroe @ The New Yorker Sums Up The Jim Crow Cruelty, Stupidity, & Futility Of Title 42 In One Paragraph! — Title 42 “has increased business for smuggling cartels and spurred people to cross in more dangerous places.”

https://apple.news/AX5E8qIWlQYOauANHEV2g3w

. . . .

Between 2015 and 2020, about fifty bodies were recovered each year in Brooks County, according to an S.T.H.R.C. report. Then came Title 42, a policy enacted by the Trump Administration at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic that closed ports of entry and blocked most avenues for asylum claims, ostensibly for public-health reasons. The policy, which is still in place in a modified form, has increased business for smuggling cartels and spurred people to cross in more dangerous places. “Before Title 42, the calls we got used to be, like, eighty-per-cent apprehended, twenty-per-cent missing,” Canales said. “Now it’s flipped—it’s more like twenty-per-cent apprehended, eighty-per-cent missing.” So far this year, there have been nearly seventy recoveries of remains in Brooks County, putting 2022 on track to be the deadliest year on record.

. . . .

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

Read Rachel’s entire report, directly from the border, at the link.

So, before the Trump Administration’s bogus, racist “invocation” of Title 42, 80% of migrants came to the border or were easily apprehended close thereto — most probably because they turned themselves in to seek asylum through the legal system. And, lets not forget, this was with an already badly broken, fundamentally unfair, asylum legal adjudication system intentionally biased and “loaded” against legitimate refugees seeking protection!

Smart, honest public policy would have improved asylum adjudication at USCIS and at EOIR to quickly recognize and grant, with the assistance of NGOs and legal assistance groups, the many cases of legitimate refugees so that they could take their rightful, legal places in our society.

Additionally, by taking refugees seeking legal determinations “out of the equation,” enforcement against those seeking to evade legal processing — certainly a much, much smaller “universe” than is “out there now” — would have been enhanced. Business would have declined for smugglers, as those seeking protection would have been motivated to use a humane, fair, functioning legal system rather than being forced into “do it yourself” refuge!

You don’t have a genius to figure this out — just not be motivated solely by racism like Stephen Miller and his Trump regime cronies! Better qualified — non-Jim Crow righty — Federal Judges would also produce more humane, honest, and rational results.

Additionally, by running a legitimate asylum system, and complementing it with an honest, robust, legal refugee system for Latin America, the Caribbean, and Africa, we would finally have sound data on how many of those seeking to enter at the Southern Border are entitled to immigrate as legal refugees and how many are non-refugees. That’s something on which we now have no reliable information — just myths and anecdotes, many provided by racist restrictionists and nativists with neither expertise in asylum law nor any real interest in the rule of law at the border.

As a result of Title 42, and the unqualified “Jim Crow” Federal Judges, GOP nativist AGs, and their apologists (including some in the media who repeat or republish, without critical examination, GOP racist lies about the border), we now have a deadlier than ever border; the legal immigration system at the border has been functionally abolished and replaced with an underground, extralegal system; the U.S. Government has ceded control of border migration policy to cartels and smugglers; and the job of the Border Patrol — forced to spend time apprehending legal refugees who seek only the protection to which they are legally entitled — has become impossible.

That’s what happens when we let GOP nativist pols, overt racists, and bad, right wing Federal Judges take over the immigration policies that were actually enacted by Congress — a key part of which are legitimate refugee and asylum systems and a fair, functioning, expert Immigration Court. Right now, we have NONE of the foregoing. And, innocent migrants at the border are too often paying the price — with their lives!

Border Death — This is a monument for those who have died attempting to cross the US-Mexican border. Each coffin represents a year and the number of dead. It is a protest against the effects of Operation Guardian. Taken at the Tijuana-San Diego border.
Tomas Castelazo
To comply with the use and licensing terms of this image, the following text must must be included with the image when published in any medium, failure to do so constitutes a violation of the licensing terms and copyright infringement: © Tomas Castelazo, www.tomascastelazo.com / Wikimedia Commons / CC BY-SA 3.0

“Enforcing the law” does NOT mean unfairly, unwisely, and illegally abrogating the legal asylum system and fair adjudications in Immigration Court at the border. It means fixing the legal asylum system including USCIS Asylum Offices. Perhaps most of all, it means reforming and replacing where necessary the broken, dysfunctional, leaderless, and non-expert Immigration Courts and a BIA that continues to misinterpret asylum and protection laws on a daily basis. We need a BIA of real judges with the expertise and guts to establish fair, humane, correct, positive precedents and to rein in or remove from asylum cases those Immigration Judges who are “programmed to reject, not protect!”

I, along with many others, watched the Brittney Griner travesty unfold. I saw the irony. President Biden was rightfully blasting the outrageous “kangaroo court” show trial that passes for justice in Russia. But, at the same time, he, Harris, and Garland are basically running a farcical “Russian style” dysfunctional immigrant “justice” system at EOIR and calling it a “court!”

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever

PWS

08-05-22

🏴‍☠️🤮👎🏽 WHAT’S GARLAND DOING? — LATEST 4TH CIR. REJECTION OF ABSURDIST EOIR ASYLUM DENIAL SHOWS WHY GARLAND MUST “PULL THE PLUG” 🔌 ON THE BIA! — While He’s At It, He Needs To Look At OIL’s Mindless “Defense Of The Clearly Indefensible!” — Why Are American Women Giving Garland A “Free Pass” On Overt, Institutionalized, Racially-Charged, Misogyny @ His DOJ?

Doctor Death — Would you want this guy as your Immigration Judge or BIA “panel?” If not, tell Garland to “pull the plug” on his deadly and incompetent BIA!
Public Domain

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/201762.P.pdf

Sorto-Guzmán v. Garland, 4th Cir., 08-93-22, published

PANEL: KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

OPINION: Judge FLOYD

KEY QUOTE:

In sum, we hold that the IJ’s decision, which the BIA adopted, blatantly ignored our long line of cases establishing that the threat of death alone establishes past persecution. This was legal error, and therefore, an abuse of discretion. See Cordova v. Holder, 759 F.3d 332, 337 (4th Cir. 2014). We hold that Sorto-Guzman has established she was subjected to past persecution in El Salvador.2 She is thereby entitled to the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. Li, 405 F.3d at 176; 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1). The IJ and the BIA erred in not affording Sorto-Guzman this presumption, which would

2 Sorto-Guzman argues, in the alternative, that the IJ and the BIA erred in finding that she failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. We will not answer that question today. Because we hold that she properly established past persecution, the proper remedy is to remand the case to the BIA to consider the question of whether DHS can rebut the presumption that Sorto-Guzman has a well-founded fear of future persecution.

11

have then shifted the burden to DHS to rebut the presumption. Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 187 (4th Cir. 2004); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i).

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

Sorto-Guzman is a life-long Catholic who regularly attended Catholic services in El Salvador. In December 2015, about five members of the Mara 18 gang accosted Sorto- Guzman in the street as she was leaving church. At the time, she was wearing a crucifix medallion around her neck. The gang members tore the chain from her neck, hit and kicked her, and threatened to kill her if she ever wore it or attended church again. Sorto-Guzman stopped attending church after the attack, fearing the gang and their threats.
A few weeks later in January 2016, a group of Mara 18 gang members—including some of the gang members from the December 2015 assault—stopped Sorto-Guzman, along with her sister and Rivas-Sorto, as she was coming home from a shopping trip. One of the men attempted to sexually assault Sorto-Guzman and had started to forcefully kiss her. He only stopped when her screams caught the attention of a neighbor. The gang members threatened to kill Sorto-Guzman and Rivas-Sorto if Sorto-Guzman did not join the gang and start living with them.
3

On February 13, 2016, some of the gang members from the prior incidents tracked where Sorto-Guzman lived and broke into her house carrying guns. The gang members viciously beat Sorto-Guzman, threatened her life, and robbed her. Sorto-Guzman’s neighbors called the police, but they did not come until several hours after the assault. Sorto-Guzman reported the assault and robbery to the officers who arrived at the scene. She also went to the local police station the next day to report the attack. The police made one attempt to investigate, but Petitioners were not home when the police arrived, and the officers never followed up. The day after, a gang member called Sorto-Guzman, warning her she would regret making the report to the police and that they would soon kill her, her son, and her sister.

Absurdly, an Immigration Judge found that this gross abuse and death threats by a gang with the ability and willingness to carry them out did not amount to “persecution.” Worse yet, on appeal, rather than reversing and directing the judge below to follow the law, the BIA agreed — invoking the outlandish “theory” that the death threats, on top of the savage beating, weren’t so bad because they had never come to “fruition.” In other words, the applicant hadn’t hung around to be killed. Then, to top it off, attorneys from the DOJ’s Office of Immigration Litigation (“OIL”) unethically defended this deadly nonsense before the Fourth Circuit! This is “justice” in Garland’s disgraceful, deadly, and dysfunctional “court” system!

Trial By Ordeal — Garland’s BIA Judges applying the “fruition” test. If she lives, it’s not persecution!
Public Realm
Source: Ancient Origins Website
https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160

NOT, a “mere mistake.”

EOIR’s performance is this case, particularly the BIA’s absurdist conclusion that, essentially, death threats must result in death to constitute past persecution, is a contemptuous disregard for binding circuit precedent, a demonstration of gross anti-asylum bias, misogyny, and a clear example of judicial incompetence.

Would a heart transplant surgeon who “forgot” to install a new heart or neglected to sew up the patient’s chest be allowed to continue operating? Of course not! So, why is the BIA still allowed to botch life or death cases — the equivalent of open heart surgery?

If Garland allows his “delegees” to perform in this dangerous and unprofessional manner, in his name, what is he doing as Attorney General? This is a farce, not a “court system?” Those responsible need to be held accountable! And, OIL’s unethical defense of this deadly nonsense is indefensible!

Alfred E. Neumann — “What are legal ethics? Not my friends or relatives whose lives as being destroyed by these ‘Kangaroo Courts.’ Just ‘the others’ and their dirty immigration lawyers! So, who cares? Why worry about professionalism, ethics, and due process in Immigration Court?”
PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons

We’ve heard lots lately from Garland about “accountability.” Why doesn’t it apply to his own, wholly owned, totally dysfunctional, legally deficient, contemptuous, unprofessional “court system” that builds astounding, self-created backlogs while causing pain, suffering, and sometimes sending innocents to death?☠️

Additionally, in Kansas this week, women have shown the power of their just demand to be treated as humans, with rights, rather than dehumanized pawns just there to re-populate the world for the men in charge. So, why not unleash the same passion and rightful fury on Garland and his ongoing, illegal, misogynistic treatment of women (primarily women of color) at EOIR!

Woman Tortured — “She struggled madly in the torturing Ray” — AG Garland has failed miserably to engage with the plight of women, mostly those of color, being denied fundamental rights and abused daily by his lawless, anti-immigrant, anti-asylum, misogynistic “holdover” EOIR! Why are women putting up with his bad attitude and dilatory approach to justice? What happened to Lisa Monaco, Vanita Gupta, and Kristen Clarke? Are they “locked in a dark closet” somewhere in Garland’s DOJ?
Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-04-22

⚖️ THE GIBSON REPORT — 08-01-22 — Compiled By Elizabeth Gibson, Esquire, Managing Attorney — NIJC — Unpublished 2d Cir. Indigenous Woman Asylum Remand Is A “Dive” Into Why EOIR Is A Dangerous & Unacceptable Drag On Our Justice System! ☠️

Weekly Briefing

This briefing is designed as a quick-reference aggregation of developments in immigration law, practice, and policy that you can scan for anything you missed over the last week. The contents of the news, links, and events do not necessarily reflect the position of the National Immigrant Justice Center. If you have items that you would like considered for inclusion, please email them to egibson@heartlandalliance.org.  

CONTENTS (jump to section)

NEWS

LITIGATION & AGENCY UPDATES

RESOURCES

EVENTS

PRACTICE UPDATES

USCIS Extends COVID-19-related Flexibilities

USCIS: This extends certain COVID-19-related flexibilities through Oct. 23, 2022, to assist applicants, petitioners, and requestors. The reproduced signature flexibility announced in March, 2020, will become permanent policy on July 25, 2022. But DHS To End COVID-19 Temporary Policy for Expired List B Identity Documents.

OPLA Updates Its Prosecutorial Discretion Website

Parolees Can Now File Form I-765 Online

NEWS

DHS Fails to File Paperwork Leading to Large Numbers of Dismissals

TRAC: One out of every six new cases DHS initiates in Immigration Court are now being dismissed because CBP officials are not filing the actual “Notice to Appear” (NTA) with the Court. The latest case-by-case Court records obtained and analyzed by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University through a series of Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests show a dramatic increase in these cases.

Fewer Immigrants Face Deportation Based on Criminal-Related Charges in Immigration Court

TRAC: Over the past decade, the number of criminal-related charges listed on Notices to Appear as the basis for deportation has declined dramatically. In 2010, across all Notices to Appear (NTAs) received by the immigration courts that year, ICE listed a total of 57,199 criminal-related grounds for deportation. See also ICE Currently Holds 22,886 Immigrants in Detention, Alternatives to Detention Growth Increases to nearly 300,000.

It Will Now Be Harder For Unaccompanied Immigrant Children To Languish In Government Custody

Buzzfeed: The US reached a settlement Thursday that establishes fingerprinting deadlines for parents and sponsors trying to get unaccompanied immigrant children out of government custody. Under the settlement, which expires in two years, the government has seven days to schedule fingerprinting appointments and 10 days to finish processing them.

ICE is developing new ID card for migrants amid growing arrivals at the border

CNN: The Biden administration is developing a new identification card for migrants to serve as a one-stop shop to access immigration files and, eventually, be accepted by the Transportation Security Administration for travel, according to two Homeland Security officials.

Republican states’ lawsuits derail Biden’s major immigration policy changes

CBS: Officials in Arizona, Missouri, Texas and other GOP-controlled states have convinced federal judges, all but one of whom was appointed by former President Donald Trump, to block or set aside seven major immigration policies enacted or supported by Mr. Biden over the past year.

Climate migration growing but not fully recognized by world

AP: Over the next 30 years, 143 million people are likely to be uprooted by rising seas, drought, searing temperatures and other climate catastrophes, according to the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report published this year.

Washington mayor requests troops to aid with migrant arrivals from Texas and Arizona

Reuters: Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser has requested the deployment of military troops to assist with migrants arriving on buses sent by the Texas and Arizona state governments, according to letters sent by her office to U.S. military and White House officials. See also Migrants Being Sent to NYC From Texas — to the Wrong Places, With No Help, Sources Say.

Immigrant Arrest Targets Left to Officers With Biden Memo Nixed

Bloomberg: Former enforcement officials think most officers will take a measured approach, but some concede the absence of a central policy will cause problems. See also ICE Has Resumed Deporting Unsuspecting Immigrants at Routine Check-Ins.

ICE Suddenly Transfers Dozens of Immigrants Detained in Orange County

Documented: Advocates estimate that ICE moved dozens of individuals at the Orange County Jail in New York on Monday, and sent them to detention centers in Mississippi and elsewhere in New York, without prior notification to families or attorneys about the transfers.

Mexico deports 126 Venezuelan migrants

Reuters: An estimated 6 million Venezuelans have fled economic collapse and insecurity in their home country in recent years, according to United Nations figures. Many have settled in other South American countries but some have traveled north.

LITIGATION & AGENCY UPDATES

Matter of Ortega-Quezada, 28 I&N Dec. 598 (BIA 2022)

BIA: The respondent’s conviction for unlawfully selling or otherwise disposing of a firearm or ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(d) (2018) does not render him removable as charged under section 237(a)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(C) (2018), because § 922(d) is categorically overbroad and indivisible relative to the definition of a firearms offense.

CA2 Panel Says BIA Had No Basis Denying Guatemalans’ Asylum

Law360: The Second Circuit ordered the Board of Immigration Appeals to revisit an indigenous Guatemalan mother and son’s bids for asylum and deportation relief, saying the agency failed to provide a sufficient premise for affirming an immigration judge’s denial of relief.

CA9, En Banc: First Amendment Trumps INA Sec. 274(a)(1)(A)(vi): U.S. v. Hansen (Alien Smuggling)

LexisNexis: An active judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The matter failed to receive a majority of votes of the non-recused active judges in favor of en banc consideration.

9th Circ. Says Ignorance Of Law Doesn’t Toll Asylum Deadline

Law360: Not knowing the law isn’t enough to excuse a Guatemalan union worker from missing the deadline to apply for asylum by three years, the Ninth Circuit said when it refused to overturn an immigration panel’s decision that the man’s circumstances weren’t “extraordinary.”

9th Circ. Hands Mexican Woman’s Asylum Bid Back To BIA

Law360: A panel of Ninth Circuit judges granted a petition to review an order rejecting a Mexican woman’s asylum bid Wednesday, saying in an unpublished opinion that the agency was wrong to determine that inconsistencies or omissions in her testimony undercut her credibility as a witness.

DC Circ. Won’t Impose Deadline For Afghan, Iraqi Visas

Law360: The D.C. Circuit has rejected requests from Afghan and Iraqi translators to alter a lower court’s order that granted the federal government an indefinite deadline extension to draft a plan for faster green card processing, ruling that reversing the order wasn’t necessary.

Advance Copy: DHS Notice of Extension and Redesignation of Syria for TPS

AILA: Advance Copy: DHS notice extending the designation of Syria for TPS for 18 months, from 10/1/22 through 3/31/24, and redesignating Syria for TPS for 18 months, effective 10/1/22 through 3/31/24. The notice will be published in the Federal Register on 8/1/22.

USCIS Provides Information on Form I-589 Intake and Processing Delays

AILA: USCIS is experiencing delays in issuing receipts for Form I-589. For purposes of the asylum one-year filing deadline, affirmative asylum interview scheduling priorities, and EAD eligibility, the filing date will still be the date USCIS received the I-589 and not the date it was processed.

Information on Form I-589 Intake and Processing Delays

USCIS: USCIS is currently experiencing delays in issuing receipts for Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal. Due to these delays, you may not receive a receipt notice in a timely manner after you properly file your Form I-589.

RESOURCES

AIC: Welcoming and Inclusive State Policies: A Midyear Review of State Legislative Sessions in 2022

AILA: Take Action: Ask the Senate to Support Humane Alternatives to Detention

AILA: Overcoming Secondary Trauma in Immigration Practice

CAIR: National Survey on Pre-Hearing Conferences Memo

CLINIC: Practice Advisory: Adjustment Options for TPS Beneficiaries

DHS OIG: DHS Did Not Adequately or Efficiently Deploy Its Employees to U.S. Military Installations in Support of Operation Allies Welcome

End SIJS Backlog Coalition: Frequently Asked Questions About USCIC’s SIJS Deferred Action Policy

IAN: Remote Legal Support Guide 2022

MPI: The Missing Link: Connecting Eligible Asylees and Asylum Seekers with Benefits and Services

EVENTS

8/2/22 Navigating the Post-Roe Landscape: The Impact of the Dobbs Decision

8/4/22Refugee and Asylee Family Reunification

8/5/22Afghans and Humanitarian Parole: We Have to Do Better

8/5/22-8/12/22NITA-NIPNLG “Advocacy in Immigration Matters” Training

8/10/22Preparing Criminal Waivers of Inadmissibility

8/10/22-8/11/222022 AILA Paralegals Virtual Conference

8/12/22TPS Beneficiaries and Authorized Travel Following the Rescission of Matter of Z-R-Z-C-

8/16/22Comprehensive Overview of Immigration Law (COIL)

8/16/22The Child Status Protection Act: Strategies for Keeping the Family Intact

8/17/22ASISTA Inadmissibility Webinar Series: Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude (CIMT): Impact on Immigrant Survivors

8/23/22Preparing Solid Affidavits of Support: “Show Me the Money!”

8/23/22Comprehensive Overview of Immigration Law (COIL)

8/24/22Seeking Prosecutorial Discretion Post Texas v. United States

8/30/22Naturalization During the Pandemic: “It Was the Best of Times, It Was the Worst of Times”

8/31/22What to Do When You Get a Decision from the Ninth Circuit

9/8/22-9/29/22Webinar Series: Dealing With Denials

9/8/22Post-Conviction Relief: “If I Could Turn Back Time!”

9/8/22Trial Advocacy Skills – Working with Expert Witnesses in Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and Convention Against Torture Claims

9/13/22PLI: Representing Children in Immigration Matters 2022: Effective Advocacy and Best Practices

9/14/22Partial to Full Accreditation Initiative 2022

9/15/22Advanced Mandamus Trends

9/20/22Nonprofit and For-Profit Entity Intersection 2022: Achieving Charitable Goals Through Innovative and Nontraditional Mechanisms

9/21/22Breaking Down the Record in a Ninth Circuit Petition for Review

9/22/22Maximizing Second Chances: Filing Appeals, Motions, and Practicing before the BIA

9/29/22Consular Processing Roundup for Families and Survivors

10/29/224th Annual NIJC 5k for Immigrant Justice

To sign up for additional NIJC newsletters, visit: https://immigrantjustice.org/subscribe.

You now can change your email settings or search the archives using the Google Group. If you are receiving this briefing from a third party, you can visit the Google Group and request to be added.

Elizabeth Gibson (Pronouns: she/her/ella)

Managing Attorney for Capacity Building and Mentorship

National Immigrant Justice Center

A HEARTLAND ALLIANCE Program

224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 600, Chicago, IL 60604
T: (312) 660-1688| F: (312) 660-1688| E: egibson@heartlandalliance.org

www.immigrantjustice.org | Facebook | Twitter

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

RE: Elizabeth’s “Item #2” under “Litigation” — EOIR, & Garland’s Inexplicable Failure To Fix It, Is What’s Wrong With American Justice!

More than five years ago, an indigenous woman from Guatemala and her disabled son filed “slam dunk” asylum claims. Undoubtedly, “indigenous women in Guatemala” are a “particular social group” — being immutable, particularized, and clearly socially visible within Guatemalan society and beyond. See, e.g., https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca6-18-03500/pdf/USCOURTS-ca6-18-03500-0.pdf; https://indianlaw.org/swsn/violations-indigenous-women’s-rights-brazil-guatemala-and-united-states.

The foregoing sources also clearly illustrate that, with or without past persecution, such indigenous women would have a “reasonable fear” of persecution on account of their status under the generous standards for asylum adjudication articulated by the Supremes more than three decades ago in Cardoza-Fonseca and, shortly thereafter, reaffirmed and supposedly implemented by the BIA in Matter of Mogharrabi (a fear can be “objectively reasonable” even if persecution is significant unlikely to occur). Problem is: Both of these binding precedents favoring many, many more asylum grants are widely ignored by policy makers, USCIS, EOIR, and some Article III Courts — with no meaningful consequences!

Additionally, the respondents appear to have had grantable “racial persecution” claims based on indigenous ethnicity. The son, in addition to being a “derivative” on his mother’s application, also had an apparently grantable case based on disability.

In a functioning system, this case would have been quickly granted, the respondents would be integrating into and contributing to our nation with green cards, and they would be well on their way to U.S. citizenship. Indeed, there would be instructive BIA precedents that would prevent DHS from re-litigating what are essentially frivolous oppositions!

But, instead, after more than five years and proceedings at three levels of our justice system, the case remains unresolved. Because of egregious, unforced EOIR errors it is still “bouncing around” the 1.8+ million EOIR backlog, following this remand from the Second Circuit.

Exceptionally poor BIA legal performance, enabling and supporting a debilitating “anti-immigrant/anti-asylum/racially derogatory culture of denial” at EOIR, has led to far, far too many improper asylum denials at the Immigration Judge level and to a dysfunctional system that just keeps on building backlog and producing grotesquely inconsistent, “Refugee Roulette” results! Go to TRAC Immigration and check out the shocking number of sitting IJs with absurd 90% or more “asylum denial rates.”

It also fuels the continuing GOP nativist blather that denies the truth about what is happening at our Southern Border. We are wrongfully denying legal protection and status to many, many qualified refugees — often without any process at all (let alone due process) and with a deeply flawed, biased, and fatally defective process for those who are able to “get into the system.” (Itself, an arbitrary and capricious decision made by lower level enforcement agents rather than experts in asylum adjudication).

The “unpublished” nature of this particular Second Circuit decision might lead one to conclude that the Article IIIs have lost interest in solving the problem, preferring to sweep it under the carpet as this pathetic attempt at a “below the radar screen” unpublished remand does. But, such timid “head in the sand” actions will not restore fairness and order to a system that now conspicuously lacks both! This dangerous, defective, unfair, and unprofessional abuse of our justice system needs to be “publicly called out!”

You can read the full Second Circuit unpublished remand here. https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/2a5d8920-2ab9-4544-9be6-882ac830fdeb/11/doc/20-212_so.pdf

And, lest you believe this is an “aberration,” here’s yet another “unpublished” example of the BIA’s shoddy and unprofessional work on life or death cases, forwarded to me by “Sir Jeffrey” Chase yesterday! https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/94e3eaee-b8da-446a-908a-a2f3b5b13ee7/1/doc/20-1319_so.pdf#xml=https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/94e3eaee-b8da-446a-908a-a2f3b5b13ee7/1/hilite/

“The agency failed to evaluate any of the country conditions evidence relevant to Oliva-Oliva’s CAT claim.” So how is this acceptable professional performance by the BIA? And why is it being “swept under the carpet” by the Second Circuit rather than “trumpeted” as part of a demand that Garland fix his dysfunctional due-process-denying system, NOW?

Contrary to all the fictional “open borders nonsense” being pushed by the nativist right, the key to restoring order at the borders is generous, timely, efficient, professional granting of refuge to those who qualify, either by the Asylum Office or the Refugee Program. This, in turn, absolutely requires supervision, guidance, and review where necessary by an “different” EOIR functioning as a true “expert tribunal.”

That would finally tell us who belongs in the legal protection system and who doesn’t while screening and providing accurate profiles of both groups. The latter essential data is totally lacking under the absurdist, racially motivated, “rejection not protection” program of Trump, much of which has been retained by Biden or forced upon him by unqualified righty Federal Judges. But, we’ll never get there without meaningful, progressive, due-process focused EOIR reform!

There will be no justice at the Southern Border or in America as a whole without radical, long overdue, due process reforms at EOIR!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-03-22

🇺🇸⚖️IN MEMORIAM: Hon. David Crosland, Judge, Former Legacy INS Acting Commissioner, Civil Rights Activist, Private Practitioner, Professor, Dies At 85

IN MEMORIAM: Hon. David Crosland, Judge, Former Legacy INS Acting Commissioner & General Counsel, Civil Rights Activist, Private Practitioner, Professor, Dies At 85

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

Courtside Exclusive

August 1, 2022

Alexandria, VA. Along with many others, I am saddened to learn of the death, over the weekend, of my former “boss” and judicial colleague, Judge David Crosland of the Baltimore Immigration Court. He was 85.

First and foremost, David was a dedicated public servant. A graduate of Auburn University and the University of Alabama School of Law, David served in the Civil Rights Division of the US Department of Justice during the tense and dangerous days of the 1960s. That was a time when speaking out for justice for African Americans in the South could be a life-threatening proposition.

Among many difficult and meaningful assignments, he helped prosecute Klansmen in Mississippi and also was assigned to prosecutions arising out of racially motivated police and National Guard killings in Detroit in 1967-68. After leaving the DOJ, he became the Director of the Atlanta Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

At Auburn, David had studied Agriculture. He sometimes liked to regale Immigration Court interns with tales of his “days on the farm” during summers in college!

I first met Dave in 1977, when Judge Griffin Bell appointed him to be the General Counsel of the “Legacy INS.” Shortly thereafter, David selected me to be his Deputy General Counsel, thus initiating my career as a Government manager and executive. During the second half of the Carter Administration, Dave was the Acting Commissioner of Immigration, and I was the Acting General Counsel.

In those days, my hair was actually longer than Dave’s, a situation that would become reversed in later years as our respective careers progressed. Indeed, during his “ponytail and gold earring days” in private practice, I reminded him of the times in “GENCO” where he used to encourage me to “get a haircut.”

We went through lots of exciting times together including the Iranian Hostage Crisis, litigation involving Haitian asylum seekers, Nazi War Criminal prosecutions, the Mariel Boatlift, the creation of the Asylum Offices, and the beginnings of a major restructuring of the INS nationwide legal program that eventually brought all lawyers under the direct supervisory control of the General Counsel.

Following the 1980 election, Dave went into private practice and became a partner in Ober, Kaler, Grimes & Shriver and then Crosland, Strand, Freeman & Mayock. He rejoined Government in 1997, when Attorney General Janet Reno appointed him as an Immigration Judge in Otey Mesa, CA. He later became an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge for several courts, as well as a Temporary Member of the BIA.

Our paths crossed again when we both served on the bench at the Arlington Immigration Court, roughly between 2009 and 2014. Then, David returned to Baltimore to be closer to his son and his residence in Maryland. He also served at various times as an Adjunct Professor of Law at GW Law and UDC Law.

David was a “character,” for sure. He had his own way of doing things that wasn’t always “strictly by the book.” But, he cared about the job and the people, was kind to the staff, and kept at it years after most of his contemporaries, including me, had retired.

One of the most moving tributes to David is from a member of court administrative staff who worked with him for years:

We just learned that Judge Crosland passed away this weekend at the grand age of 85 years. No funeral requested by him as his last wishes. Please keep him and his family in prayer. He was an amazing man, had a brilliant career and he was a genuinely kind person, hardworking to the end. Judge Crosland was very good to me, and he would walk me to my car after the long work days that turned into nights. Always a true gentleman, he would make me his famous lemon ice box pie! God bless Judge Crosland.

Another fine tribute to David is this piece from his alma mater, the University of Alabama School of Law, when they honored him in 2014 for their “Profile in Service:” https://www.law.ua.edu/blog/news/law-school-selects-judge-david-crosland-as-2014-profile-in-service/.

My time with Dave at the “Legacy INS” will always be with me as one of the most exciting, sometimes frustrating, but highly rewarding and formative parts of my career. Rest In Peace ☮️ my friend and colleague. You will be missed.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever.

PWS

08-01-22

☠️🤮⚰️🏴‍☠️ MERCHANTS OF CHAOS & CORRUPTION: GOP HACKS, BAD RIGHTY JUDGES FORCE ILLEGAL CONTINUATION OF BOGUS TITLE 42 ABOMINATION! — Ending Title 42 Will Restore Order To The Border, Says Expert, Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr Of Cornell Law @ The Hill! — But, Wait, There’s Much More Needed, Say I!

Four Horsemen — GOP political hacks and their enabling bad righty Federal Judges have combined to wreak havoc on humanity and trample the Constitution, rule of law, common sense, and simple human decency at our Southern border!
Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr
Cornell Law

https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/3575601-ending-title-42-wont-cause-immigration-mayhem-it-will-restore-order/

In 2015, a Ghanaian man who goes by the initials M.A. and his gay friend were brutally assaulted by a vigilante group in Accra, Ghana. In Ghana, homosexuality is illegal and carries a prison sentence of up to three years. M.A. was beaten with sticks before escaping through a window. His friend was killed. Fearing the group would find and kill him, he fled to Ecuador and made his way to the U.S. border, where he requested asylum. After being detained for nine months, he was released on bond and lived with a childhood friend in New York while he waited for his case to make it through the legal system.

M.A. clearly faced persecution, but an immigration judge denied his claim. I took M.A.’s appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals in 2016 as part of the Cornell Law School’s asylum appeals clinic. It took M.A. four years to win asylum in America, but at least he was given the chance to apply in the first place.

Since March 2020, approximately 900,000 people — including over 215,000 parents and children — have been denied the ability to request asylum at all. They’re casualties of Title 42, a pandemic-related policy that paused nearly all asylum proceedings at the border. Some people argue the policy is preventing an influx of migrants. In fact, numbers are up despite the policy, and our refusal to process most of them has led to chaotic and dangerous conditions.

The United States has successfully managed ebbs and flows of asylum seekers for decades. There’s a system in place to manage an influx — and regardless of how hard immigration lawyers like me fight for them to stay, many will lose their case and be deported. Even so, we must let people try. It’s not only the right thing to do, it’s also guaranteed under international and domestic law. We signed a 1967 protocol to the U.N. Refugee Convention to protect the rights of refugees, and we have adopted it and codified it into U.S. asylum law. Right now, we’re violating those obligations. The longer we do, the weaker American rule of law looks to our global partners.

We must immediately reinstate due process for asylum seekers. And once this happens, we must work to make the system more equitable and faster.

. . . .

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

Read Steve’s complete op-ed in The Hill at the link.

I agree that “we must work to make the system more equitable and faster.” But, the answer can’t be just to hire more Immigration Judges in Garland’s dysfunctional, broken, and anti-asylum-biased “court” system. That would just speed the “deportation assembly line” and lead to even more injustice and grotesque inconsistencies.

According to TRAC, Immigration Judge “asylum denial rates” currently “range” from 5% to 100%. That’s a ridiculous, indefensible variation and a total perversion of the generous standard for granting asylum set forth by the Supremes in Cardoza-Fonseca and adopted by the BIA in Matter of Mogharrabi, but seldom enforced or followed, particularly these days. Why this very obvious, totally solvable problem is still festering going on two years into a Democratic Administration that pledged to solve it is beyond me!

Enough of this nonsense, biased, “amateur night at the Bijou” mal-administration of the Immigration Courts at EOIR by Garland’s DOJ! No wonder folks are still complaining about “Refugee Roulette” more than a decade after it was written by my Georgetown Law colleagues Professors Phil Schrag, Andy Schoenholtz, and Jaya Ramji-Nogales (now an Associate Dean at Temple Law). Why not put one of THEM, or for that matter, Professor Yale-Loehr, in charge of kicking tail and cleaning out the deadwood at EOIR?

At a minimum Garland must:

Remove the holdover “Asylum Deniers Club” from the BIA and replace them with a real judge as Chair and new Appellate Immigration Judges who are widely recognized as “practical experts” with careers that have demonstrated superior scholarship in immigraton and human rights, an unswerving commitment to due process for individuals, and a passion for racial justice in our legal system;
Have the “New BIA” issue useful precedential guidance on how to document and grant valid asylum cases at both the Asylum Office and the Immigration Court, implement best practices, and identify and remove from future asylum adjudication those unqualified Immigration Judges who basically “make up” reasons to deny and can’t or won’t treat applicants fairly; and
Immediately replace with qualified expert judges those Immigration Judges on the “Southern Border docket” who can’t fairly adjudicate asylum cases.

Steve is totally correct about the need for Title 42 to go! But, Garland’s EOIR, particularly the BIA, is just as broken, counterproductive, and out of control as Title 42! In many ways, the illegal abrogation of the rule of law at the Southern Border has somewhat ”hidden” the larger problem that a dysfunctional and incapable EOIR poses for those who do manage to get a hearing!

Without a legitimate, totally reformed and significantly “re-populated” EOIR operating at the “retail level” of our justice system, there will be no rule of law and equal justice under law in America — for anyone!

Tell Garland you have had enough! The deadly and disorderly “EOIR Clown Show” has got to go! Now!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-28-22

THE GIBSON REPORT — 07-25-22 — Compiled By Elizabeth Gibson, Esquire, Managing Attorney, NIJC — HEADLINERS: Supreme Irresponsibility Leaves ICE Enforcement In Shambles; Righty Judges, Fascist GOP AGs, & Cruel But Ineffective Immigration Enforcement Help Create Billion Dollar Industry For Smugglers & Cartels; Racism, Brutality In ICE Detention!

Weekly Briefing

This briefing is designed as a quick-reference aggregation of developments in immigration law, practice, and policy that you can scan for anything you missed over the last week. The contents of the news, links, and events do not necessarily reflect the position of the National Immigrant Justice Center. If you have items that you would like considered for inclusion, please email them to egibson@heartlandalliance.org.

CONTENTS (jump to section)

◦NEWS

◦LITIGATION & AGENCY UPDATES

◦RESOURCES

◦EVENTS

PRACTICE UPDATES

New Form I-485

USCIS: Starting Sept. 21, 2022, we will only accept the 07/15/22 edition. Until then, you can also use the 03/29/21 and 03/10/21 editions. You can find the edition date at the bottom of the page on the form and instructions.

NEWS

U.S. Supreme Court declines to allow Biden’s shift on immigration enforcement

Reuters: The justices on a 5-4 vote denied the Biden administration’s request to block a federal judge’s ruling that had prevented immigration officials from carrying out the enforcement guidelines while litigation over the legality of the policy continues. But the court said in a brief order that it would fast-track the Biden administration appeal and hear oral arguments in December.

Immigration judge union seeks recognition as top judge quits

AP: The National Association of Immigration Judges on Thursday asked the federal government to restore its union recognition after the Trump administration stripped its official status and the system’s chief judge resigned after two years on the job.

Governors Keep Busing Migrants to Washington

VOA: Three months into the program, local officials said more than 3,400 people have reached Washington by bus. Aid groups say they are overwhelmed. See also Mayors ask Biden to help with influx of asylum-seekers; Adams Blames Migrants for Shelter Woes. Critics Say That’s Too Simple.

‘They don’t have any humanity’: Black immigrants in Ice custody report abuse and neglect

Guardian: In the last month alone, FFI has received more than 2,100 complaints nationwide. The most common abuse-related ones are anti-Black discriminatory actions, ranging from forced strip-searches and unprovoked pepper-spraying to prolonged solitary confinement and critical medical treatment negligence.

Homeland Security records show ‘shocking’ use of phone data, ACLU says

Politico: The data, harvested from apps on hundreds of millions of phones, allowed the Department of Homeland Security to obtain data on e points across North America, the documents show. Those data points may reference only a small portion of the information that CBP has obtained.

Smuggling Migrants at the Border Now a Billion-Dollar Business

NYT: While migrants have long faced kidnappings and extortion in Mexican border cities, such incidents have been on the rise on the U.S. side, according to federal authorities. More than 5,046 people were arrested and charged with human smuggling last year, up from 2,762 in 2014.

A Timeline Of Migrant Family Separations

VOA: Five years later, court documents show, more than 5,000 children were separated from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border under a practice known as the zero tolerance policy for unauthorized border crossers. However, it was also used on migrants who presented themselves legally at ports of entry. Parents of 180 children have not yet been found by advocates working with families.

Documents detail the secret strategy behind Trump’s census citizenship question push

NPR: Former President Donald Trump’s administration spent years trying to add a census citizenship question as part of a secret strategy for altering the population numbers used to divide up seats in Congress and the Electoral College, internal documents released Wednesday by the House Oversight and Reform Committee confirm.

LITIGATION & AGENCY UPDATES

High Court Won’t Reinstate Biden’s ICE Guidelines, For Now

Law360: The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday refused to reinstate President Joe Biden’s attempt to narrow immigration arrests and deportations to national security threats and other “priority” targets while his administration fights a court order that vacated the policy.

Ndudzi, CA5 Revised Decision on Credibility

CA5: In sum, the BIA and IJ’s adverse credibility determination rests largely on “inconsistencies” in the record that are not actually inconsistent.

5th Circ. Revives Angolan Asylum Bid Over Credibility Error

Law360: The Fifth Circuit has revived asylum claims from a woman who said she suffered a brutal home invasion by Angolan police over her political activities, rebuking an immigration judge for deeming her untruthful despite “largely consistent” testimony.

Unpub. CA5 “Exceptional Circumstances” Remand: Perez-Vasquez v. Garland

LexisNexis: Perez-Vasquez is correct that the BIA erred by failing to address key evidence…His case is REMANDED to the BIA for the limited purpose of considering—in light of the totality of the circumstances of his individual case—whether exceptional circumstances prevented his appearance at his removal hearing.

9th Circ. Tells BIA Past Torture Isn’t A Must For Removal Relief

Law360: The Ninth Circuit ordered the Board of Immigration Appeals to reconsider a Guatemalan citizen’s bid for removal relief, saying that past torture, though relevant, was not required in determining whether he’d likely face future torture in Guatemala.

‘Miscarriage Of Justice’ Can’t Exempt Removal, 9th Circ. Says

Law360: Immigration judges and the Board of Immigration don’t have the authority to reopen reinstated orders deporting immigrants and corresponding proceedings after a deported individual has reentered the country, even if those orders result in a “gross miscarriage of justice,” the Ninth Circuit held Monday.

Migrant’s Criminal Past Backs Indictment, Split 9th Circ. Rules

Law360: A divided Ninth Circuit panel on Monday affirmed a district court’s order refusing to dismiss an indictment against a Mexican national charged with illegal reentry, finding that his drunk-driving and shoplifting convictions make it tough to show that he would have plausibly been granted voluntary departure relief.

11th Circ. Splits With 9th Circ. In Deportation Notice Case

Law360: An immigrant who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border in 2003 cannot challenge removal proceedings launched when he didn’t appear for a hearing, despite a defect in the notice he received, because a subsequent notice had complete information, the Eleventh Circuit has ruled in a split with the Ninth Circuit.

DC Circ. Says Agencies Must Allow Comments Before Rule Ax

Law360: A divided D.C. Circuit panel on Friday ruled agencies cannot simply withdraw a new rule, even if it has not yet been published in the Federal Register, once that rule has been subject to public inspection.

Detainees Call Fla. ICE Detention Center A ‘Living Hell’

Law360: Immigrants detained at the Baker County Detention Center in northern Florida filed a federal civil rights complaint Thursday asking for the immediate closure of the facility because of inhumane treatment and abuse.

USCIS Updates Guidance for Afghans and Iraqis Seeking Special Immigrant Classification

USCIS: USCIS is updating guidance in the USCIS Policy Manual regarding Afghan and Iraqi nationals seeking special immigrant classification. See also Legislative Changes and Transition Affecting Afghan and Iraqi Special Immigrant Visas.

RESOURCES

NIJC

NIJC: Five Ways That Immigration Prosecutions Are Ineffective And Deadly

Other

AIC: Abuse In Ice Detention Continues And So Does The Funding For It

AILA: Practice Alert: EOIR Taking Select Cases Off Docket Pursuant to Chief Immigration Judge Memo

AILA: Flyer: Beware of ICE Imposters

AILA: Client Flyer: Humanitarian Parole under Uniting for Ukraine Program

AILA: Take Action: Tell Congress to Reduce ICE Detention Funding in 2023

AILA: Practice Alert: Reports of Erroneous Rejections from VSC Regarding Underlying Humanitarian Case Types

CRS: U.S. Employment-Based Immigration Policy

CRS: High Court Limits Ability of Aliens Ordered Removed to Challenge Prolonged Detention

CRS: Citizenship and Immigration Statuses of the U.S. Foreign-Born Population

CRS: Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Housing Programs

DHS: Gender-Based Violence Pamphlet

DHS OIG: DHS and CBP Should Improve Intellectual Property Rights Management and Enforcement – (REDACTED)

NIPNLG: Fact Sheet: Immigration Court Considerations for Unaccompanied Children Who File for Asylum with USCIS While in Removal Proceedings, in Light of J.O.P. v. DHS, No. 19-01944 (D. Md. filed July 1, 2019)

NIPNLG: Practice Alert: DOJ’s Office of Immigration Litigation Publishes Petition for Review Remand Criteria

EVENTS

7/26/22 EOIR Stakeholder Meeting: Request for Record of Proceeding

7/26/22 USCIS Engagement: Sudan Temporary Protected Status Designation

7/27/22 Data Criminalization and Immigration Enforcement

7/27/22 USCIS: An Overview of the T Visa, U Visa, and VAWA Self-Petition

7/27/22 Substance Use Disorders and Recovery 2022: Representing the Legal Services, Nonprofit, and Pro Bono Client

7/27/22 National Asylee Benefits Orientation

7/27/22 Counseling Your Client about Exposure to Enforcement and Seeking Prosecutorial Discretion

7/28/22 VAWA in 2022: Breaking Barriers and Finding Solutions for Relief

7/28/22 Intermediate/Advanced U Visa Topics

7/29/22 Immigration Policy in the Biden Era: Promises Kept, Promises Broken, and What Comes Next?

8/2/22 Navigating the Post-Roe Landscape: The Impact of the Dobbs Decision

8/4/22 Refugee and Asylee Family Reunification

8/5/22 Afghans and Humanitarian Parole: We Have to Do Better

8/5/22-8/12/22 NITA-NIPNLG “Advocacy in Immigration Matters” Training

8/10/22 Preparing Criminal Waivers of Inadmissibility

8/10/22-8/11/22 2022 AILA Paralegals Virtual Conference

8/16/22 Comprehensive Overview of Immigration Law (COIL)

8/16/22 The Child Status Protection Act: Strategies for Keeping the Family Intact

8/23/22 Preparing Solid Affidavits of Support: “Show Me the Money!”

8/23/22 Comprehensive Overview of Immigration Law (COIL)

8/30/22 Naturalization During the Pandemic: “It Was the Best of Times, It Was the Worst of Times”

8/31/22 What to Do When You Get a Decision from the Ninth Circuit

9/8/22-9/29/22 Webinar Series: Dealing With Denials

9/8/22 Post-Conviction Relief: “If I Could Turn Back Time!”

9/8/22 Trial Advocacy Skills – Working with Expert Witnesses in Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and Convention Against Torture Claims

9/13/22 PLI: Representing Children in Immigration Matters 2022: Effective Advocacy and Best Practices

9/14/22 Partial to Full Accreditation Initiative 2022

9/15/22 Advanced Mandamus Trends

9/20/22 Nonprofit and For-Profit Entity Intersection 2022: Achieving Charitable Goals Through Innovative and Nontraditional Mechanisms

9/21/22 Breaking Down the Record in a Ninth Circuit Petition for Review

9/22/22 Maximizing Second Chances: Filing Appeals, Motions, and Practicing before the BIA

9/29/22 Consular Processing Roundup for Families and Survivors

To sign up for additional NIJC newsletters, visit: https://immigrantjustice.org/subscribe.

You now can change your email settings or search the archives using the Google Group. If you are receiving this briefing from a third party, you can visit the Google Group and request to be added.

Elizabeth Gibson (Pronouns: she/her/ella)

Managing Attorney for Capacity Building and Mentorship

National Immigrant Justice Center

A HEARTLAND ALLIANCE Program

224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 600, Chicago, IL 60604
T: (312) 660-1688| F: (312) 660-1688| E: egibson@heartlandalliance.org

www.immigrantjustice.org | Facebook | Twitter

Weekly Briefing

This briefing is designed as a quick-reference aggregation of developments in immigration law, practice, and policy that you can scan for anything you missed over the last week. The contents of the news, links, and events do not necessarily reflect the position of the National Immigrant Justice Center. If you have items that you would like considered for inclusion, please email them to egibson@heartlandalliance.org.

CONTENTS (jump to section)

◦NEWS

◦LITIGATION & AGENCY UPDATES

◦RESOURCES

◦EVENTS

PRACTICE UPDATES

New Form I-485

USCIS: Starting Sept. 21, 2022, we will only accept the 07/15/22 edition. Until then, you can also use the 03/29/21 and 03/10/21 editions. You can find the edition date at the bottom of the page on the form and instructions.

NEWS

U.S. Supreme Court declines to allow Biden’s shift on immigration enforcement

Reuters: The justices on a 5-4 vote denied the Biden administration’s request to block a federal judge’s ruling that had prevented immigration officials from carrying out the enforcement guidelines while litigation over the legality of the policy continues. But the court said in a brief order that it would fast-track the Biden administration appeal and hear oral arguments in December.

Immigration judge union seeks recognition as top judge quits

AP: The National Association of Immigration Judges on Thursday asked the federal government to restore its union recognition after the Trump administration stripped its official status and the system’s chief judge resigned after two years on the job.

Governors Keep Busing Migrants to Washington

VOA: Three months into the program, local officials said more than 3,400 people have reached Washington by bus. Aid groups say they are overwhelmed. See also Mayors ask Biden to help with influx of asylum-seekers; Adams Blames Migrants for Shelter Woes. Critics Say That’s Too Simple.

‘They don’t have any humanity’: Black immigrants in Ice custody report abuse and neglect

Guardian: In the last month alone, FFI has received more than 2,100 complaints nationwide. The most common abuse-related ones are anti-Black discriminatory actions, ranging from forced strip-searches and unprovoked pepper-spraying to prolonged solitary confinement and critical medical treatment negligence.

Homeland Security records show ‘shocking’ use of phone data, ACLU says

Politico: The data, harvested from apps on hundreds of millions of phones, allowed the Department of Homeland Security to obtain data on more than 336,000 location data points across North America, the documents show. Those data points may reference only a small portion of the information that CBP has obtained.

Smuggling Migrants at the Border Now a Billion-Dollar Business

NYT: While migrants have long faced kidnappings and extortion in Mexican border cities, such incidents have been on the rise on the U.S. side, according to federal authorities. More than 5,046 people were arrested and charged with human smuggling last year, up from 2,762 in 2014.

A Timeline Of Migrant Family Separations

VOA: Five years later, court documents show, more than 5,000 children were separated from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border under a practice known as the zero tolerance policy for unauthorized border crossers. However, it was also used on migrants who presented themselves legally at ports of entry. Parents of 180 children have not yet been found by advocates working with families.

Documents detail the secret strategy behind Trump’s census citizenship question push

NPR: Former President Donald Trump’s administration spent years trying to add a census citizenship question as part of a secret strategy for altering the population numbers used to divide up seats in Congress and the Electoral College, internal documents released Wednesday by the House Oversight and Reform Committee confirm.

LITIGATION & AGENCY UPDATES

High Court Won’t Reinstate Biden’s ICE Guidelines, For Now

Law360: The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday refused to reinstate President Joe Biden’s attempt to narrow immigration arrests and deportations to national security threats and other “priority” targets while his administration fights a court order that vacated the policy.

Ndudzi, CA5 Revised Decision on Credibility

CA5: In sum, the BIA and IJ’s adverse credibility determination rests largely on “inconsistencies” in the record that are not actually inconsistent.

5th Circ. Revives Angolan Asylum Bid Over Credibility Error

Law360: The Fifth Circuit has revived asylum claims from a woman who said she suffered a brutal home invasion by Angolan police over her political activities, rebuking an immigration judge for deeming her untruthful despite “largely consistent” testimony.

Unpub. CA5 “Exceptional Circumstances” Remand: Perez-Vasquez v. Garland

LexisNexis: Perez-Vasquez is correct that the BIA erred by failing to address key evidence…His case is REMANDED to the BIA for the limited purpose of considering—in light of the totality of the circumstances of his individual case—whether exceptional circumstances prevented his appearance at his removal hearing.

9th Circ. Tells BIA Past Torture Isn’t A Must For Removal Relief

Law360: The Ninth Circuit ordered the Board of Immigration Appeals to reconsider a Guatemalan citizen’s bid for removal relief, saying that past torture, though relevant, was not required in determining whether he’d likely face future torture in Guatemala.

‘Miscarriage Of Justice’ Can’t Exempt Removal, 9th Circ. Says

Law360: Immigration judges and the Board of Immigration don’t have the authority to reopen reinstated orders deporting immigrants and corresponding proceedings after a deported individual has reentered the country, even if those orders result in a “gross miscarriage of justice,” the Ninth Circuit held Monday.

Migrant’s Criminal Past Backs Indictment, Split 9th Circ. Rules

Law360: A divided Ninth Circuit panel on Monday affirmed a district court’s order refusing to dismiss an indictment against a Mexican national charged with illegal reentry, finding that his drunk-driving and shoplifting convictions make it tough to show that he would have plausibly been granted voluntary departure relief.

11th Circ. Splits With 9th Circ. In Deportation Notice Case

Law360: An immigrant who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border in 2003 cannot challenge removal proceedings launched when he didn’t appear for a hearing, despite a defect in the notice he received, because a subsequent notice had complete information, the Eleventh Circuit has ruled in a split with the Ninth Circuit.

DC Circ. Says Agencies Must Allow Comments Before Rule Ax

Law360: A divided D.C. Circuit panel on Friday ruled agencies cannot simply withdraw a new rule, even if it has not yet been published in the Federal Register, once that rule has been subject to public inspection.

Detainees Call Fla. ICE Detention Center A ‘Living Hell’

Law360: Immigrants detained at the Baker County Detention Center in northern Florida filed a federal civil rights complaint Thursday asking for the immediate closure of the facility because of inhumane treatment and abuse.

USCIS Updates Guidance for Afghans and Iraqis Seeking Special Immigrant Classification

USCIS: USCIS is updating guidance in the USCIS Policy Manual regarding Afghan and Iraqi nationals seeking special immigrant classification. See also Legislative Changes and Transition Affecting Afghan and Iraqi Special Immigrant Visas.

RESOURCES

NIJC

NIJC: Five Ways That Immigration Prosecutions Are Ineffective And Deadly

Other

AIC: Abuse In Ice Detention Continues And So Does The Funding For It

AILA: Practice Alert: EOIR Taking Select Cases Off Docket Pursuant to Chief Immigration Judge Memo

AILA: Flyer: Beware of ICE Imposters

AILA: Client Flyer: Humanitarian Parole under Uniting for Ukraine Program

AILA: Take Action: Tell Congress to Reduce ICE Detention Funding in 2023

AILA: Practice Alert: Reports of Erroneous Rejections from VSC Regarding Underlying Humanitarian Case Types

CRS: U.S. Employment-Based Immigration Policy

CRS: High Court Limits Ability of Aliens Ordered Removed to Challenge Prolonged Detention

CRS: Citizenship and Immigration Statuses of the U.S. Foreign-Born Population

CRS: Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Housing Programs

DHS: Gender-Based Violence Pamphlet

DHS OIG: DHS and CBP Should Improve Intellectual Property Rights Management and Enforcement – (REDACTED)

NIPNLG: Fact Sheet: Immigration Court Considerations for Unaccompanied Children Who File for Asylum with USCIS While in Removal Proceedings, in Light of J.O.P. v. DHS, No. 19-01944 (D. Md. filed July 1, 2019)

NIPNLG: Practice Alert: DOJ’s Office of Immigration Litigation Publishes Petition for Review Remand Criteria

EVENTS

7/26/22 EOIR Stakeholder Meeting: Request for Record of Proceeding

7/26/22 USCIS Engagement: Sudan Temporary Protected Status Designation

7/27/22 Data Criminalization and Immigration Enforcement

7/27/22 USCIS: An Overview of the T Visa, U Visa, and VAWA Self-Petition

7/27/22 Substance Use Disorders and Recovery 2022: Representing the Legal Services, Nonprofit, and Pro Bono Client

7/27/22 National Asylee Benefits Orientation

7/27/22 Counseling Your Client about Exposure to Enforcement and Seeking Prosecutorial Discretion

7/28/22 VAWA in 2022: Breaking Barriers and Finding Solutions for Relief

7/28/22 Intermediate/Advanced U Visa Topics

7/29/22 Immigration Policy in the Biden Era: Promises Kept, Promises Broken, and What Comes Next?

8/2/22 Navigating the Post-Roe Landscape: The Impact of the Dobbs Decision

8/4/22 Refugee and Asylee Family Reunification

8/5/22 Afghans and Humanitarian Parole: We Have to Do Better

8/5/22-8/12/22 NITA-NIPNLG “Advocacy in Immigration Matters” Training

8/10/22 Preparing Criminal Waivers of Inadmissibility

8/10/22-8/11/22 2022 AILA Paralegals Virtual Conference

8/16/22 Comprehensive Overview of Immigration Law (COIL)

8/16/22 The Child Status Protection Act: Strategies for Keeping the Family Intact

8/23/22 Preparing Solid Affidavits of Support: “Show Me the Money!”

8/23/22 Comprehensive Overview of Immigration Law (COIL)

8/30/22 Naturalization During the Pandemic: “It Was the Best of Times, It Was the Worst of Times”

8/31/22 What to Do When You Get a Decision from the Ninth Circuit

9/8/22-9/29/22 Webinar Series: Dealing With Denials

9/8/22 Post-Conviction Relief: “If I Could Turn Back Time!”

9/8/22 Trial Advocacy Skills – Working with Expert Witnesses in Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and Convention Against Torture Claims

9/13/22 PLI: Representing Children in Immigration Matters 2022: Effective Advocacy and Best Practices

9/14/22 Partial to Full Accreditation Initiative 2022

9/15/22 Advanced Mandamus Trends

9/20/22 Nonprofit and For-Profit Entity Intersection 2022: Achieving Charitable Goals Through Innovative and Nontraditional Mechanisms

9/21/22 Breaking Down the Record in a Ninth Circuit Petition for Review

9/22/22 Maximizing Second Chances: Filing Appeals, Motions, and Practicing before the BIA

9/29/22 Consular Processing Roundup for Families and Survivors

To sign up for additional NIJC newsletters, visit: https://immigrantjustice.org/subscribe.

You now can change your email settings or search the archives using the Google Group. If you are receiving this briefing from a third party, you can visit the Google Group and request to be added.

Elizabeth Gibson (Pronouns: she/her/ella)

Managing Attorney for Capacity Building and Mentorship

National Immigrant Justice Center

A HEARTLAND ALLIANCE Program

224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 600, Chicago, IL 60604
T: (312) 660-1688| F: (312) 660-1688| E: egibson@heartlandalliance.org

www.immigrantjustice.org | Facebook | Twitter

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

Failed “deterrence” gimmicks and righty Federal Judges who enable them by not standing up against anti-immigrant racism thinly disguised as security or health measures are a bad combination.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-26-22

The Public Administration of Justice

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

U.S. v. Fernandez-Sanchez, 4th Cir., 08-25-22, published

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

From Dor v. Garland, 1st Cir.

DEAN’S LIST: A+‘s go to :

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

From Vurimindi v. AG, 3rd Cir.

DEAN’S LIST: A+‘s go to DLA Piper’s:

Courtney Gilligan Saleski

Rachel A.H. Horton

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

William Van Wyke

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

CA10 Stop-Time Victory: Estrada-Cardona v. Garland

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Here’s a report from Nate Raymond @ Reuters:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Key quote:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community!

CA4 on IJ Conduct: Tinoco Acevedo v. Garland

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever

Related posts:

Sorto-Guzmán v. Garland, 4th Cir., 08-93-22, published

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

IN MEMORIAM: Hon. David Crosland, Judge, Former Legacy INS Acting Commissioner & General Counsel, Civil Rights Activist, Private Practitioner, Professor, Dies At 85

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

🇺🇸Due Process Forever.

Related posts:

At a minimum Garland must:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts: