"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt and Dr. Alicia Triche, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
Garland’s “vision of justice” for asylum seekers and other migrants at EOIR leaves something to be desired:
Folks with wrong-headed “take no prisoners” views on asylum law were “rewarded” with “ judgeships” at both the trial and appellate levels of EOIR under the Trump Administration. Many continue to serve and discriminate against legitimate asylum seekers under Garland. Just check out the number of “sitting IJ’s” with outrageously high “asylum denial rates” near or in excess of 90%, according to TRAC Immigration. Why haven’t these important, non-life-tenured positions been “merit re-competed” to place the “best, brightest, and most qualified” on the Immigration Bench? Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia CommonsJaundiced attitudes about women (particularly those of color) and gender-based asylum claims among EOIR judges have neither been “rooted out” nor effectively addressed by Garland. As we can see, de-humanization of women and stripping them of dignity under asylum laws carries over into other legal arenas! Targeted, endemic. societal persecution of women is often intentionally minimized and mis-characterized as “random violence,” “personal disputes,” “mere jealousy,” or “not that serious” in Immigration Court! “Fictionalized accounts” of the ability of abused women to seek protection from authorities in countries where femicide and rape are rampant are sometimes employed to deny legitimate asylum claims in Garland’s broken courts. Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia CommonsWrong , “unduly restrictive,” asylum precedents and discredited methods (“Aimless Docket Reshuffling” — on steroids under Garland — is a key example) continue to harm asylum seekers in Garland’s dysfunctional “courts.” — Public Realm
on WANTED: Examples of racism and other bias in US immigration court
. . . .
The nation’s Immigration Courts have—thus far—flown under the public’s radar screen. Yet these are the places where life-or-death decisions are made, often for subjective and even racist reasons. That is why the Ohio Immigrant Alliance is collecting examples of racist, misogynistic, Islamophobic, and other biased statements and decisions made by Immigration Judges from across the country. We are working with a research team to analyze the cases and produce a report in early 2023. Here are a few examples.
Contact Lauren Hamlett (hamlett.15 AT buckeyemail.osu.edu) for more information or to share examples. This can be in the form of court documents and judges’ decisions or an interview with an immigrant or attorney. We will adhere to all privacy requirements requested by the immigrant and not publish anything without their consent.
The report, to be published in 2023, will shine a light on how racism shows up in Immigration Court using real-life examples. These findings will enrage anyone who believes the U.S. should work toward becoming a nation that guarantees “justice for all.”
See this testimony for more information, and contact Lauren to share your experiences.
*******************
I was struck by the undeniable truth — scandalously ignored by Garland, his lieutenants, and Biden Administration policy officials — contained in the January 20, 2022 statement by Lynn Tramonte, Ohio Immigrant Alliance, to the House Judiciary Committee considering the need for an independent, professionally-administered, merit-based Immigration Court.
The U.S. Is Deporting People Who Qualify for Asylum
The current U.S. immigration system is not designed to function fairly, but to fail. There are many examples of this, but today I will focus on examples from the U.S. Immigration Court.
Lynn’s full statement is available at the “this testimony” link above. I’ve made this point over and over!
Because the current system is purposely biased against asylum seekers, particularly those of color arriving at our Southern border, the “statistics” purportedly showing that few will qualify for asylum are totally bogus! Then, they are inexcusably cited by so-called “mainstream media” who haven’t done their homework! This perpetuates the “nativist myth” of the “illegitimate asylum seeker” which is then used to dehumanize refugees and deny them their legal and human rights!
Fact is, because we don’t have a legitimate, expert asylum adjudication system, we don’t really know how many qualified refugees are being illegally turned away or denied. But, it’s a safe bet that a fair, expert, professionally administered asylum system would grant legal protection to many more — probably a majority — of those who pass credible fear!
The problem is NOT, as Sessions and other nativists claimed, that too many individuals pass “credible fear.” It’s that a biased, anti-asylum, mal-administered, and constitutionally flawed system wrongfully denies far, far, far too many legitimate claims! And, Garland’s incredibly dysfunctional EOIR is at the heart of this problem!
Fixing EOIR is an essential first step in “re-legitimizing” our entire floundering justice system. But, Garland isn’t up to the job!
Asylum is an important form of legal immigration and an opportunity for America to put its best foot forward by properly, fairly, and timely screening and admitting those who can qualify for refuge and will be key contributors to our nation’s future. The babble of GOP nativists like DeSantis, Cruz, Abbott, and others about “illegals” is total BS!
It’s an ongoing national disgrace that Garland has failed to reform his Immigration Courts, eliminate bias and invidious discrimination from his judiciary, install quality, expertise, and professionalism, and insist that the Biden Administration abandon “Miller Lite,” nativist policies and mis-interpretations of the law that are diminishing our nation and endangering our future; that he also has ridiculously chosen to “go to war” with experts, NGOs, attorneys, and others seeking to change and improve his disgraceful mess at EOIR!
What’s the purpose and function of an Attorney General who operates broken and biased “courts,” defends the indefensible, and refuses to stand up for the fair application of the law to some of the most vulnerable among us?
In the meantime, submit your “real life” examples of what really happens to vulnerable humans in “America’s worst courts” to Ohio Immigrant Alliance at the above link.
Report on Boston Asylum Office finds disproportionately low acceptance rates, bias against applicants
The office serving asylum seekers in and around Maine has the second lowest approval rate in the nation, according to a report by Maine immigrant advocacy groups.
The Boston Asylum Office has the second lowest acceptance rate of any office in the nation, and granted asylum to only 11 percent of its applicants in 2021, according to a report by Maine legal aid organizations handling immigration cases and advocates for reform.
The report says the office that serves asylum seekers in and around Maine is plagued by bias and burnout, and that its low grant rate is “driven by a culture of suspicion” toward asylum seekers.
The process of seeking asylum in the United States begins with an application to U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services. Applicants must prove they are fleeing a country in which they previously suffered persecution or were at risk of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.
Applications go through asylum offices first, which can either grant asylum from the outset or refer an application to an immigration court for a judge to consider.
Jennifer Bailey, an attorney for the Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project and one of the report’s authors, said almost all asylum seekers she works with eventually obtain asylum status through immigration court, after failing to be granted asylum at the Boston Asylum Office. But the court process can take years, and, while they’re waiting, applicants aren’t able to access federal student aid, social services or educational opportunities. Even worse, they spend that time away from their families, who can still be at risk.
“It’s not uncommon for people’s (families) left at home to die while they’re waiting, or to be lost within the violence,” Bailey said.
Collaborating with the Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project on the report were the Refugee and Human Rights Clinic at the University of Maine School of Law, the ACLU of Maine and a visiting lecturer at Amherst College in Massachusetts who spent eight years waiting on a decision from the Boston Asylum Office and was ultimately denied in May 2021. Today, he and his family live in Canada.
During its first five years, the Boston office – which opened in 2015 and processes about 5,600 applications a year – granted roughly 15 percent of its asylum applications on average, the report states. Meanwhile, offices in San Francisco and New Orleans were accepting asylum requests at rates that were more than three times higher. Nationally, the acceptance rate from 2015 to 2020 was 28 percent, the report says.
The report acknowledged that asylum officers who approve or refer cases to court face a “complex and essential” list of responsibilities. Being overworked and having less time to consider cases often results in asylum officers sending more referrals to immigration court, said some former officers cited in the report.
Meanwhile, supervising officers play an “outsized” role in the asylum-granting process, according to the report. If an asylum officer recommends granting asylum and the supervisor disagrees, the officer could face retaliation in the form of more work or a negative performance evaluation, the report states.
PRESUMPTION OF FRAUD
The report’s authors contend that their research “strongly suggests” that Boston’s asylum office doesn’t consider applications from a neutral stance, “but rather presumes they must be fraudulent or pose a security threat.” Of 21 trainings for asylum officers mentioned in the report, 14 were focused on fraud detection. Former officers told the report’s authors that constantly hearing concerns about fraud and credibility made them think such problems were more prevalent than they were.
“They’re telling their story, which, no matter what, can involve this unimaginable trauma of torture and violence or sexual violence or death,” Bailey said of asylum seekers. “Put yourself in that position and imagine how hard it is to talk about the worst thing that’s ever happened to you in your life, and having this officer – who has the power to help you and your family – say ‘No, I don’t believe you.’”
According to the report, bias and skepticism in the office extend to certain countries. The Boston Asylum Office granted only 4 percent of asylum applications from the Democratic Republic of Congo from 2015 to 2020, even though the U.S. has acknowledged significant human rights violations in that country, including unlawful killings and torture, the report says. The office granted only 2 percent of its applications from Angola, another country where there is known abuse.
The Newark Asylum Office in New Jersey, which also serves some of New England, granted asylum to 17 percent of its applicants from Angola and 33 percent of its applicants from the Democratic Republic of Congo.
English-speaking applicants are nearly twice as likely to be granted asylum as non-English speakers, who are referred to immigration court 80 percent of the time, the report says. Asylum-seekers who can speak English are referred to immigration court just under 60 percent of the time.
. . . .
**************************
Read the rest of Emily’s fine article at the link.
I did lots of DRC cases over 13 years on the trial bench! Most had lawyers and were extremely well-documented. Often ICE didn’t oppose grants (prior to Trump).
In Arlington, with agreement from the parties, they were candidates for the “short docket.” Nearly all the DRC cases “referred” from the Arlington Asylum Office were granted upon “de novo” review in Immigration Court.
This is a prime example of how our asylum system seriously regressed under Trump and has not been fixed by Garland and Mayorkas! No wonder our Immigration Courts are hopelessly and unnecessarily backlogged with an astounding 1.6 million pending cases. Bad judging, systemic anti-asylum bias, lack of competence, and gross mismanagement by DOJ and DHS are taking a toll on democracy and humanity!
Pathetically and disingenuously, USCIS tries to blame their malfeasance and lack of competence on “the pandemic.” That drew one of the more perceptive public comments I’ve seen recently:
Pandemic restrictions didn’t create bias in other asylum offices – that’s a totally inadequate excuse.
For sure! Just like it’s a pretext for the elimination of our legal asylum system at the border that Garland disgracefully defends! Think that the “anti-asylum culture” problem ends with USCIS? Guess again?
Former Attorney General Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions was never bashful about sharing his White Nationalist, nativist, xenophobic falsehoods and myths about asylum seekers with his “captive” Immigration Judges. That’s right, for those not “in the know,” amazingly the “courts” that are supposed to provide expert legal precedents on asylum law and give a “fresh look” to those cases not granted by the Asylum Office aren’t “courts” at all as most Americans know them. They are run by the chief law enforcement official of the United States, the Attorney General, even though they are called “Immigration Courts.”
Sessions actually made the following statement, unsupported by any hard evidence, to a group of his wholly owned “judges” on October 12, 2017:
“We also have dirty immigration lawyers who are encouraging their otherwise unlawfully present clients to make false claims of asylum providing them with the magic words needed to trigger the credible fear process.”
At the same time, he announced that he was, on his own motion and over the objection of the DHS and the applicant, “undoing” the leading BIA precedent recognizing gender-based harm as a ground for asylum. For a good measure, he also warned his supposedly, but not really, “fair and impartial judges” that he expected them to strictly apply precedent — HIS precedents, that is. In other words, start cranking out those asylum denials or your career might be in peril!
Some judges chose to resign or retire. Some kept on doing their jobs conscientiously, legitimately “working around” Sessions’s poorly reasoned and factually inaccurate anti-asylum precedents. Many, however, chose to “go along to get along” with the anti-asylum program — some happily (there were reportedly some cheers and applause when Sessions announced his cowardly assault on vulnerable refugee women of color), some not.
So clearly wrong and totally off-base was Sessions’s assault on asylum-seeking women, primarily those of color, that even the otherwise timid and reticent AG Merrick Garland had to reverse it during his first year in office and restore the prior BIA precedent. However, there has been no further guidance from the BIA on properly and generously applying this potentially favorable, life-saving precedent.
President Biden charged Garland and Mayorkas with developing regulations on gender-based claims by October 2021. Obviously, that date has come and gone with the regulations still MIA!
Think that promoting a culture of xenophobia, racism, and overt bias has no effect? During the Trump Administration, although conditions for refugees, and particularly for refugee women, worsened over that time, the Immigration Court asylum grant rate fell precipitously — from more than 50% during the mid-years of the Obama Administration to only 23% during FY 2020, the last full year of the Trump regime.
The Immigration Courts and especially the BIA were “packed” by Sessions and his successor “Billy the Bigot” Barr with questionably qualified “judges” perceived to be willing to do their nativist bidding. Inexplicably, Garland has been unwilling to “unpack” them, despite these being DOJ attorney positions in the “excepted service,” NOT life-tenured Federal Judges.
Consequently, life or death asylum decisions today depend less on the legal merits of an applicant’s case than they do on the particular Immigration Judge assigned, the composition of the BIA “panel” on appeal, the Federal Circuit in which the case arises, and even the composition of the panel of U.S. Circuit Judges who might review the case.
They also depend on whether the applicant is fortunate enough to have a lawyer (not provided by the USG). Any unrepresented, often non-English-speaking asylum seeker has little or no chance of negotiating the intentionally arcane, opaque, unnecessarily hyper technical, and “user unfriendly” asylum system in Immigration “Court” without expert help.
Almost every week, the Circuit Courts of Appeals publish major decisions pointing out elementary legal and factual errors by the BIA’s “deportation railroad.” But, that’s just the tip of the iceberg! The vast majority of life-threatening errors by the Immigration Courts go uncorrected as the applicants are unable to pursue their cases to the Courts of Appeals or are “duressed” by DHS detention in substandard conditions into giving up viable claims.
Check out some of these denial rates by ten of Barr’s BIA appointees who previously served as Immigration Judges. Those judges are listed with their asylum denial rates, according to Syracuse University’s 2021 TRAC Reports:
Michael P. Baird (91.4%),
William A. Cassidy (99%),
V. Stuart Couch (93.3%),
Deborah K. Goodwin (91%),
Stephanie E. Gorman (92%),
Keith Hunsucker (85%),
Sunita Mahtabfar (98.7%),
Philip J. Montante, Jr. (96.3%),
Kevin W. Riley (90.4%),
Earle B. Wilson (98.2%)
Gee, these guys make even the artificially high nationwide asylum denial rates (76%) resulting from Trump’s all-out assault on due process and the rule of law look low by comparison! Gosh, only one of these Dudes was even within 10% (just barely) of that already outrageously high, artificially “reverse engineered” national denial rate.
Yet, inexplicably, these virulently anti-asylum judges continue to serve and negatively shape asylum law under Garland! Even “pre-Trump,” most of them avoided granting any asylum, in the face of precedents supposedly requiring generous application of the law in accordance with U.N. guidance and recognizing gender-based persecution as real.
So, it’s little surprise that no meaningful positive guidance or helpful interpretation has come from Garland’s BIA that might lead to expedited and consistent asylum grants to the many meritorious asylum cases now buried in his burgeoning 1.6 million case Immigration Court backlog! No wonder civil rights, human rights, equal justice, and Constitutional law experts consider Garland to be a failure as AG!
To date, Garland has appointed only one BIA Appellate Judge out of 21! That was to fill an existing vacancy. Judge Andrea Saenz is a superbly qualified asylum expert with scholarly credentials, “real life” experience representing asylum seekers in Immigration Court, clerking experience in those courts, and proven intellectual and practical leadership capabilities.
But, we need a “BIA of Judge Saenzes” — like yesterday! The talent is out there! But, Garland and his lieutenants have been too dilatory, tone deaf, and shockingly indifferent to these glaring due process, expertise, and racial justice issues to bring in the qualified judges and judicial administrators to fix his unjust, unfair, and grotesquely inefficient “courts.” Thus, the dysfunction grows, festers, and eventually destroys, maims, and kills! Is this really an appropriate “legacy” for a Dem Administration?
Today, in a WashPost OpEd, Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, President & CEO of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, points out:
Why are members of this outrageous “protection deniers’ club” still on Garland’s broken and biased Immigration Court bench? You don’t have to be a human rights scholar or Constitutional law expert to see that there is something seriously wrong here that Garland is sweeping under the rug!
Yes, the best answer is an independent Article I Immigration Court, free from the mismanagement and political shenanigans of the DOJ, with a merit-based selection system for judges. But, that doesn’t absolve Garland from the responsibility to fix the existing system NOW before more lives are lost, futures ruined, and American justice irretrievably degraded!
The current racially discriminatory, scofflaw, patently unjust parody of a “court” system being run by Garland is as unacceptable as it is immoral!
Garland and Mayorkas have allowed this approach to asylum seekers to flourish on their watch. That raises serious questions about their suitability for their current positions! Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
“Interim Regulations” Aren’t The Answer!
Today, the Biden Administration released new “Interim Asylum Regulations” that appear designed to fail. https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2022-06148.pdf. That’s because they don’t address the real competency, leadership, and legal problems plaguing the current system!
I won’t claim to have waded through every word of this entire 512-page mishmash of largely impenetrable bureaucratic gobbledygook. But, I can see it’s more tone-deaf micromanagement of the Immigration Court, along with the usual, arbitrary and capricious, unrealistic “off the wall” “time limits” that are guaranteed to make things worse, not better. It’s basically more of Garland’s “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and his “Treadmill for Immigration Attorneys” that have already helped fuel unprecedented backlogs amidst wildly inconsistent results and a steady stream of life-threatening errors from his dysfunctional “courts.”
As if the answer to a poorly functioning, hopelessly self-backlogged, incompetent, biased, and unfair system is to “speed it up!” Come on, man! That suggests, quite incorrectly, that the primary problems in our asylum system are something other than lack of competence, integrity, expertise, and leadership at DHS and DOJ!
In reality, Garland’s defective “assembly line justice” at EOIR is already cutting so many corners and being so careless and “denial focused” that a steady stream of elementary legal errors show up in the Courts of Appeals every week. How is speeding up an already unfair and error plagued system going to make it better?
The real answer is to move the many grantable asylum cases that pass credible fear through the system correctly, fairly, on a reasonable, timely, predictable basis, with representation. That requires more and better trained Asylum Officers; different, better Immigration Judges who know how to recognize and grant asylum and keep the parties moving through the system; a new BIA of practical scholars who are due-process-oriented human rights experts to set favorable, practical asylum and procedural precedents and to keep IJs, AOs, and counsel for both sides in line; and close cooperation and advance coordination with the private bar and NGOs to insure representation of all asylum seekers.
This “interim regulation” avoids and obfuscates the necessary personnel replacement, attitude adjustment, and changes to the “culture of denial and deterrence” required in the Executive Branch for our asylum system to work! I predict colossal failure!
Get ready to litigate, NDPA! This is an “in your face,” largely unilateral, insulting approach. Rather than respecting your expertise, dedication, abilities, and counsel in fundamentally changing this system, Mayorkas and Garland intend arrogantly to “shove it down your throats and the throats of asylum seekers” with their inferior personnel, a toxic culture of denial, bad attitudes, and poor lawyering! Accept the challenge to resist!`
There’s a simple question here: Do you believe in America or not?
Throughout its history, the country has accepted waves of mostly low-skilled immigrants — German, Irish, Italian, Eastern European, now Latino. There are highly skilled immigrants, too; African newcomers, for example, are better-educated than the U.S. population as a whole, and an estimated 63 percent of people holding “computer and mathematical” jobs in Silicon Valley are foreign-born. But most immigrants over the years have arrived bearing not much more than grit, ambition and a dream.
Does an influx of workers with entry-level skills tend to depress wages? That’s the wrong question. Instead, we should be asking why the federal minimum wage is so low as to be almost irrelevant.
And we should recognize that immigration gives the United States a tremendous competitive advantage. In other advanced countries, populations are aging rapidly. Immigration provides a steady stream of younger workers whose brain and brawn keep programs such as Medicare and Social Security viable.
The only coherent — if despicable — arguments for Trump’s plan are racial and cultural. The way they used to put it in the Jim Crow days was succinct: White is right.”
The results are just as clear as in the German case. Between 2014 and 2016 the counties that embrace diversity accounted for 72 percent of the nation’s increased economic output and two-thirds of the new jobs. The approximately 85 percent of counties that support restrictionists like Donald Trump accounted for a measly 28 percent of the growth.
Republicans’ problem is that since George W. Bush left town they’ve become the East Germans of the 21st century. They have embraced a cultural model that produces low growth and low dynamism. No wonder they want to erect a wall.
Progressives say Republicans oppose immigration because of bigotry. But it’s not that simple. It’s more accurate to say restrictionists are stuck in a mono-cultural system that undermines their own values: industry, faithfulness and self-discipline. Of course they react with defensive animosity to the immigrants who out-hustle and out-build them. You’d react negatively, too, if confronted with people who are better versions of what you wish you were yourself.”
**************************************
You can can read the complete versions of both op-eds, which I highly recommend, at the above links.
Yup!
When you’re coming from the same places as Jim Crow and the East Germans, there is no acceptable “rational basis” for the restrictionist agenda. It’s bad for America as well as for immigrants. But, it’s difficult or impossible to make rational arguments against deeply held, factually incorrect, irrational beliefs, particularly those based on racial, economic, cultural, and class bias. That’s probably why rational “immigration reform” has been, and remains, so difficult to achieve.
And, having seen thousands of migrants and their families come before me at the Arlington Immigration Court over the years, gotten to know many of their stories, and having represented immigrants, entrepreneurs, and businesses during my time in private practice, there is no doubt that Brooks is right: they “out-hustle and out-build” many of those “native-born” Americans who despise and look down on them.
And, it’s not just the doctors, professors, and top execs — folks who pound nails, lay foundations, make food, sweep floors, put on roofs , and pick our produce are also performing essential services that keep our country going — and, in many if not all cases, doing it better than the rest of us could or would.Really, how long would YOU last picking lettuce or laying shingles on a 100 degree day? And, how GOOD would you really be at it? There is more “skill” to so-called “unskilled” work than most of us in the “privileged classes” want to admit!
A federal judge blocked enforcement of President Donald Trump’s ban on transgender men and women serving in the U.S. armed forces on Monday.
“I am directing the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the U.S. Coast Guard, to return to the longstanding policy and practice on military service by transgender individuals that was in place prior to June 2016,” United Stated District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly wrote in her order.
Trump’s memorandum on the ban, which he released in August after first announcing the policy change in a series of tweets in July, has faced legal challenges from current and aspiring transgender service members who “fear that the directives of the Presidential Memorandum will have devastating impacts on their careers and their families,” Kollar-Kotelly wrote.
The reasons the Trump administration gave for enacting the ban, she continued, “do not appear to be supported by any facts.” While Trump defended the policy change as a cost-saving measure, analyses of the military budget found that spending on health care for transgender service members would be miniscule.
