"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
Hope to see you there! Our ever-amazing Moderator/Organizer/Inspiration Chelsea Queen, 4th Year Doctoral Student @ UTEP & Applied Work Member-at-Large of the SPSSI Graduate Student Committee, promises to 1) keep us “on track;” and 2) involve the audience in the dialogue.
“Elvis Njenula Yahm, a citizen of Cameroon facing removal, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) based on his pro-Anglophone political opinion. An immigration judge denied all three avenues for relief, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Yahm’s appeal. … A recent decision supports Yahm’s view that an adverse credibility finding does not relieve the agency of its obligation to also consider documentary support for a CAT claim. See Arulnanthy v. Garland, 17 F.4th 586 (5th Cir. 2021). … Because Yahm offered nontestimonial evidence of country conditions in Cameroon, the BIA erred by not considering it in the context of his CAT claim and instead treating Yahm’s lack of credibility as dispositive. See Arulnanthy, 17 F.4th at 598. Yahm’s petition for review is GRANTED and these proceedings are REMANDED for the BIA to address the CAT claim consistent with Arulnanthy.”
Way to go, Keith! Congrats! Winning justice for asylum seekers in the 5th Circuit is no mean feat!
The 5th Circuit decision in Arulnanthy sounds very much like the 4th Circuit’s decision in Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F. 3d 361 (4th Cir. 2004). Camara actually changed for the better the preparation, presentation, and most of all results in asylum cases in the 4th Circuit.
I consider it the “precursor” to the REAL ID provision now incorporated in the INA requiring IJ’s and the BIA to consider the “the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors,” in making credibility determinations. If that is actually done, which it isn’t in far too many cases in today’s broken Immigration Courts, the results are likely to be far more positive for asylum seekers and other respondents seeking relief in Immigration Court.
The “Camara effect” was real. For example, in 2004, on the “eve of Camara,” the asylum denial rate at the Arlington Immigration Court, where I sat, in the 4th Circuit, was in excess of 70%. By the time I retired in 2016, it was the polar opposite. The asylum grant rate exceeded 70%! SOURCE: TRAC Immigration.
Of course, no one factor is responsible for that positive change. And, I acknowledge that in the Charlotte Immigration Court, also in the 4th Circuit, where several judges were reknowned for their hard-core anti-asylum attitudes, the denial rates remained disturbingly above the national average. And, of course, the “institutionalized anti-asylum bias” ushered in and promoted at EOIR by the Trump regime resulted in another dramatic, totally unjustified, downturn in asylum grants by EOIR across America after 2016.
Nevertheless, positive appellate guidance on asylum is a major factor in establishing and maintaining due process in the Immigration Courts. Unfortunately, almost none of that expert positive guidance on asylum and other forms of relief comes from Garland’s BIA precedents. Additionally, although some of his appointments have been welcome, overall, Garland has done a very poor job of bringing in dynamic progressive expert leaders and judges to reverse the anti-asylum, anti-due-process, anti-immigrant “culture” that continues to haunt EOIR at all levels.
The “results” of his dysfunctional courts speak for themselves. Backlogs build, Circuit Courts struggle with EOIR’s poor “haste makes waste” work product, and decisional consistency on asylum is shockingly, “tragicomically” lacking!
In almost all ways, this system has seriously regressed in the past decade, even while eating up more resources! That’s about as much of an “engineered lose-lose” as one can imagine! Yet, Biden, Harris, and Garland appear impervious to this glaring, “fixable” problem that threatens our entire justice system!
Shouldn’t racial justice advocates be all over Garland, Monaco, Gupta, and Clarke for the EOIR’s disgraceful performance on asylum claims involving Cameroonians and other applicants of color! If not, why not? The entire “progressive social justice community” should be expressing “collective outrage” to the Biden Administration about the Garland DOJ’s disgraceful performance at EOIR and on other human rights issues involving race and immigration.
It’s also worthy noting, as my Round Table colleague retired Judge Jeffrey Chase has pointed out before, that the Biden Administration has granted TPS to Cameroonians in the U.S.So, there is really no issue about the truly miserable human rights conditions there. That is, apparently, except in Garland’s Immigration Courts where the “programmed to deny” and “good enough for government work” mentalities continue to prevail — even where the stakes are life or death!
Additionally, the regulations implementing the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) at EOIR initially became effective on Mar. 22, 1999 — over two decades ago. I remember that at one of the next Immigration Judge Conferences, probably in 1999 or 2000, the training specifically instructed that because of the country-conditions related nature of CAT, adverse credibility rulings against a respondent were not determinative of CAT claims.
Yet, more than two decades later, Immigration Judges and, worse yet, the BIA are still making that same fundamental error! How does this make the idea that EOIR is an “expert court” or that “constitutional due process is being protected at EOIR” anything other than a “sick joke.” Yet, the mockery of justice continues and nobody at Justice, from the top down, is being held accountable for stomping on life-determining legal and Constitutional rights! Why?
Here’s another remand you might like to read. This time it was Nexus and PSG with IJ Monique Harris (previously in Houston). According to TRAC she has a 96.5 asylum denial rate. The prior remand I shared was IJ Khan who is at 97% denial rate. Clearly these IJs are getting a lot of “matter of life and death” decisions wrong. As you say, haste makes waste. This case (like the previous one) should have been easy grants with all of the supporting documents that were included. I appeared at the individual hearing and my colleague Bryan Russell Terhune (from the same office) worked on the BIA Brief.
P.S. you can see this news article: https://sv.usembassy.gov/court-inaugurated-memory-pnc-agent/ , from our own U.S. Embassy in El Salvador where they inaugurated an athletic court in the Usulutan Police Delegation, named after the PNC officer Nelson Panameño, who was killed. Panameño was one of the instructors from the Gang Resistance Education and Training Program (GREAT) which my client closely worked with for many years helping him and the PNC gain trust with the community and local youth. This was part of the record, plus a lot more evidence showing this specific connection and the specific and imminent warnings that Panameno gave to my client before his own murder. This was just one of the many great things this client did in El Salvador to try and make his country a better place. We are lucky to have him and his family in this country now.
This was just one of the many great things this client did in El Salvador to try and make his country a better place. We are lucky to have him and his family in this country now.
That this respondent is here to contribute to our country is due to Roberto and his colleagues in the Law Office of Juan Reyes, Houston, and to this particular panel of BIA Appellate Judges. But it is “no thanks” to the IJ who got this case egregiously wrong below!
Nor, is it thanks to an Attorney General who has allowed injustice, bad judgment, and poor quality decision-making to flourish at the “retail level” of his wholly-owned “court” system. What about the many folks who don’t have Roberto or someone like him for a lawyer or who get members of the “BIA asylum deniers club” appointed under Trump to “pack the BIA for an anti-asylum agenda” instead of this panel of conscientious appellate judges?
I note that Judge Elise Manuel and Judge Denise Brown are currently denominated “Temporary” Appellate Judges. At least in this case, along with Judge Ellen Liebowitz, they “got it” at a level at odds with the work of too many of their so-called “permanent” colleagues. Why has Garland allowed this obviously problematic situation to continue to fester with human lives at stake?
Judge Ellen Liebowitz’s compact, cogent, powerful opinion is a terrific “mini-primer” on how PSG and “one central reason” nexus cases properly should be decided! As Judge Liebowitz demonstrates, you don’t have to write a lot to say a lot. You just have to know what you’re doing!
The gross, fundamental errors in the application of basic statutory terms by the IJ below in this case are, unfortunately, repeated on a regular basis by many of her colleagues across America who are improperly “programmed to deny” clearly grantable asylum cases.
It belies the bogus claim that EOIR is an “expert subject matter tribunal!” That expertise is, at least in part, what the questionable doctrines of “Chevron deference” and “Brand X abdication” by the Supremes rest upon. Shouldn’t it make a difference that in EOIR’s case, it’s a lie?
Why is Garland allowing this to happen when it could be remedied? Make this case a precedent and start removing, retraining, or reassigning so-called “judges” who don’t follow it and who continue to disregard the law and the rights of asylum seekers!
Why isn’t this case a precedent? Why is an IJ who is so clearly unqualified to decide asylum cases still on the Immigration Bench under Garland? Why aren’t cases like this being used to end the “asylum free zone” improperly established by some Houston IJs?
These are the “tough questions” that Garland should have addressed. Why hasn’t he? Why is “refugee roulette” still plaguing EOIR and American justice — 15 years after the problem was first “outed” by my Georgetown Law colleagues Professors Schrag, Schoenholtz, and Ramji-Nogales? How is this “good government,” or even “minimally competent government?”
When compelling, well-documented cases like this are turned down at the trial level, something clearly is rotten in the system! Make no mistake about it, lack of expertise, bad judicial attitudes, widespread anti-asylum bias, counterproductive “haste makes waste gimmicks,” and way, way too many denials are significant “drivers” of the backlog that continues to mushroom under Garland.
The arbitrary and often grotesquely unfair, unprofessional, and results-driven state of “justice” in Garland’s dysfunctional Immigration Courts was recently highlighted by Brooklyn Law Associate Dean Stacey Caplow in her lament about the Supremes’ abdication of responsibility in Patel v Garland.
Stacy Caplow Associate Dean of Experiential Education & Professor of Law Brooklyn Law PHOTO: Brooklyn Law website
As Dean Caplow cogently points out:
Patel shuts the door firmly and unequivocally, preventing independent review of fact-finding by Immigration Judges, however irrational and indefensible once the Board of Immigration Appeals has affirmed. This makes the need to populate the Immigration Court bench with independent, highly qualified, experienced, non-political unbiased individuals with appropriate temperament even more urgent. Perhaps this case will provide new impetus for reform such as Real Courts, Rule of Law Act of 2022 voted by the House Judiciary Committee in May just days before the Supreme Court’s decision.
While an independent, subject matter expert Article I Immigration Court is the obvious answer, unfortunately, it’s not immediately on the horizon. Meanwhile, the innocent and vulnerable continue to suffer daily injustices, sometimes gratuitous humiliation or dehumanization, in Garland’s broken system. It DOESN’T have to be this way!
As Dean Caplow says, we “need to populate the Immigration Court bench with independent, highly qualified, experienced, non-political unbiased individuals with appropriate temperament.” It’s not “rocket science” 🚀— just intellectual excellence, courage, and a fair-minded approach to justice!
There are literally hundreds of extraordinarily well-qualified individuals out there in the private sector who could outperform the IJ in this case in every critical aspect of the job! Why hasn’t Garland actively recruited them for his courts? Why isn’t his system functioning correctly “on the retail level?”
Garland has the authority to take the bold action necessary to redirect, refocus, and re-populate his current parody of a court system to laser-focus on due process, fundamental fairness, judicial expertise in immigration and human rights, and efficiency (without sacrificing due process or decisional excellence).All of us who care about the future of American justice should be asking why he isn’t doing his job!
WASHINGTON — Time was — not that long ago — that after a mass shooting, gun rights advocates would nod to the possibility of compromise before waiting for memories to fade and opposing any new legislation to regulate firearms.
This time, they skipped the preliminaries and jumped directly to opposition.
The speed of that negative reaction provides the latest example of how, on one issue after another, the gap between blue America and red America has widened so much that even the idea of national agreement appears far-fetched. Many political figures no longer bother pretending to look for it.
A survey last year by the Pew Research Center, for example, showed that, by 87% to 12%, Americans supported “preventing people with mental illnesses from purchasing guns.” By 81% to 18% they backed “making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to background checks.” And by a smaller but still healthy 64% to 36% they favored “banning high-capacity ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.”
The gunman in Uvalde appears to have carried seven 30-round magazines, authorities in Texas have said.
So why, in the face of such large majorities, does Congress repeatedly do nothing?
One powerful factor is the belief among many Americans that nothing lawmakers do will help the problem.
Asked in that same Pew survey whether mass shootings would decline if guns were harder to obtain, about half of Americans said they would go down, but 42% said it would make no difference. Other surveys have found much the same feeling among a large swath of Americans.
The argument about futility is one that opponents of change quickly turn to after a catastrophe. It’s a powerful rhetorical weapon against action.
“It wouldn’t prevent these shootings,” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said on CNN on Wednesday when asked about banning the sort of semiautomatic weapons used by the killer in Uvalde and by a gunman who killed 10 at a Buffalo, N.Y., supermarket 10 days earlier. “The truth of the matter is these people are going to commit these horrifying crimes — whether they have to use another weapon to do it, they’re going to figure out a way to do it.”
Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott made a similar claim at his news conference on Wednesday: “People who think that, ‘well, maybe we can just implement tougher gun laws, it’s gonna solve it’ — Chicago and L.A. and New York disprove that thesis.”
California’s rate of gun deaths has declined by 10% since 2005, even as the national rate has climbed in recent years. And Texas and Florida? Their rates of gun deaths have climbed 28% and 37% respectively. California now has one of the 10 lowest rates of gun deaths in the nation. Texas and Florida are headed in the wrong direction.
Obviously, factors beyond a state’s laws can affect the rate of firearms deaths. The national health statistics take into account differences in the age distribution of state populations, but they don’t control for every factor that might affect gun deaths.
Equally clearly, no law stops all shootings.
California’s strict laws didn’t stop the shooting at a Taiwanese church in Laguna Woods this month, and there’s no question that Chicago suffers from a large number of gun-related homicides despite strict gun control laws in Illinois. A large percentage of the guns used in those crimes come across the border from neighboring states with loose gun laws, research has shown.
The overall pattern is clear, and it reinforces the lesson from other countries, including Canada, Britain and Australia, which have tightened gun laws after horrific mass shootings: The states with America’s lowest rates of gun-related deaths all have strict gun laws; in states that allow easy availability of guns, more people die from them.
Fear of futility isn’t the only barrier to passage of national gun legislation.
Gun law opponents harden positions
Hard-core opponents of gun regulation have become more entrenched in their positions over the last decade.
Mostly conservative and Republican and especially prevalent in rural parts of the U.S., staunch opponents of any new legislation restricting firearms generally don’t see gun violence as a major problem but do see the weapons as a major part of their identity. In the Pew survey last year, just 18% of Republicans rated gun violence as one of the top problems facing the country, compared with 73% of Democrats. Other surveys have found much the same.
Strong opponents of gun control turn out in large numbers in Republican primaries, and they make any vote in favor of new restrictions politically toxic for Republican officeholders. In American politics today, where most congressional districts are gerrymandered to be safe for one party and only a few states swing back and forth politically, primaries matter far more to most lawmakers than do general elections.
Even in general elections, gun issues aren’t the top priority for most voters. Background checks and similar measures have wide support, but not necessarily urgent support.
. . . .
********************
Read David’s complete article at the link.
Unfortunately, the much ballyhooed polls on this issue turn out to be highly misleading. The polls showing widespread support for gun control suggest that there should be a heavy political price to pay for GOP gun zealots who mock the need for rational measures to protect kids, worshippers, shoppers, and others from mass firearms’ assaults.
However, the exact opposite is true. As Chuck Todd recently pointed out on NBC News, even in the “post-Sandy-Hook” era, no incumbent politician has lost his or her position for opposing reasonable firearms controls. The converse is not true.
Todd also pointed out that we now have more guns than people in the U.S., a situation that didn’t exist a decade ago. The irrational response to more gun deaths, lead by the NRA and GOP politicos, has been more guns — NOT common sense, concern for the common good, or courageous bipartisan problem solving.
That perhaps explains how sleazy immoral characters like Gov. Greg Abbott, Sen. Ted Cruz, VA Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears and a host of other corrupt “guns are the answer to all problems” GOP politicos remain in office as innocent kids and others die and the problem gets worse.
As the article suggests, lack of urgency and priority also might be a reason why the polls are so completely misleading on this issue. For the “guns trump human lives crowd,” adhering to positions promoting irresponsible “absolutist” firearms agendas are a “litmus test.” Apparently, for too many of those in the “majority,” saving some kids and other human lives is in the “nice to have, but not essential” category.
So, despite their immoral and irrational stand on guns, the GOP controls a majority of state and local Governments. Nationally, thanks to the electoral college, gerrymandering, and local control of national voting, the GOP appears poised to sweep back into power on the national level and impose their anti-individual-liberty, anti-democracy, anti-humanity, pro-guns and big corporations agenda on all until the last shadow of American liberal democracy is wiped out.
It’s clear from the “in your face” reactions of Cruz and other GOP pols that they expect no fallout from their latest, deadly policy failures. Indeed, I think they fully anticipate a political boost from their ridiculous and widely-panned suggestions and their ever more outrageous fact-free “shoot ‘em up — ignore the real problem” proposals. Kid deaths and grieving parents who can be fobbed off or ignored have become a “gold mine” for valueless GOP politicos to exploit and demean.
Sadly, they probably are correct. Despite the perhaps “over coverage” by the media obsessed with public demonstrations, the GOP has little to fear politically from outraged parents of dead kids, students walking out of classes, newspaper editorials, or demonstrators outside the NRA Convention.
Unless and until gun control proponents can find a way to make arrogant GOP pols on all levels “pay a price” for their immoral actions and horrible positions, the latest “surge in public sentiment” will be just as meaningless as the polls they engender. That means reaching out to the rural Americans who drive the GOP’s pro-gun agenda and changing at least some minds with facts. That’s something that Dems as a whole have failed to do over decades, as the GOP developed a stranglehold over rural America.
While GOP politicos like Abbott and Cruz (who, let’s remember, fled with his family to a resort in Mexico while ordinary Texans suffered through Abbott’s mismanagement of the power grid) babble nonsense, parents who have lost children understand exactly who is to blame for preventable mass murders:
“There’s no reason for just an average citizen to have these types of weapons,” she said. Adding, “What for? What do you need them for? Is it worth my kid? These kids?”
Of course, as the article acknowledges, gun control won’t solve all problems or prevent all mass shootings. But, contrary to widely promoted GOP myths, such laws would be a major step in the right direction that demonstrably would preserve some human lives.
The GOP gun lobby’s outrageous “expand the universe of gun ownership and military-style firepower” agenda clearly results in more unnecessary deaths. Even more significantly, there is no case for the proposition that reasonable firearms restrictions and limitations on military assault-type weapons place any unreasonable burden on sportsmen, target shooters, or other types of legitimate gun owners.
No private citizen in America needs an assault weapon for self defense or sporting purposes! Pro-gun commercials suggesting that assault weapons are necessary for self-defense at home or to “protect America” are the pure BS! But, they apparently are much more effective than angry demonstrations, school walkouts, or tearful testimonials from those deprived of their loved ones and colleagues by preventable mass gun violence.
Tougher laws might, however, stop at least a few kids or angry folks from getting their hands on military-grade weapons of mass destruction and murder.
Significantly, it now appears that about the only folks who “did the right thing at the right time” during the Uvalde mass murder were the unarmed kids who, risking their lives, called, sometimes repeatedly, those authorized to use deadly force and assault-style weapons for public protection. But, it was largely to no avail, as the so-called “good guys with guns” stood around as kids died — they were afraid they might get shot by an 18-year-old kid armed like a combat soldier. Their teachers, not the “good guys with guns” were the ones willing to sacrifice their lives in an attempt to save others.
Also, while Texas seems to revel in “anti-Federalism,” it’s worth noting that the slaughter only stopped when Federal Border Patrol Officers ignored local police leaders and confronted the shooter.
NY City Bar Legal Services Award Lauren WyattLauren Wyatt, Esquire Managing Attorney Catholic Charities Community Services, Archdiocese of New York PHOTO: VERA Institute of Justice
Lauren Wyatt
Lauren Wyatt is an attorney with Catholic Charities Community Services, Archdiocese of New York, where she provides direct representation to immigrants before the Immigration Court, Board of Immigration Appeals, USCIS, and New York family courts. As the Lead Project Attorney for the Immigration Court Helpdesk (ICH), she coordinates pro se application workshops, Know-Your-Rights presentations, legal screenings, and pro bono case placements for unrepresented immigrants in removal proceedings. She also prepares and supervises the implementation of specialized ICH programming in response to emergencies (such as family separation) and changes in law and policy (such as in domestic violence- and family-based asylum claims) She recruits and trains volunteers to provide free legal information and assistance to low-income immigrants. She also supervises and mentors pro bono volunteer attorneys in representing clients before the Immigration Court.
Prior to joining Catholic Charities, Lauren was a Program Associate at the Vera Institute of Justice administering the Legal Orientation Program for detained immigrants. Before moving to New York City, Lauren was an Equal Justice Works AmeriCorps Fellow at Catholic Charities Archdiocese of Washington. At Catholic Charities DC, she represented unaccompanied children in immigration and state court proceedings, as well as in affirmative applications before USCIS. She also trained and mentored pro bono attorneys to represent clients in immigration and family court cases.
Lauren is licensed to practice in New York and Maryland, as well as before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. She earned her J.D. from Howard University School of Law in 2014, and her B.A. from the University of Pennsylvania in 2010. She has studied in Seville, Spain, Buenos Aires, Argentina, and Havana, Cuba. She is fluent in Spanish and conversational in Italian.
As we can see, eight years out of law school, Lauren has basically “done it all!” When are we going to see Lauren on the Federal Bench?
Like Vice President Kamala Harris, Lauren is a distinguished grad of Howard Law! So, why hasn’t Harris actively recruited her for a judicial or senior management position at EOIR, where due process, racial justice, practical problem solving, and a positive attitude toward human rights are in total tatters and need “big time” change and redirection?
Why are Dems blowing the opportunity to recognize, promote, and empower “the best and the brightest” that the “upcoming generation” of American lawyers has to offer?
Why is EOIR still a “due process wasteland” rather than a model, due process focused, best practices oriented, “progressive judiciary of the future?”
Somebody with some “pipelines” into the Biden Administration should be asking these questions and insisting on positive progressive actions!
After two years of advocacy by Human Rights First and our allies, President Biden announced that his administration would end Title 42 this Monday, May 23. Instead, a suit by attorneys general mirroring the talking points of the Trump administration blocked the end of this inhumane policy.
We will continue to push for the end of the misuse of Title 42 and advocate for fair and just asylum system until we succeed and refugees are welcomed with dignity to the United States.
Taking action on Title 42
The Biden administration had announced a plan to end on May 23 the misuse of Title 42 public health regulations that have barred asylum seekers at the border for the past two years. On Friday a federal court in Louisiana forced the continuation of this egregiously inhumane policy.
Anwen Hughes, Director of Legal Strategy for Refugee Programs responded, “The court’s ruling requires the continuation of a public health policy that public health experts have concluded is not needed, and allows the continued evasion of U.S. immigration and refugee laws.”
Human Rights First joined 57 partner organizations in an amicus brief in this case detailing the human costs of using this policy at the border. Our most recent report, authored with allies Al Otro Lado and Haitian Bridge Alliance, underscored how extending Title 42 escalates dangers to asylum seekers, exacerbates disorder at the border, and magnifies discrimination in the system.
Courtesy Reuters
Migrants expelled from the U.S. are sent back to Mexico over the Paso del Norte International border bridge.
“Every day that the Title 42 order remains in place is a day when the United States is turning away people seeking refuge to places where their lives are in danger.”
Eleanor Acer appeared on Al Jazeera Friday night to discuss the continuation of Title 42.
Human Rights First President and CEO Michael Breen joined Rep. Pramila Jayapal, Chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Mary Kay Henry, International President of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and Marielena Hincapié, Executive Director of the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), in a press call on Monday, the day that should have marked the end of the use of Title 42.
Speakers called for the end of this cruel policy and reiterated the need for a fair and humane asylum system that centers the dignity of all people.
“It is encouraging that the Justice Department quickly filed an appeal to the Louisiana court’s ruling, which extends the use of a policy, ostensibly based on public health, that public health experts have concluded is not needed. Now it is critical that the administration take all necessary steps to defend the CDC’s decision to end the use of Title 42,” said Breen.
Finally, two key members of our refugee protection research team, Kennji Kizuka and Associate Attorney for Refugee Protection Julia Neusner are at the border this week, reporting on the impact of Title 42 and Remain in Mexico on asylum seekers. Please follow their up-to-the-moment reports on Twitter — @JuliaNeusner and @KennjiKizuka.
Introducing new members of our team
Yesterday, Human Rights First was pleased to announce the addition of two critical new members of our program addressing extremism, Erin E. Wilson as the Senior Director for Extremism and Human Rights and Elizabeth Yates, Ph.D. as Senior Researcher on Antisemitism.
Over her 20-year career, Wilson established herself as an expert on domestic extremism, serving as a senior policy strategist and analyst in the U.S. Government’s executive and legislative branches. She has extensive experience with stakeholders in communities around the world as well as federal, state, local agencies and law enforcement partners to address extremism using a rights-centered approach.
Erin E. Wilson
Senior Director of
Extremism & Human Rights
Elizabeth Yates, Ph.D.
Senior Researcher
on Antisemitism.
Yates served at the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) at the University of Maryland, contributing to their work on domestic extremism and hate crimes. She co-authored numerous reports and articles on topics including extremism in the U.S. military, the growth of anti-Muslim terrorism, mass casualty hate crimes, and disengagement from right-wing extremism. Her analysis and commentary have regularly been featured on local and national news.
“Domestic extremism and antisemitism are two sides of the same coin, and Human Rights First is working to take that currency out of circulation,” said Michael Breen. “We are certain that as Human Rights First works to counter white supremacist extremism and the existential threat it poses to American democracy, the experience and tenacity Erin Wilson and Elizabeth Yates have long shown on these issues will be great resources.”
Join our Spring Social
We are thrilled to welcome Segun Oduolowu as emcee at our Spring Social!
Oduolowu joined PEOPLE (The TV Show!) as a correspondent this year after hosted the nationally syndicated television show, The List. With Bounce TV network, Segun executive produced Protect or Neglect, a documentary focused on police brutality in underserved communities.
He was co-host of See It/Skip It, a weekly Facebook Live show produced by Rotten Tomatoes and he has appeared on Access Hollywood, The Wendy Williams Show and contributed to international programs for CNN, the BBC and Deutsche Welle.
The emcee for our June 8
Spring Social, Segun Oduolowu
Please join us and Segun Oduolowu for cocktails on the roof of the Bryant Park Grill in New York City on June 8 from 5:30 to 8pm EDT to honor the work of human rights defenders & highlight our work responding to the crises in Ukraine and Afghanistan.
Get your tickets now for what promises to be a great evening!
Returning to Afghanistan
If you missed our live webinar “Tenets and Terrors: The Ideology and Violence of the Taliban in Afghanistan,” an in-depth look at the key factors, background, and worldview that motivates the Taliban, you can still participate in this important event by watching our recording or reading the transcript here.
Human Rights First is hiring
Human Rights First seeks passionate team members who are interested in changing lives, impacting policy, and moving public opinion.
Please check out our careers page and apply to join us today.
Watch for more news as our work for human rights continues. And please stay in touch on social media:
Not surprisingly, things have gone downhill for the Biden Administration on multiple fronts since their initial failure to hit the ground running with a strong condemnation and revocation of the Title 42 travesty!
Here’s a chance for the “new generation” of theNDPA to “sign on” with HRF and fight nativist racism on all levels! There is no end in sight for the need for actions to force the Biden Administration, the U.S. Government, Federal Courts, and state and local governments to comply with the law and our (not yet completely and equally implemented) Constitutional guarantees. Fight the “good fight” to end “dehumanization of the other” which, shockingly, has become SOP for the GOP right and their enablers!
Check out the link to the HRF Careers Page above!😎👍🏼⚖️🗽
Garland’s vision of “justice” for refugee children appears to be little different from that of Stephen Miller and his White Nationalist predecessors at DOJ! EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT – The bodies of Salvadoran migrant Oscar Alberto Mart??nez Ram??rez and his nearly 2-year-old daughter Valeria lie on the bank of the Rio Grande in Matamoros, Mexico, Monday, June 24, 2019, after they drowned trying to cross the river to Brownsville, Texas. Martinez’ wife, Tania told Mexican authorities she watched her husband and child disappear in the strong current. (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)Cindy Carcamo Immigration Reporter LA Times
After drug traffickers killed his little brother, William and his 6-year-old son, Santiago, fled Colombia last September to seek asylum in the United States.
Unbeknownst to William, who ended up in Los Angeles with a friend, he and his son immediately became part of a cohort of thousands of families in a “dedicated docket” program that the Biden administration established in 11 cities, including Los Angeles, in May 2021.
In response to a sudden rise of apprehensions last spring of families and children at the Southwest border, Biden promised the accelerated docket would resolve cases “more expeditiously and fairly.” These sorts of programs have existed in various forms under previous administrations; Biden’s program pushes immigration judges to resolve cases in 300 days, significantly shorter than the 4.5-year average of asylum cases in immigration court.
But according to a new Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA Law report, the docket’s fast-track timeline has imposed new hardships on many asylum seekers and created additional obstacles that ultimately lead to higher rates of deportation orders, sometimes based on legal technicalities.
For William — who didn’t want his last name published, fearing reprisal against his family still living in Colombia — the docket’s expeditious nature meant he had only six weeks to secure legal representation before his first court hearing, leaving him to navigate a complex and often confusing system without an attorney. Immigration officials provided him with documents heavy with legal jargon in English. He could read only in Spanish.
In addition, those on the docket are released with “alternatives to detention,” which means they are monitored, either with an ankle bracelet or via a phone application. Immigration officials shackled William with a GPS monitor on his ankle before releasing him and his son.
Ultimately, an immigration judge ordered William and his 6-year-old to be deported in “absentia” when they didn’t show up for their court hearing at U.S. Immigration Court in downtown Los Angeles. In fact, at the time the judge gave the order, William was in the building, but was three floors below the courtroom in a waiting area at the direction of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement official. By the time William was told he was in the wrong place, the judge had already ordered the father and son’s removal from the U.S.
In Los Angeles, an estimated 99% of the 449 cases completed on the dedicated docket as of February of this year resulted in removal orders and about 72% of those cases were issued to people who missed their court hearing — “in absentia” — according to a report released Wednesday by the Center for Immigration Law and Policy and Immigrants’ Rights Policy Clinic at UCLA School of Law
Perhaps most striking, the report shows that almost half of those in absentia removal orders are for children, many 6 and younger.
In addition, court data analyzed in the report show that an estimated 70% of people on this particular docket don’t have legal counsel. In contrast, an estimated 33% of those on the Los Angeles court’s non-accelerated docket lack legal counsel.
The nature of the accelerated dockets made it nearly impossible for asylum-seekers to get a fair hearing, the report’s authors concluded. The high absentia rate, the report concluded, is a red flag that the dedicated docket isn’t working as it should.
. . . .
**********************
Read the rest of Cindy’s totally disturbing article at the link!
Sadly, this news will come as no surprise to readers of “Courtside.” Having watched these types ofefforts to co-opt the Immigration Courts as a vehicle of unfair, racially motivated “deterrence” and “enforcement,” I could see that this program was going to be an unmitigated disaster at EOIR, given Garland’s failure to install progressive judicial leadership and human rights and due process expertise into the broken and biased system he inherited from Sessions and Barr.
The NDPA is going to have to “dig in” and fight Garland and Mayorkas every step of the way, at every level of the system, to save as many lives as possible from their disgraceful continuation of a “Miller Lite” White Nationalist, anti-immigrant program of abusing and dehumanizing asylum seekers — most individuals of color and many of them children or other “vulnerable individuals.”
🇺🇸 Due Process Forever! Garland’s dysfunctional, biased, leaderless, soul-less, ethically challenged EOIR, never!
Jason Stanley and Fredrico Finchelstein write in the LA Times:
. . . .
Democracy is essentially a system based around two values — freedom and equality. Fascists promoted the idea of replacement as a way of arguing that democracy and its ideals were incompatible with the nation. The very first chapter of Grant’s book is “Race and Democracy,” in which he contends that democracy is a threat to Nordic supremacy, because democracy leads inevitably to greater immigration and equality between races.
In fascist ideology, true national consciousness is pitted against domestic “enemies,” who are against national forms that are racially, ethnically or religiously homogeneous. These domestic “enemies” are invariably institutions and individuals who champion democracy and its ideals.
The Indian nationalist ideologue M.S. Golwalkar, the ideological founding father of BJP, the right-wing Hindu party of Narendra Modi, argued against the idea that a nation was composed of all of its inhabitants and rejected the idea that every citizen of India had equal rights to freedom. Like Grant, Golwalkar regarded democratic ideals as a clear threat to his vision of the nation.
If enemies are people who either look, think or behave differently, and if their mere existence poses a threat to the imagined homogeneity of the nation, it is not surprising that the most radicalized believer would carry out mass murders, as has happened in the U.S., Europe and New Zealand, and pogroms as in India.
And, of course, we see it in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Ideas of replacement are central to Russian extremist, nationalist, antisemitic and fascist traditions. They motivate the nature of its attack in Ukraine, such as wiping out Ukrainian identity culturally and physically. Vladimir Putin also considers liberal democracy as an existential threat to Russian cultural greatness, and by extension, to the Russian nation.
The link between WRT and fascism is not accidental. WRT is a relatively recent label for old fascism. In terms of propaganda, it is a rebranding of the same thing, namely longstanding fascist paranoias and lies about invasion and racial and political replacement. WRT’s logic justifies mass violence. When it is normalized, it poses an existential threat to democracy and its ideals. It targets the very idea of common humanity that underlies them.
That’s why Dems failure to take strong pro-immigrants’-rights actions and to aggressively undue the nativist anti-immigrant agenda of the Trump regime is so problematic and short-sighted!
GW Law Immigration Clinic Director Professor Alberto Benítez & Co-Director Paulina Vera
Please join me and Professor Vera in congratulating Immigration Clinic client, T-Y-, from China, and his student-attorneys, Gisela Camba, Esder Chong, Jordan Nelson, Tessa Pulaski, and Julia Yang. The client’s asylum application was filed on April 6, 2018, his interview at the Asylum Office was on November 8, 2021, and he was granted asylum on May 17, 2022. We received the decision today. The above-captioned is what T-Y- said upon learning about his asylum grant.
T-Y- is a Muslim Uyghur, an ethnic and religious minority in China. Due to his decades-long work as an Uyghur activist, he was persecuted by the Chinese government. T-Y- was falsely imprisoned, sentenced to a ‘re-education camp’, physically and psychologically tortured, and had his movements restricted and monitored. Despite everything he has endured, T-Y- continues his Uyghur advocacy work from within the United States and has even consulted with U.S. politicians and government agencies about the treatment of Uyghurs in China.
Congratulations! Another job REALLY well done by Professors Benitez and Vera and their band of NDPA recruits at GW Law.
As Jason “The Asylumist” Dzubow says, lots of winnable cases out there if folks can get well-qualified representation and actually reach a merits determination before the Asylum Office or EOIR — no mean feat in such a backlogged system!
That raises the point of why wouldn’t a clearly well-prepared and grantable Uyghur case like this one be moved to the “front of the line” for expedited processing instead of sitting around for more than four years?
For years, both USCIS and EOIR have been “expediting” the wrong cases (known as “Aimless Docket Reshuffling”) in an ill-advised and failed attempt to use the legal asylum system as a “deterrent” by maximizing and prioritizing “anticipated denials.” Instead, they should be putting protection and excellence in preparation and advocacy first. It would actually free up more representation resources if advocates weren’t forced to “babysit” “ready for prime time” cases for years!
During that time, records must be constantly updated, memories fade, and witnesses can become unavailable. Attorneys on both sides move on. Judges retire. There are all sorts of “below the radar screen” costs to creating and maintaining a huge backlog. Unfortunately, it promotes the “refugee roulette” image of what is supposed to be a fair, expert, timely system (but isn’t).
In addition, many of the “haste makes waste” attempts to cut corners by prejudging and denying certain cases, or creating “defective in absentias” end up being reopened or remanded because of sloppy, substandard work.
What is the Government’s “vision” of how this system can be made to work in a fair and timely manner for all concerned?
Contact: Communications and Legislative Affairs Division Phone: 703-305-0289 PAO.EOIR@usdoj.gov
www.justice.gov/eoir @DOJ_EOIR
May 23, 2022
EOIR Announces Five New Immigration Judges
FALLS CHURCH, VA – The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) today announced the appointment of five immigration judges to courts in California, Florida, and Massachusetts.
EOIR continues to work to expand its immigration corps and welcomes qualified candidates from all backgrounds to join the agency. In addition to making a difference through service to our Nation, immigration judges join a diverse and inclusive workforce. Individuals interested in these critical positions are invited to sign up for job alerts that are sent when new opportunities become available.
After a thorough application process, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland appointed Romy L. Lerner, William Mabry III, Cynthia M. Nunez, Curtis F. Pierce, and Michael P. Sady to their new positions.
Biographical information follows:
Romy L. Lerner, Immigration Judge, Miami (Krome) Immigration Court
Romy L. Lerner was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in May 2022. Judge Lerner earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1999 from Columbia University and a Juris Doctorate in 2002 from Columbia University School of Law. From 2015 to 2022, she was the Associate Director of the Immigration Clinic at the University of Miami School of Law, and from 2013 to 2015, she was a supervising attorney with the clinic. From 2010 to 2013, she was a supervising attorney at Americans for Immigrant Justice (formerly Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center (FIAC)). From 2007 to 2010, and previously from 2005 to 2006, she was a staff attorney at FIAC. From 2006 to 2007, she was a Fulbright Fellow in Buenos Aires, Argentina. From 2002 to 2005, she was a litigation associate at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. Judge Lerner is a member of the Florida Bar and New York State Bar.
William Mabry III, Immigration Judge, Santa Ana Immigration Court
William Mabry III was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in May 2022. Judge Mabry earned a Bachelor of Science in 1988 from Arizona State University, and a Master
Communications and Legislative Affairs Division
EOIR Announces Five New Immigration Judges Page 2
of Public Administration in 1991 from Arizona State University while concurrently earning a Juris Doctor in 1993 from the University of New Mexico School of Law. From 2019 to 2022, he served as an associate judge for the San Carlos Apache Tribe, in Peridot, Arizona. From 2018 to 2019, he was an associate attorney with Davis and Miles, in Tempe, Arizona. From 1996 to 2018, he served as a senior field attorney with the National Labor Relations Board in Phoenix. From 1994 to 1995, he served as a staff attorney with the New Mexico Court of Appeals. Judge Mabry is a member of the State Bar of Arizona and State Bar of New Mexico.
Cynthia M. Nunez, Immigration Judge, San Francisco Immigration Court
Cynthia M. Nunez was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in May 2022. Judge Nunez earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1986 from the University of Michigan and a Juris Doctor in 1993 from Wayne State University Law School. After a previous stint from 1994 to 1997, Judge Nunez returned to practicing immigration law at Walker & Associates of Michigan PC, in Detroit, during which time she also served as Lawyer-Guardian ad Litem. From 1997 to 2006, she served as a Michigan Assistant Attorney General. Judge Nunez is a member of the State Bar of Michigan.
Curtis F. Pierce, Immigration Judge, San Francisco Immigration Court
Curtis Pierce was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in May 2022. Judge Pierce earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1980 from the University of California, Los Angeles, and a Juris Doctor in 1984 from Loyola Law School, Los Angeles. From 1995 to 2022, he practiced immigration law with the Law Offices of Curtis Pierce in Los Angeles. Judge Pierce is a member of the State Bar of California.
Michael P. Sady, Immigration Judge, Boston Immigration Court
Michael P. Sady was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in May 2022. Judge Sady earned a Bachelor of Science in 1984 from Northeastern University and a Juris Doctor in 1988 from Boston University School of Law. From 2002 to 2022, he served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) in the District of Massachusetts, Boston. From 1997 to 2002, he served as Senior Litigation Counsel with the Massachusetts Port Authority in Boston. From 1991 to 1997, he served as an Associate Litigation Attorney at Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott in Boston. From 1990 to 1991, he served as an Associate Litigation Attorney at Hutchins & Wheeler in Boston. From 1988 to 1990, he served as an Associate Litigation Attorney at Peabody & Arnold in Boston. Judge Sady is a member of the Massachusetts Bar, as well as the First and Second Circuit Courts of Appeal.
— EOIR —
The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) is an agency within the Department of Justice. EOIR’s mission is to adjudicate immigration cases by fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly interpreting and administering the Nation’s immigration laws. Under delegated authority from the Attorney General, EOIR conducts immigration court proceedings, appellate reviews, and administrative hearings. EOIR is committed to ensuring fairness in all cases it adjudicates.
Elizabeth Gibson Managing Attorney National Immigrant Justice Center Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
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.
NYT: A federal judge on Friday blocked the Biden administration from lifting a pandemic-related health order whose scheduled expiration on Monday would have thrown open the doors of the United States to asylum seekers at the border for the first time in more than two years.
Spectrum: In the proposed settlement, filed over the weekend in Los Angeles federal court, the border patrol agrees to protocols requiring that detained minors be held in safe and sanitary conditions, not be separated from relatives, and have access to medical evaluations and prompt medical treatment when needed.
CBS: Over a 12-month span beginning in October 2020, U.S. Border Patrol agents processed 12,212 unaccompanied migrant minors who had been previously expelled under Title 42, according to internal Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
Law360: Programs that provide government-funded attorneys to noncitizens facing deportation are becoming more common in cities and states across the country, and immigration advocates hope to harness that momentum to scale up those initiatives to the federal level.
RollCall: The administration asked Congress to provide funding for just 25,000 detention beds — down from the current level of 34,000 — and requested an $87 million increase in funding for programs allowing for alternatives to detention.
CBS: The watchdog noted that “without clear COVID-19 testing policies and controls in place to enforce these policies, ERO may transport COVID-19–positive migrants on domestic commercial flights.” The report said the failed policy “risk[ed] exposing other migrants, ERO staff, and the general public to COVID-19.”
Yahoo: According to Higher Ed Immigration Portal, there are 1,644,000 students enrolled in public schools in the state of Texas, 58,255 of them undocumented. The United States as a whole is home to more than 427,000 undocumented students.
Law360: A Louisiana federal judge ordered President Joe Biden to keep intact a Trump-era order allowing for the swift expulsion of migrants amid the COVID-19 pandemic, ruling Friday that two dozen states would likely prove they weren’t provided enough notice when the administration announced plans to end the policy.
LexisNexis: A court filing on Saturday May 21, 2022, seeks U.S. Judge Dolly M. Gee’s preliminary approval of the settlement. The border patrol has agreed to a wide range of protocols requiring that detained minors are held in safe and sanitary conditions, not be separated from relatives, and have access to medical evaluations and prompt medical treatment when needed.
Law360: Petitioners before the Board of Immigration Appeals don’t have to file a brief supporting their appeal, but if they say they will and do not, the board can dismiss the case, the Third Circuit ruled Friday in affirming the dismissal of a Salvadoran man’s asylum request.
Law360: The Fifth Circuit revived claims that an asylum-seeker feared police brutality in Cameroon, saying that an immigration judge wrongly deemed him untruthful based on government reports that had never been “identified, referenced or discussed” during his court hearing.
Law360: A Seventh Circuit panel seemed unconvinced Wednesday by two Illinois counties’ argument that they should be able to pursue a constitutional challenge to a law Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed last year, which blocks immigration detention contracts with the federal government.
Law360: The daughter of a man who died by suicide in an immigration detention facility is suing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, GEO Group Inc., which runs the facility, and the city of McFarland, California, saying they ignored the man’s mental illness and tortured him by putting him in solitary confinement, leading to his death.
AP: The civil rights complaint alleges that Customs and Border Protection officers denied Shamloo and her husband entry to the U.S. based on their Iranian birth and violated procedures by demanding DNA samples. They and their two children are Canadian citizens.
AILA: DOS announced plans to reinstate the Cuban Family Reunification Parole Program (CFRP) and increase capacity for consular services in Cuba. Limited immigrant visa processing will resume in Havana, but most immigrant visa cases will still be processed at the U.S. Embassy in Georgetown, Guyana.
AILA: DHS notice of the designation of Afghanistan for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 18 months, effective 5/20/22 through 11/20/23. (87 FR 30976, 5/20/22)
AILA: DHS notice suspending certain regulatory requirements for F-1 nonimmigrant students whose country of citizenship is Afghanistan and who are experiencing severe economic hardship as a result of the situation in Afghanistan. (87 FR 30971, 5/20/22)
AILA: DOS provided updated guidance for nationals of Ukraine seeking to enter or entering the United States. The guidance clarifies information on the Uniting for Ukraine program, nonimmigrant visas, immigrant visas, humanitarian parole, refugee status, and more.
DHS: The MPP Case Request System provides an avenue for individuals to initiate a review of their enrollment in MPP if they believe they should not be included in the program.
AILA: Social Security Administration (SSA) notice of a new matching program with DHS that sets forth the terms, conditions, and safeguards under which DHS will disclose information to SSA to identify noncitizens who leave the U.S. voluntarily and noncitizens who are removed. (87 FR 30321, 5/18/22)
AILA: The National Visa Center has suspended its public inquiry telephone line, effective May 23, 2022. Contact information and information on common NIV and IV inquiries are available.
CGRS Multi-User Access: CGRS is excited to announce that our Technical Assistance (TA) Library now supports multiple-user access. If you are working with others (e.g., clinic students, pro bono mentors, or others at your organization) on an asylum case registered with CGRS, you can now share the TA case with them and access the same curated resource library.
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
The question I get asked the most as someone who went from being a Republican to a Democrat is: “What’s the biggest difference between the two parties?”
The answer: Every impulse Democrats have is defensive and every impulse Republicans have is offensive.
A report in the Washington Post this week showed these dynamics at play perfectly between Democrats and Republicans on the House Jan. 6 select committee. As the Post described, Democratic Rep. Stephanie Murphy (Fla.) insisted that the committee focus less on former President Trump and more on the security and intelligence failures that allowed the attack on the Capitol. In response, Republican Vice Chair Liz Cheney (Wyo.) argued that the committee should keep its focus on the former president.
This is the best illustration I have come across that demonstrates how different Republicans and Democrats approach things on a tactical and, I’d say, cellular level.
When Republicans have the reins of power, they do not hesitate to go after the very top. From Barack Obama’s birth certificate to Hillary Clinton’s emails and potentially Hunter Biden’s laptop, the GOP is unapologetic about pursuing witch hunts for political gain.
Democrats, on the other hand, are always pursuing lines of legitimate oversight reluctantly. At times, it feels like they are apologizing for doing the right thing.
I think back to Trump’s first impeachment and the hesitant posture displayed by the Democrats during those proceedings. It was almost as if they were forced into it, regretted that it came to this, and moved as fast as possible to get it over with.
Democrats controlled the House majority but never forced Trump administration officials with firsthand knowledge of the events that were at the center of the impeachment inquiry to testify, such as John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney or Rick Perry, and the Republican-controlled Senate predictably torpedoed any effort to compel them to testify.
History repeated itself during Trump’s second impeachment as firsthand witnesses like Mike Pence, Mark Meadows, Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, Rudolph W. Giuliani, etc., were never called to testify. Hillary Clinton, of course, was grilled by the Republican-led Benghazi committee for more than 11 hours.
It’s almost as if Democrats believe there is some prize awaiting them for showing what they would characterize as restraint. There isn’t.
. . . .
*********************
Read the complete article at the link.
This has been obvious in the Dems’ feckless approach to Immigration, and particularly the Immigration Courts, over the years.
Without enacting any significant legislation, the GOP instituted an overtly racist/nativist/restrictionist program. They negated existing laws, scorned the Constitution, abrogated log-standing international agreements, and aggressively and blatantly stacked the Federal Judiciary at all levels with far-right zealots. And they have gotten away with it!
Yet, even after successfully running on programs promising a restoration of the rule of law and the Constitution in immigration and human rights, Dems have been from feckless, to timid, to complicit in the GOP’s vile programs.
The GOP did not hesitate to “stack” the Immigration Court system at all levels with questionably qualified judges who lacked perspective, expertise, and a commitment to due process. The result was a dramatic plunge in the grant rates for asylum seekers, even though conditions in the primary sending countries have continued to worsen dramatically over the years.
No justification for what the GOP did, and no hesitation or self-doubts about doing it! Amid tons of criticism, they just plowed ahead and did it! They “played to the most extreme elements of their base” — nobody else! They weren’t scared to take extreme actions that most polls showed the majority of American’s didn’t favor!
By contrast, the Dems approach to immigration and human rights policy is a complete mess. And, worst of all, the Immigration Courts and EOIR remain largely as the Trump regime left them. Indeed, the backlog is growing at an astounding rate, as Garland flails and fails to bring on board the “best and brightest” judges and intellectual leaders to reform EOIR into the due-process oriented “model judiciary” that it was once intended to be!
Immigration courts are overrun with cases, and it’s only getting worse
Nolan Rappaport, opinion contributor
The immigration court has a backlog of more than 1.7 million cases. This means that the number of people waiting for a hearing is larger than the population of Phoenix, Ariz., or of Philadelphia, Pa., the fifth and sixth largest cities in the United States.
This isn’t a new problem, but it has gotten much worse recently. According to TRAC, a data distribution organization at Syracuse University, the growth of the backlog has been accelerating at a breakneck pace since the start of the Biden administration when it was “only” close to 1.3 million cases.
What is the administration doing to reduce the backlog?
Hiring more judges: Recent administrations have prioritized hiring more judges to lower the backlog. From fiscal 2014, to fiscal 2021, the number of judges has more than doubled, rising from 249 to 559. At the end of the first quarter in fiscal 2022, there were 578.
According to the Congressional Research Service, the backlog probably would continue to grow even if 100 more judges were hired. An additional 200 could reduce the backlog to just under 1.1 million, but it wouldn’t reach that level until fiscal 2031. It would take an additional 500 judges to eliminate the backlog entirely, and it wouldn’t happen until fiscal 2030.
Accelerated dockets: In May 2021, DHS announced a “dedicated docket” program to “more expeditiously and fairly” render decisions in the cases of certain families who are apprehended after making an illegal entry.
These families are placed in removal proceedings and then released into the interior of the country under the “Alternatives to Detention” program. This program currently is monitoring more than 227,508 families and single individuals.
The Florence Projectclaims that the Obama and Trump administrations attempted these “dedicated dockets” to reduce the backlog and it not only failed, but led to widespread due process violations and undermined access to legal counsel.
The Vera Institute of Justiceopposes the program because it “forces newly arriving, asylum-seeking families through rushed ‘rocket docket’ court proceedings without guaranteeing legal representation for all, depriving families of fairness and due process.”
In any case, it just speeds up the processing of new additions to the immigration court caseload. It does nothing to reduce the size of the backlog, and it is very unfair to migrants who have been waiting for a hearing for up to five years.
It also may hamper efforts to reduce the backlog. Georgetown law school professor Paul Schmidt points out that when dedicated docket judges are not available for cases on the general docket, it places extra burdens on their judicial colleagues who are handling the general docket cases.
Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an Executive Branch Immigration Law Expert for three years. He subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years. Follow him at https://nolanrappaport.blogspot.com
******************
Go over to The Hill at the above link to read the complete article.
Thanks Nolan for continuing to “shine the light” on this critical issue that might appear to be “below the radar screen” but actually threatensthe stability of our entire legal system!⚖️
As I’ve said many times, Aimless Docket Reshuffling (“ADR”), engaged in to some extent by Administrations of both parties, is NOT the answer. It’s a huge part of the problem!
A family in Tijuana who wanted to request asylum and advocacy groups including Innovation Law Lab sought to intervene in the lawsuit. They argued that a court order keeping Title 42 in place should only apply to states involved with the suit. Summerhays denied their request.
Alicia Duran Raymundo, her partner and their 6-year-old daughter fled El Salvador after gang members threatened to torture and kill them. She said in a news release from her lawyers last week that they wanted to live with extended family in California while pursuing asylum, but instead joined the thousands of migrants living in Mexican border towns while they wait for the U.S. to reopen its doors.
“We’ve tried many times to ask for asylum but they just tell us the border is closed,” Duran said.
Seeking asylum is a legal right guaranteed under federal and international law, regardless of how someone arrived on U.S. soil. Some of those turned away are fleeing persecution, while others pushed out by turmoil in their home countries seek jobs and security.
Though migrants can’t seek asylum under Title 42, they can still be screened under the United Nations Convention Against Torture. But those screenings are more difficult to pass.
Lee Gelernt Deputy Director ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Program PHOTO: ACLU
Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s immigrant rights project, noted that regardless of Friday’s decision, a prior ruling in Washington, D.C., District Court taking effect Monday prevents Title 42 from applying to families who face persecution or torture if they are expelled. Gelernt is lead attorney in that case.
“Hypocritically, the states that brought this lawsuit seemingly care about COVID restrictions only when they involve asylum seekers,” he said. “The lawsuit is a naked attempt to misuse a public health law to end protections for those fleeing danger.”
. . . .
Migrants have been removed from the U.S. nearly 2 million times since Title 42 was first used in March 2020, in some cases to dangerous situations in which they’ve been tortured or raped.
. . . .
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick Policy Counsel American Immigration Council Photo: Twitter
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior policy counsel at the American Immigration Council, predicted that Title 42 is likely to stay in place until at least next year.
Summerhays’ decision signals that while the Biden administration can establish a policy under emergency conditions, terminating it requires a rulemaking comment period that could take six months to a year.
Louisiana and the other states are not arguing that the policy can never end, Reichlin-Melnick said, but they’re imposing judicial roadblocks to delay it. The CDC is likely to try to end the policy again while satisfying the judge’s demands, he said.
In the meantime, he said, “we’re going to see an ever higher number of repeat crossings. Look at the border and tell me Title 42 works.”
**********************
The case is Louisiana v. CDC, WD LA, 05-20–22. Here’s a link to the opinion:
Of course Title 42 doesn’t work! But, it’s never been about a “working” border asylum policy. NO, it’s always been about cruelty fueled by nativist racism!
“Petitioner Giscard Nkenglefac, a native and citizen of Cameroon, applied for admission into the United States on May 9, 2018. The immigration judge (“IJ”), Agnelis Reese, denied Nkenglefac’s application for relief from removal and ordered him removed to Cameroon after determining that Nkenglefac was not credible. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) subsequently affirmed the IJ’s determination, and Nkenglefac was removed to Cameroon. Nkenglefac now petitions for review of the BIA’s dismissal of his appeal from the IJ’s denial of application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Nkenglefac challenges the IJ’s reliance on his U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) and asylum credible fear interviews that were not entered into the hearing record of the removal proceeding, nor, indeed, raised in that hearing at all, to make an adverse credibility finding. … Nkenglefac argues that the IJ erred as a matter of law by drawing negative credibility inferences from summaries of his CBP and credible fear interviews because neither interview was submitted into the record during his proceeding, much less adverted to. Nkenglefac also argues that he did not waive this argument because he could not have raised the issue before the IJ given that he had no notice the IJ would rely on these documents prior to issuance of her decision. … [A]t no point during the hearing before the IJ was Nkenglefac provided with the opportunity to explain any apparent inconsistencies or dispute the accuracy of the records in question, or cross examine the individuals who prepared the interview summaries, much less object to their introduction, or offer views on weight to be given to the evidence. Inspection of the hearing record confirms that Nkenglefac was not given the opportunity to explain perceived inconsistencies in the government summaries of his prior uncounseled interviews.5 Indeed, the voluminous testimonial record, including extensive government cross-examination and IJ direct inquiry, gives no indication that Nkenglefac had previously made any inconsistent statements, yet the IJ, three months later, determined that “inconsistencies and omissions . . . undermine critical parts of Respondent’s claim” to such an extent that the court denied “Respondent’s application based on lack of credibility.” … The BIA majority—affirming the IJ’s decision—also determined that Nkenglefac’s argument regarding the absence of the CBP and credible fear interviews from the record was “waived” because “the [trial] transcript reflects that [Nkenglefac’s] former counsel never requested that these records . . . be made a part of the record.” However, we fail to understand why Nkenglefac’s counsel should have introduced these government summaries into the record to anticipate and explain later-perceived inconsistencies when they were never identified, referenced, or discussed. It is also worth noting that there is no evidence—beyond the statement of the BIA majority—that Nkenglefac’s counsel failed to preserve this issue on appeal. The issue was discussed at length in Nkenglefac’s appeal brief to the BIA and again in his brief to this court. Furthermore, this observation stands in contravention to existing BIA law that “an adverse credibility determination should not be based on inconsistencies that take an alien by surprise.” Matter of Y-I-M-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 724, 726-29 (BIA 2019) (quote at 726). Notably, the Government’s brief on appeal does not argue that Nkenglefac has waived this argument. … We GRANT the petition for review and REMAND this case to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
[Hats waaaayyyy off to Homero López, Jr., who reports that he is in touch with his client and is hopeful of bringing him back to the USA. Audio of the oral argument is here.]
Once again, credibility, the problematic issue in this case, is not a profound legal concept. It’s supposedly the “bread and butter of Immigration Judging.” Yet, both the IJs and the BIA continue to often get it wrong. Perhaps “dead wrong” in the cases of asylum seekers! Why isn’t this fundamental flaw at the all-important “retail level” of our justice system receiving the necessary attention and corrections from Garland and the Biden Administration?
As one “Courtside Commenter” said:
I think this is the IJ who retired with a 100% asylum denial rate [actually it was 99.4%, denying 155 of 156 claims she “heard” — but didn’t listen to — over a career that lasted far too long]!And Cameroon is now a TPS country.
This decision is proof perfect of EOIR’s deportation assembly line approach.And I’ve mentioned a number of times the alarming problems with CBP arrival statements noted by the US Commission for International Religious Freedom, an internal government component, which has repeatedly flagged the fact that the resulting “statements” are not the verbatim transcripts they appear to be, and often contain questions that were never actually asked of the respondent.
As pointed out in the above comment, Cameroon is now a TPS country. Additionally, one of the “five top nationalities” that came before this “asylum denial machine” were asylum seekers from Eritrea. Although they found no success with her, the EOIR statistics for FY 2022 show that that every “merits decision” on Eritrean asylum was granted. There were exactly ZERO, “0” merits denials. Seehttps://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1107366/download.
Thankfully, Judge Reese has retired. But the endemic problems she symbolized, the lack of effective appellate review, and disdain for due process for asylum seekers by the BIA remain overarching problems that Garland has stubbornly failed to effectively address.
Additionally, in another “under the radar yet highly significant problem,” Garland’s OIL within the USDOJ Civil Division continues to “defend the indefensible” coming out of the BIA. This wastes Government and private sector litigation resources, not to mention precious Article III Court time. It also turns due process and immigrant justice in the U.S. into a random game of chance.
Obviously, there is a severe lack of leadership all over the USDOJ under Garland. Moving toward the “halfway point” in the Biden Administration, there still is no appointed and confirmed Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division!
