"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.
“Floaters — How The World’s Richest Country Responds To Asylum Seekers” — According to the NYT, Biden immigration policy officials always shared this vision of “ultimate border deterrence” with Gauleiter Stephen Miller. Now, they are secretly relieved that Trump’s righty judges have “forced” them to continue running a lawless border and killing asylum seekers without legal process. 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)
MATAMOROS, Mexico — When the Supreme Court effectively revived a cornerstone of Trump-era migration policy late last month, it looked like a major defeat for President Biden.
After all, Mr. Biden had condemned the policy — which requires asylum seekers to wait in Mexico — as “inhumane” and suspended it on his first day in office, part of an aggressive push to dismantle former President Donald J. Trump’s harshest migration policies.
But among some Biden officials, the Supreme Court’s order was quietly greeted with something other than dismay, current and former officials said: It brought some measure of relief.
Before that ruling, Mr. Biden’s steps to begin loosening the reins on migration had been quickly followed by a surge of people heading north, overwhelming the southwest border of the United States. Apprehensions of migrants hit a two-decade high in July, a trend officials fear will continue into the fall.
Concern had already been building inside the Biden administration that the speed of its immigration changes may have encouraged migrants to stream toward the United States, current and former officials said.
In fact, some Biden officials were already talking about reviving Mr. Trump’s policy in a limited way to deter migration, said the officials, who have worked on immigration policy but were not authorized to speak publicly about the administration’s internal debates on the issue. Then the Supreme Court order came, providing the Biden administration with the political cover to adopt the policy in some form without provoking as much ire from Democrats who reviled Mr. Trump’s border policies.
Now, the officials say, they have an opportunity to take a step back, come up with a more humane version of Mr. Trump’s policy and, they hope, reduce the enormous number of people arriving at the border.
. . . .
*******************
Read the rest of Natalie’s article at the link.
Who would have thought that neo-Nazi Stephen Miller would be the real winner of the 2020 election?
When he ”wins,” America and humanity “lose.” But, apparently that’s “A-OK” with some Biden Administration officials who lack the expertise, ability, courage, and political will to establish the rule of law for asylum seekers at our Southern Border! Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com.
Five decades of experience, including plenty of wall and fence building, civil detention, expedited dockets, restrictive interpretations, criminal prosecutions, family detentions, toddlers without lawyers, money to corrupt foreign governments, “don’t come, we don’t want you and care nothing about your lives messages,” in English and Spanish, says the Biden version of the “Miller Lite” approach will fail and ultimately expand the extralegal population of the U.S.
Of course, it also will kill more desperate humans in the desert, in Mexico, in squalid “camps,” and back in their home countries. Just so long as it’s “out of sight, out of mind.” The great thing about desert deaths is that often the bodies are never found or identified. Therefore, nothing can be proved, and it’s like these people “never happened.” It’s a real bureaucratic triumph! Foreign deaths are almost as good, as they seldom get much “play” in U.S. media and always can be blamed on something other than failed U.S. policies or foreign interventions.
I’d already observed that the DOJ’s “defense” of undoing Trump immigration policies seemed as half-hearted as it was ineffective. Perhaps their lackadaisical approach came right from the top!
And, the “policy geniuses” in the Biden Administration who think “Miller-Lite Time” will be a political “happy hour” (at humanity’s expense) should remember that the right will still successfully label them as “open borders” just as they did when Obama established himself as “deporter-in-chief!”
Meanwhile, their former progressive supporters will see through the false humane rhetoric. Does it really matter if we call individuals “foreign nationals” rather than “illegals” while we’re illegally exterminating them?
I’m afraid we know the answer to “Casey’s question:” NO!
”Sorry, Casey! Not only can’t anyone in the Biden Administration ‘play this game,’ they don’t even have the guts to suit up! They view a ‘forfeit’ to “Team Miller” as good as a ‘W.’ Remember, it’s not THEIR family, friends, or relatives dying at our border. It’s just ‘the other guys,’ so who cares? When it comes to U.S. immigration policy, foreign nationals all too often find that their lives and human dignity are just another form of expendable political capital.” PHOTO: Rudi Rest Creative Commons
Heather Cox Richardson Historian Professor, Boston CollegeFrances Perkins (1880-1965) U.S. Secretary of Labor (1933-45) PHOTO: Public realm
From “Letters From An American:”
September 5, 2021
By Heather Cox Richardson
On March 25, 1911, Frances Perkins was visiting with a friend who lived near Washington Square in New York City when they heard fire engines and people screaming. They rushed out to the street to see what the trouble was. A fire had broken out in a garment factory on the upper floors of a building on Washington Square, and the blaze ripped through the lint in the air. The only way out was down the elevator, which had been abandoned at the base of its shaft, or through an exit to the roof. But the factory owner had locked the roof exit that day because, he later testified, he was worried some of his workers might steal some of the blouses they were making.
“The people had just begun to jump when we got there,” Perkins later recalled. “They had been holding until that time, standing in the windowsills, being crowded by others behind them, the fire pressing closer and closer, the smoke closer and closer. Finally the men were trying to get out this thing that the firemen carry with them, a net to catch people if they do jump, the[y] were trying to get that out and they couldn’t wait any longer. They began to jump. The… weight of the bodies was so great, at the speed at which they were traveling that they broke through the net. Every one of them was killed, everybody who jumped was killed. It was a horrifying spectacle.”
By the time the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire was out, 147 young people were dead, either from their fall from the factory windows or from smoke inhalation.
Perkins had few illusions about industrial America: she had worked in a settlement house in an impoverished immigrant neighborhood in Chicago and was the head of the New York office of the National Consumers League, urging consumers to use their buying power to demand better conditions and wages for workers. But even she was shocked by the scene she witnessed on March 25.
By the next day, New Yorkers were gathering to talk about what had happened on their watch. “I can’t begin to tell you how disturbed the people were everywhere,” Perkins said. “It was as though we had all done something wrong. It shouldn’t have been. We were sorry…. We didn’t want it that way. We hadn’t intended to have 147 girls and boys killed in a factory. It was a terrible thing for the people of the City of New York and the State of New York to face.”
The Democratic majority leader in the New York legislature, Al Smith—who would a few years later go on to four terms as New York governor and become the Democratic presidential nominee in 1928—went to visit the families of the dead to express his sympathy and his grief. “It was a human, decent, natural thing to do,” Perkins said, “and it was a sight he never forgot. It burned it into his mind. He also got to the morgue, I remember, at just the time when the survivors were being allowed to sort out the dead and see who was theirs and who could be recognized. He went along with a number of others to the morgue to support and help, you know, the old father or the sorrowing sister, do her terrible picking out.”
“This was the kind of shock that we all had,” Perkins remembered.
The next Sunday, concerned New Yorkers met at the Metropolitan Opera House with the conviction that “something must be done. We’ve got to turn this into some kind of victory, some kind of constructive action….” One man contributed $25,000 to fund citizens’ action to “make sure that this kind of thing can never happen again.”
The gathering appointed a committee, which asked the legislature to create a bipartisan commission to figure out how to improve fire safety in factories. For four years, Frances Perkins was their chief investigator.
She later explained that although their mission was to stop factory fires, “we went on and kept expanding the function of the commission ’till it came to be the report on sanitary conditions and to provide for their removal and to report all kinds of unsafe conditions and then to report all kinds of human conditions that were unfavorable to the employees, including long hours, including low wages, including the labor of children, including the overwork of women, including homework put out by the factories to be taken home by the women. It included almost everything you could think of that had been in agitation for years. We were authorized to investigate and report and recommend action on all these subjects.”
And they did. Al Smith was the speaker of the house when they published their report, and soon would become governor. Much of what the commission recommended became law.
Perkins later mused that perhaps the new legislation to protect workers had in some way paid the debt society owed to the young people, dead at the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire. “The extent to which this legislation in New York marked a change in American political attitudes and policies toward social responsibility can scarcely be overrated,” she said. “It was, I am convinced, a turning point.”
But she was not done. In 1919, over the fervent objections of men, Governor Smith appointed Perkins to the New York State Industrial Commission to help weed out the corruption that was weakening the new laws. She continued to be one of his closest advisers on labor issues. In 1929, when Franklin Delano Roosevelt replaced Smith as New York governor, he appointed Perkins to oversee the state’s labor department as the Depression worsened. When President Herbert Hoover claimed that unemployment was ending, Perkins made national news when she repeatedly called him out with figures proving the opposite and said his “misleading statements” were “cruel and irresponsible.” She began to work with leaders from other states to figure out how to protect workers and promote employment by working together.
In 1933, after the people had rejected Hoover’s plan to let the Depression burn itself out, President-elect Roosevelt asked Perkins to serve as Secretary of Labor in his administration. She accepted only on the condition that he back her goals: unemployment insurance; health insurance; old-age insurance, a 40-hour work week; a minimum wage; and abolition of child labor. She later recalled: “I remember he looked so startled, and he said, ‘Well, do you think it can be done?’”
She promised to find out.
Once in office, Perkins was a driving force behind the administration’s massive investment in public works projects to get people back to work. She urged the government to spend $3.3 billion on schools, roads, housing, and post offices. Those projects employed more than a million people in 1934.
In 1935, FDR signed the Social Security Act, providing ordinary Americans with unemployment insurance; aid to homeless, dependent, and neglected children; funds to promote maternal and child welfare; and public health services.
In 1938, Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act, which established a minimum wage and maximum hours. It banned child labor.
Frances Perkins, and all those who worked with her, transformed the horror of the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire into the heart of our nation’s basic social safety net.
“There is always a large horizon…. There is much to be done,” Perkins said. “It is up to you to contribute some small part to a program of human betterment for all time.”
Aftermath of the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire (1911) ILGWU Archives Public Realm
Get more from HCR at the above link!
Perkins is one of the most important and under-recognized heroes of modern American history. Perkins believed that Government was there to promote the public good.
But, it wasn’t just a hollow slogan like those spouted by many of today’s politicos. She actually “walked the walk,” using her powerful intellect, energy, talent, advocacy skills, persistence, and influence with FDR to make America a much better place.
Just think of it: “unemployment insurance; health insurance; old-age insurance, a 40-hour work week; a minimum wage; and abolition of child labor.” An amazing list of accomplishments for which she has received far, far too little credit from historians. Today, most Americans probably think of Perkins, if at all, as the “first female Cabinet Secretary.” But she was more than that. Much more!
Perkins also used her position as Labor Secretary (prior to WW II the cabinet officer with responsibility for immigration) creatively in an attempt to save Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany. Although she won a major legal battle on the positive use of “charge bonds” to assist refugees, the actual effects of her humanitarian efforts appear to have been unfortunately limited.
In the xenophobic, anti-Semitic, isolationist America of the 1930s, she also became a target of the far right for her strong commitment to human rights. In 1939, Congressional xenophobes initiated an unsuccessful impeachment attempt.
In 1940, FDR transferred responsibility for immigration from the Labor Department to the Department of Justice. That spelled not only the end of Perkins’s efforts to help Jewish refugees, but also was a death sentence for many who might have been saved.
The DOJ threw up a powerful combination of restrictive requirements and bureaucracy to guarantee the death of more European Jews in the Holocaust. Indeed, the DOJ went one better by putting Japanese-American U.S. citizens in concentration camps based on “national security” claims that have since been shown to be both bogus and racially motivated. Sound familiar?
You can read all about this disgraceful chapter in American history and Perkins’s largely fruitless attempts to “swim against the tide” here, in this article by Rebecca Brenner Graham in Contingent Magazine: https://contingentmagazine.org/2019/08/23/no-refuge/.
Dr. Rebecca Brenner Graham Teacher, Author, Historian PHOTO: Rebeccabrennergraham.com
I really enjoyed Rebecca’s very lively, accessible historical writing that brings to life one of the ugliest episodes in modern American history, now largely swept under the carpet by today’s nativist revisionists. It’s also covered in the a Holocaust museum, an exhibit that contains much of the same bogus “America is full” xenophobic rhetoric spouted by too many of today’s GOP nativists.
This really horrible response by Western democracies to lives in peril was what gave rise to the Geneva Refugee Convention, the basis for the Refugee Act of 1980 and our current refugee and asylum system! How quickly we forget! The Trump Administration, with help from the Supremes, basically abrogated the legal system for refugees and asylees, without legislation. Despite promises to restore the rule of law, the Biden Administration has basically allowed most of Trump’s illegal and immoral policies to continue damaging humanity and diminishing us as a nation.
What would Frances Perkins have done? Certainly more than Garland and Mayorkas! At any rate, I enjoyed Rebecca’s historical writing and look forward to more!
A few years ago, Cathy and I had the pleasure of touring the Perkins Family Homestead, near Damariscotta, Maine, now owned by the Frances Perkins Center, with our dear, now departed Boothbay Harbor neighbor Sue Bazinet. It certainly opened my eyes to what true progressive values, lived and acted upon, were and still are!
Frances Perkins Homestead Damariscotta, ME PHOTO: Francis Perkins Center
We could use more leaders like Perkins today! Many thanks to the always-fabulous HCR for highlighting this great American!
“A federal judge declared unlawful the U.S. government’s turnbacks of asylum seekers arriving at ports of entry along the U.S southern border. The court ruled that the United States is required by law to inspect and process asylum seekers when they present themselves at ports of entry, and condemned the practice of denying access to the asylum process through metering and similar practices.
The decision came after oral arguments were held before U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant of the Southern District of California on Tuesday.
The case, Al Otro Lado v. Mayorkas, was brought 4 years ago by Al Otro Lado and a group of 13 individuals seeking asylum in the United States whom U.S. Customs and Border Protection turned back. The Center for Constitutional Rights, Southern Poverty Law Center, American Immigration Council, and the law firm Mayer Brown challenged the policy.
Nicole Ramos, Border Rights Project Director of Al Otro Lado, said, “After over four years, a U.S. federal court concluded what our team at Al Otro Lado has known all along, that CBP’s turning away of asylum seekers from ports of entry and metering are illegal and violate the rights of the individuals and families most in need of our protection. Despite DHS’s lies about their capacity to process asylum seekers, the reasons behind why metering exists, and the agency’s destruction of evidence in the case, today the rule of law and justice prevail.”
Baher Azmy, Legal Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said, “This is such an important victory for our heroic partners at Al Otro Lado, who have fought for asylum seekers for years against every variation of government lie, denial, and abuse of power. The decision will protect thousands of vulnerable people at the border.”
Melissa Crow, Senior Supervising Attorney with the Southern Poverty Law Center, said, “This decision affirms what people fleeing persecution and immigrant rights advocates have argued for years: the U.S. government’s denial of access to the asylum process at ports of entry is blatantly illegal. The Court properly recognized the extensive human costs of metering, including the high risk of assault, disappearance, and death, when CBP officers flout their duty to inspect and process asylum seekers and instead force them to wait in Mexico.”
“Turning back asylum seekers at ports of entry unconstitutionally stripped people of their right under U.S. law to access the asylum process in the United States. Ports of entry are a critical part of our nation’s asylum system and serve as the front door for arriving asylum seekers. Today’s decision underscores that the government may not simply shut that door and deny asylum seekers this right. The law protects asylum seekers arriving at our doorstep as it does those who stepped over the threshold. CBP must inspect and process arriving asylum seekers,” said Karolina Walters, senior attorney at American Immigration Council.
“Today’s decision is not just a victory for justice and the rule of law, it takes a significant step towards ending a troubling chapter in our nation’s history,” said Stephen Medlock, a partner at Mayer Brown LLP. “Under the turnback policy that was at issue in this case, the very government officials that should have been welcoming and assisting victims of persecution and torture were told to turn them away from the United States. The district court found that to be unequivocally illegal.”
Maria Frausto at the American Immigration Council, mfrausto@immcouncil.org or 202-507-7526; Marion Steinfels at SPLC, marion.steinfels@splcenter.org or 202-557-0430; Jen Nessel, Center for Constitutional Rights, 212-614-6449, jnessel@ccrjustice.org; Melissa Flores, Al Otro Lado, melissa@alotrolado.org, 213-444-6081.”
*******************
Not surprisingly to those of us who understand the system, this illegal, inane, and unnecessary policy instituted by the Trump kakistocracy and inexplicably continued under Biden has fueled illegal entries, as we effectively gave asylum seekers no legal avenue to make their applications.
As noted above, the Trump Administration also lied to the court and the public about the justification for the program, which clearly was fabricated.
But, to be fair, the Biden Administration has done little to re-establish the rule of law for asylum seekers at the Southern Border. Obviously, this case demands a long overdue investigation into the DOJ attorneys who handled and defended the indefensible, and the misconduct of those attorneys and CBP officials in hiding or destroying evidence and creating bogus scenarios to “justify” their illegal actions. But, don’t hold your breath for Garland, who seems largely indifferent to misconduct at the DOJ or anywhere else in Government, to take any action.
Legal asylum seekers suffer severe consequences for the Government’s concerted attack on their legal rights and humanity. The “perps on our payroll” — not so much. No wonder our legal system is in free fall!
It isn’t clear to me how this case interacts with Biden’s continuation of Title 42 which illegally bars many asylum seekers from pursuing their claims in any manner. There are exceptions, but they appear to be somewhat arbitrary and depend mostly on what CBP feels like doing on any particular day.
For those allowed to pursue claims in the U.S., the Biden Administration still doesn’t have a functioning way of promptly and fairly determining their cases. “Dedicated Dockets” at EOIR are just another “designed to fail” gimmick, almost certain to increase backlogs without promoting fairness and efficiency.
That which would make the asylum system functional for all — immediate EOIR reform, including new progressive leadership, a progressive BIA, much better asylum precedents, some progressive IJs well-qualified to handle asylum cases fairly and efficiently (e.g., getting them right initially, insisting that Asylum Officers do likewise, and cracking down on frivolous behavior by DHS in Immigration Court, rather than the haste makes waste “any reason to deny culture” that drives EOIR’s incredibly poor and inept performance on asylum cases today) and working agreements with the private bar for representation and reasonable scheduling — has been of little visible interest to Garland and his lieutenants to date.
With Congress more or less living on another planet, that’s likely to leave reshaping the asylum system to the Federal Courts. There, as this case shows, there is still a smattering of Article III Judges committed to due process and the rule of law for asylum seekers. But, there are now enough right wing extremists put on the bench by the GOP to make it highly likely that any hard won progressive judicial reforms will eventually be undone.
The one place where progressive reforms could actually take place, and be made to endure, at least for the balance of this Administration — EOIR — has been mishandled by Garland to date.
What an awful, disgraceful mess — with no viable plans for improvement on the horizon!
Proposed asylum regulation changes that rely heavily on a currently broken, dysfunctional, non-expert EOIR to protect the rights of asylum seekers — after years of intentionally bashing them on behalf of their nativist overlords — is an obvious non-starter that fails to “pass the straight face test” as those who actually are condemned to practice before EOIR know all to well. Of course, the regulatory proposal wasn’t drafted by those actually familiar with the human trauma of litigating asylum cases at EOIR.
Ah, Casey, “why can’t anyone out there in ‘Bidenland’ play this game?”
“Casey Stengel might understand Judge Garland. The rest of us not so much.” PHOTO: Rudi Reit Creative Commons
These two op-eds make compelling cases for the 5th Circuit rivaling the Supremes as the most scofflaw, out of control, and dangerous court in America! But, hey, is there a “dark horse” in this righty “race to the bottom?” 🐴 (Curiously enough, “owned” and “trained” by Biden-Garland Stables!)
First, let’s hear from my friend, NDPA Stalwart, Houston Law Immigration Clinic Director, Professor Geoffrey Hoffman:
Professor Geoffrey Hoffman Immigraton Clinic Director University of Houston Law Center
CAT a “dead letter” in the Fifth Circuit? I respectfully dissent
By Geoffrey A. Hoffman
This week a panel of the Fifth Circuit issued Tabora Gutierrez v. Garland, interpreting the Convention Against Torture’s (CAT’s) state action requirement so restrictively that it led the dissenting judge to call CAT a virtual “dead letter” in most cases (in the Fifth Circuit, at least).
In this piece, I want to consider this dire prognostication and also think about what it may mean for future practice – at least for those of us in the Fifth Circuit.
Two panel members found that petitioner failed a key requirement for relief: that the government in Honduras “consented or acquiesced” to the torture. In dissent, Judge W. Eugene Davis remarked, “I agree with the IJ, the BIA, and the majority that [petitioner] will likely be tortured by MS-13 gang members. . .[but] I read the record to compel a conclusion that the torture will be with the acquiescence of a public official.” According to Judge Davis, the majority raised the bar so high regarding this requirement under CAT that “for most if not all” people CAT will be out of reach, if they are from countries with (merely) corrupt policy or police without the will or courage to protect them from brutal gangs. While I agree with Judge Davis, the fact is CAT need not be a “dead letter” in the Fifth Circuit.
I was moved to comment on another split panel decision previously in the Fifth Circuit in Inestroza-Antonelli v. Barr, see my prior post here, and I am similarly moved to write about this present decision.
Significantly, the majority here carefully acknowledges up front that the BIA and IJ below found petitioner “likely to be tortured or killed” if returned to Honduras, and even catalogued the horrible injuries he had already suffered, mentioning “gruesome photos” that are part of the record in the case.
Because I think the majority erred, and would agree with most of what the dissenting judge says, let me address three issues where I think the majority got it wrong: (1) what it means for a record to “compel” a different conclusion on appeal; (2) what it means for a government to consent or acquiesce to torture and (3) the notion that Petitioner waived his argument about the correct standard of review merely by failing to bring it up in a motion to reconsider.
I address all three of these points below.
First, the majority importantly conceded in its opinion that the police “failed to investigate” petitioner’s injuries. However, because the Board and IJ interpreted these “failures” of the police as “better explained” by the fact the petitioner “was unable to disclose the specific identity of any of his attackers” this showed the police did not “willfully ignore” the attacks. The majority reasoned that the “evidence” did not “compel” a contrary conclusion and therefore the IJ’s findings, adopted by the BIA, were considered “conclusive.”
I am struck here by the notion that just because the BIA and IJ had inserted their own explanations for the unrebutted record evidence showing lack of any police action that this must have meant (according to the majority) that the appellate court was constrained to accept this explanation and would not disturb the lower tribunal’s interpretation of the evidence.
Such a reading of the word “compel” means that judges can have an “out” anytime they want to rubber stamp any decision of the Board, all they have to do is say the explanation offered characterizing the evidence in one way or another was good enough and must not be disturbed. But this is a very troubling proposition.
Take, for example, the present case where the supposition on the part of the BIA and IJ was that the petitioner was somehow at fault for not being able to identify his attackers by name. Think about that for a minute…Police are not acquiescing and not at fault and should not be held to have “turned a blind eye” because the victim was unable to identify his attackers.
But this does not make sense.
Such a blame-the-victim mentality goes against the motivation and underlying rationale behind other federal types of relief immigrants have available, for example, U visas for crime victims, VAWA, T visas, etc., premised in many cases on the victim’s cooperation with law enforcement and their investigation. Just because a victim does not know the exact identities of their attackers does not disqualify them from relief. Would that be a reasonable interpretation for example of the U visa statute and attendant regulations?
In addition, let’s consider the use of the “compel” standard for a minute and where it came from exactly. This standard, as acknowledged by the majority, comes from a previous case, Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006), among other cases. Chen in turn cites 8 USC 1252(b)(4)(B) and emanates from the Supreme Court’s famous decision, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992), authored by Justice Scalia.
Chen was a case about a Chinese petitioner who converted to Christianity after entry into the U.S. and so her applications did not rely on past persecution but a well-founded fear of future persecution based on religion. The IJ in the former case found that there were “many Christians in China” and that Chen’s claims of future persecution were allegedly “highly speculative.” The facts of Chen and the current case relating to police inaction in Honduras could not be further apart. Moreover, the Fifth Circuit in Chen was not considering past persecution, as here, but the more difficult to prove “future persecution” and well-founded fear standard.
Similarly, Justice Scalia in Elias-Zacarias was concerned about proof supporting a political opinion claim. In that case, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner could not produce evidence “so compelling” that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution on account of political opinion. The “so compelling” language has been used by many courts to deny asylum on many other grounds throughout the past decades and has not been limited to political opinion claims.
But the reliance in the present case for the “compel” standard on the statute in question, 8 USC 1252(b) here is misguided. The statute states in pertinent part as follows: “the administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary . . . .” But the “consent and acquiescence” determination under CAT is not a determination of “administrative facts” but is certainly a mixed question of law and fact. As such, the entire structure of the “compel” standard should not have been applied but instead de novo review applied.
And this brings me to the practice pointer that this case so unfortunately stands for. Although on appeal before the circuit court the issue of standard of review was raised by petitioner, it was rejected by the majority on the theory that he had to have filed a “motion to reconsider” before the Board to preserve the issue for appellate review.
This waiver argument has always seemed to me a weak and tenuous one.
For example, what if the petitioner (i.e., the respondent before the BIA) argued in his brief to the Board that the correct standard of review was de novo due to the mixed question raised by a very complicated “consent or acquiescence” determination under CAT, and courts have so held, but the BIA decided to just rubber stamp the IJ and refused to overturn the IJ’s finding based on clear error. Wouldn’t that have preserved the issue? Why is there a need for a litigant to then file a motion to reconsider after the fact to preserve an issue which had already been preserved? To make matters worse it appears Mr. Tobora Gutierrez appeared pro se, see page 3 of the Fifth Circuit majority decision, at least initially. The decision does not reveal if he had appellate counsel before the BIA. But if he did not it would be an especially onerous requirement to impose an “after the fact” requirement that a litigant must file a “motion to reconsider” to preserve an issue for appellate review, especially if he is unrepresented.
All of that said, the practice take-away here is: (1) everyone must file a very carefully drafted and thorough motion to reconsider on all issues that could be in any way (mis-)interpreted to be subject to waiver so you preserve all issues for review before the circuit courts; and (2) everyone should read Judge Davis’ cogent and reasoned dissenting opinion, which hopefully will be followed instead of the majority’s strained application of the “compel” standard. Judge Davis was right: the evidence does compel a different outcome. Judge Davis does a wonderful job also of distinguishing the prior case law in this area and showing how Mr. Tobora Gutierrez’s case is fundamentally different. As he says, “if the egregious facts of this case are not sufficient to support a finding of public-official acquiescence, CAT relief will be a dead-letter to most if not all individuals who live in countries where the police are corrupt or simply do not have the will or courage to protect them from brutal gang attacks.”
Judge Davis is right, this is a most troubling decision but not just for the reason he provides. It is troubling for the further reason that the majority applies the wrong legal standard here, the “compels” standard versus a de novo review. The majority also leaves the door open for “deferred action,” for this sympathetic and horrendous case, although it declines to recommend it. Most importantly, it also leaves the door open for de novo review, in future cases, at least where those litigants are perceived to have preserved the issue. Litigants can do this by filing a motion to reconsider with the BIA, then filing (another, second) petition for review when the motion to reconsider is denied, and then (following the procedure mandated by section 1252) consolidating the two cases.
(Institution for identification only)
Geoffrey Hoffman
Clinical Professor, UHLC Immigration Clinic Director
Let’s not forget that Garland’s DOJ defended this grotesque miscarriage of justice. In a grim way, Geoffrey’s “practical scholarship” ties in nicely with Ruth Marcus’s recent op-ed in WashPost on the righto-wacko 5th Circuit’s dangerous assault on American justice:
Washington Post Columnist Ruth Marcus, moderates a panel discussion about chronic poverty with Education Secretary John B. King (blue tie) and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack (striped tie), during the National Association of Counties (NACo), at the Washington Marriott Wardman Park, in Washington, DC, on Tuesday, Feb. 23, 2016. U.S. Department of Agriculture photo by Lance Cheung.
Opinion: The 5th Circuit is staking out a claim to be America’s most dangerous court
Opinion by Ruth Marcus
August 31 at 6:37 PM ET
The Supreme Court is, no doubt, the nation’s most powerful court. But the 5th Circuit, the federal appeals court that covers Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, is staking out a claim to be the most dangerous — the least wedded to respecting precedent or following an orderly judicial process.
The 5th is arguably the most conservative among the country’s dozen appeals courts. It inclined in that direction even before President Donald Trump managed to install six nominees. And they constitute quite a bunch: Stuart Kyle Duncan, who said the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling establishing a right to same-sex marriage “imperils civic peace” and “raises a question about the legitimacy of the court.” Cory Wilson, who tweeted about Hillary Clinton using the hashtag #CrookedHillary, called the Affordable Care Act “illegitimate” and said he supported overturning Roe v. Wade. James C. Ho, who issued a concurring opinion lamenting the “moral tragedy of abortion.”
How conservative is the court, where 12 of 17 active judges were named by Republican presidents? “As conservative a federal appeals court as any of us have seen in our lifetimes,” says Stephen I. Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas, noting that even as the circuit’s conservatives tend toward the extreme end of the spectrum, its liberals aren’t all that liberal.
One measure: During each of the last two Supreme Court terms, with conservative justices firmly in the majority, the high court has reviewed seven cases from the 5th Circuit. It reversed 6 of 7 decisions in the 2019-2020 term and 5 of 7 in 2020-2021.
These included the appeals courts’ rulings striking down the Affordable Care Act and upholding the constitutionality of a Louisiana abortion law, identical to a Texas statute the justices had tossed out several years earlier — another 5th Circuit special reversed by the high court. If you thought the appeals court judges would have learned their lesson the first time, you don’t know the 5th Circuit.
Texas can ban the abortion procedure most commonly used to end second-trimester pregnancies, a federal appeals court ruled on Aug. 18. (Reuters)
The circuit’s latest shenanigans involve, unsurprisingly, abortion, and Texas’s latest attempt to eviscerate abortion rights. This Texas law, which goes into effect Wednesday, is both blatantly unconstitutional (it purports to prohibit abortion once there is a detectable fetal heartbeat, around six weeks into pregnancy) and an audacious effort to evade judicial review (it leaves enforcement of the ban up to private vigilantes, not state officials.)
In this effort to end-run and effectively overturn Roe v. Wade, the 5th Circuit has already proved itself an eager co-conspirator. Texas abortion clinics filed suit in federal court challenging the law and seeking to block it from taking effect. A federal judge had scheduled a hearing on whether to grant such an injunction.
But on Friday a panel of the 5th Circuit — two Trump judges and one Reagan appointee — issued an extraordinary order preventing the district judge from going ahead with the hearing, thus letting the law take effect in the interim — all this even as the appeals court refused to speed up its consideration of the case. In a sign of their desperation, the clinics appealed that action to the Supreme Court, not exactly a friendly venue these days for abortion rights.
. . . .
Read the rest of Ruth’s op-ed at the link.
But, the right-controlled Supremes aren’t going quietly into the night in this competition. The right to a reasoned decision from a fair and impartial decision-maker is fundamental to Constitutional due process — except at the Supremes. The righty majority now employs the “shadow docket” to avoid explanation and accountability for some of it’s most outrageously scofflaw decisions! Many of these have hurt or even killed migrants. David Leonhardt @ NY Times explains:
Davide Leonhardt Journalist NY Times PHOTO: Wikipedia
This one came out shortly before midnight on Wednesday. It consisted of a single paragraph, not signed by the justices who voted for it and lacking the usual detailed explanation of their reasoning. And there had been no oral arguments, during which opposing lawyers could have made their cases and answered questions from the justices.
Instead, the opinion was part of something that has become known as “the shadow docket.” In the shadow docket, the court makes decisions quickly, without the usual written briefings, oral arguments or signed opinions. In recent years, the shadow docket has become a much larger part of the Supreme Court’s work.
Shadow-docket rulings have shaped policy on voting rights, climate change, birth control, Covid-19 restrictions and more. Last month, the justices issued shadow decisions forcing the Biden administration to end its eviction moratorium and to reinstate a Trump administration immigration policy. “The cases affect us at least as much as high-profile cases we devote so much attention to,” Stephen Vladeck, a University of Texas law professor, told me.
Shadow-docket cases are frequently those with urgency — such as a voting case that must be decided in the final weeks before an election. As a result, the justices don’t always have time to solicit briefs, hold oral arguments and spend months grappling with their decision. Doing so can risk irreparable harm to one side in the case.
For these reasons, nobody questions the need for the court to issue some expedited, bare-bones rulings. But many legal experts are worried about how big the shadow docket has grown, including in cases that the Supreme Court could have decided in a more traditional way.
“Shadow docket orders were once a tool the court used to dispense with unremarkable and legally unambiguous matters,” Moira Donegan wrote in The Guardian. “In recent years the court has largely dispensed with any meaningful application of the irreparable harm standard.”
Why the shadow docket has grown
Why have the justices expanded the shadow docket?
In part, it is a response to a newfound willingness by lower courts to issue decisions that apply to the entire country, as my colleague Charlie Savage explains. By acting quickly, the Supreme Court can retain its dominant role.
But there is also a political angle. Shadow-docket cases can let the court act quickly and also shield individual justices from criticism: In the latest abortion case, there is no signed opinion for legal scholars to pick apart, and no single justice is personally associated with the virtual end of legal abortion in Texas. The only reason that the public knows the precise vote — 5 to 4 — is that the four justices in the minority each chose to release a signed dissent.
Critics argue that judges in a democracy owe the public more transparency. “This idea of unexplained, unreasoned court orders seems so contrary to what courts are supposed to be all about,” Nicholas Stephanopoulos, a Harvard law professor, has said. “If courts don’t have to defend their decisions, then they’re just acts of will, of power.”
During a House hearing on the shadow docket in February, members of both parties criticized its growth. “Knowing why the justices selected certain cases, how each of them voted, and their reasoning is indispensable to the public’s trust in the court’s integrity,” Representative Henry Johnson Jr., a Georgia Democrat, said. Representative Louie Gohmert, a Texas Republican, said, “I am a big fan of judges and justices making clear who’s making the decision, and I would welcome reforms that required that.”
The shadow docket also leaves lower-court judges unsure about what exactly the Supreme Court has decided and how to decide similar cases they later hear. “Because the lower-court judges don’t know why the Supreme Court does what it does, they sometimes divide sharply when forced to interpret the court’s nonpronouncements,” writes William Baude, a University of Chicago law professor and former clerk for Chief Justice John Roberts. Baude coined the term “shadow docket.”
Six vs. three
The court’s six Republican-appointed justices are driving the growth of the shadow docket, and it is consistent with their overall approach to the law. They are often (though not always) willing to be aggressive, overturning longstanding precedents, in campaign finance, election law, business regulation and other areas. The shadow docket expands their ability to shape American society.
The three Democratic-appointed justices, for their part, have grown frustrated by the trend. In her dissent this week, Justice Elena Kagan wrote, “The majority’s decision is emblematic of too much of this court’s shadow-docket decision making — which every day becomes more unreasoned, inconsistent and impossible to defend.” In an interview with my colleague Adam Liptak last week, Justice Stephen Breyer said: “I can’t say never decide a shadow-docket thing. … But be careful.”
Roberts also evidently disagrees with the use of the shadow docket in the Texas abortion case. In his dissent, joining the three liberal justices, he said the court could instead have blocked the Texas law while it made its way through the courts. That the court chose another path means that abortion is now all but illegal in the nation’s second-largest state.
The justices are likely to settle the question in a more lasting way next year. They will hear oral arguments this fall in a Mississippi abortion case — the more traditional kind, outside the shadows — and a decision is likely by June.
Read more from David in “The Morning” e-mail from the NYT.
******************************
Abrogating a treaty, intellectual dishonesty, neutering Federal statutes and regulations, scoffing at Constitutional due process, disregarding decency and human life (at least “life after birth”), AND illegally sending another human back to be tortured to death is indeed a “hard act to follow” and makes the 5th a serious contender. But, remember where this “opportunity to dump on migrants” came from!
Immigration practitioners will tell you never to underestimate the sloppiness, lack of expertise, irresponsibility, disdain for due process, and disregard for human lives that has become institutionalized at Garland’s “Miller Lite” captive appeals “court,” the BIA! And, like the Supremes and unlike the 5th Circuit, the BIA has nationwide jurisdiction and sets national precedents. But, unlike the Supremes, who decide fewer than 100 cases in an average year, the BIA assembly line charms out 20,000 to 30,000 cases annually through its defective processes, and it’s lousy, one-sided, anti-immigrant precedents and reactionary guidance that destroy thousands of lives and futures in Immigration Court every day!
So, when it comes to worst court of today, don’t count out the BIA!
Charlotte Klein Staff Writer Vanity Fair PHOTO: Twitter
The “Commanding Generals” of this effort are unprincipled, far-right GOP jurists. Their initial targeted victims are, of course, the usual vulnerable suspects: migrants, asylum seekers, women, voters of color, transgender kids, the poor, union members, etc. But, eventually, all of us who reman true to liberal democratic values will be targeted for some kind of punishment. Immigration “led the way” in the “Dred Scottfication of the other” by the Supremes at the behest of the Trump kakistocracy. But, don’t think that’s where this heinous resuscitation of one of the worst cases in American jurisprudence will end!
Meanwhile, this latest phase of the assault has unleashed the usual Dem arsenal of feckless weaponry, including:
Statements of outrage untied to realistic possibilities;
Largely meaningless public demonstrations that are “media events” and not much else;
Idle threats of reprisals;
A barrage of op-eds decrying that the fringe radical right and their relatively unpopular agenda has once again outflanked liberals who represent the views and values of the majority;
Statements of fact that have no material effect (public support for the complete elimination of abortion, al la Texas, the 5th, and the Supremes holds steady at 8%, while a large majority of Americans favor abortion in some form or another — explain how that has made a difference — also, does anybody really think that these right wingers give a fig that many women will die from illegal abortions and others will be saddled with unwanted children — the only part of human life that creates much compassion or empathy for this righty gang is that which occurs prior to birth);
Appeals to precedent, fairness, decency, reasonableness, confirmation promises, and respect for the law addressed to a party and its jurists who value none of these things if they get in the way of their authoritarian agenda.
But, Dems, here’s a better idea! For once, why not try a different approach and actually work within what you DO control and CAN change? Something that will showcase the positive attributes of honest, expert, progressive judging while developing best practices and saving lots of lives in the process. What do you have to lose, Dems? Can actually doing something to combat right-wing control of the judiciary rather than just impotently raging against it produce a worse result than you have already achieved — even when controlling the Executive, House, and Senate?
There is not much in the immediate future that Biden and the Dems can (and are willing to) do to change the composition and tenor of the Supremes and the 5th Circuit. But Biden and Garland have complete control over the “Miller Lite” BIA and the Immigration Courts!
A new, well-qualified, BIA comprised of progressive expert judges unswervingly committed to scholarship, quality, due process, respect for migrants and their attorneys, and correct results could (and should) be installed by now. But, disgracefully, it isn’t! Progressives need to hold Biden’s and Garland’s feet to the fire until they create the positive change they promised, but have not delivered!
Then, once a new BIA is in place, go to work on re-competing all Immigration Judge jobs on a merit basis, incorporating key progressive values and real-life experiences, and also involving input from practitioners and outside experts in the area. Create a better progressive Federal Immigration Judiciary and let it lead the way to restoring due process, best practices, efficiency, humanity, fundamental fairness, and integrity to our broken immigration system!
Humanity is suffering! Garland must pull the plug 🔌 on the “BIA Clown Show” 🤡 before it kills ⚰️ anyone else! Pull the BIA from the “Most Dangerous Court In America Competition” before they can “win” it. A “win” for the BIA would certainly be a “loss” for America!
Immigration Courts are the “living, breathing repudiation” of racial justice in America!🏴☠️
Repeatedly, Federal Courts at all levels say that foreign nationals are entitled to due process under the Fifth Amendment.
Then, they often go on to convert that to an insulting platitude by approving legal travesties and substandard performance by EOIR inflicted on migrants of color, their attorneys (if any), and their communities. Maybe, it’lls because talented Hispanic judges with actual experience representing asylum seekers and other migrants in Immigration Court are so few and far between. Maybe it’s because Garland has failed to actively recruit judges from among immigration and human rights attorneys of color and has continued to employ a flawed “insider-tilted” selection process that was designed and implemented to “slam the door” on experts from the non-governmental advocacy and academic communities.
Whatever the reason, EOIR has become the “living refutation” of the assertion that Hispanics and other communities of color are treated fairly and equally under our laws and that that race-based decision-making and jurisprudence have vanished from our legal system.
Maybe it’s time for Hispanics and their allies to stop being “tolerant of inequity and bias” and start taking a more aggressive and less compromising position on Garland’s disgraceful, disorderly, dysfunctional, non-diverse, tone-deaf Immigration Courts! Your voices are NOT being heard by those running the Star Chambers and cranking out “assembly line injustice.”
Why does the Hispanic community put up with being demeaned, dehumanized, and degraded by Garland’s “Clown Courts”🤡 and also by a Democratic Party that promised change but has delivered “same old same old” at EOIR?
Recent Supreme Court mockeries of justice show that the rights of minorities are under assault by a radically right-wing Article III Judiciary stocked with GOP appointees. The Immigration Courts, by contrast, are under the total control of the Administration and present an unparalleled opportunity for minority communities to both showcase their judicial skills and to start winning back their legal rights after four years of unrelenting assault by the White Nationalist right.
Why is this perhaps once-in-a lifetime opportunity for long overdue, radical reform of a broken, biased, and incompetent system being squandered and buried by Garland as if Stephen Miller and his cronies were still calling the shots? How many Hispanic and other lives will be sacrificed to EOIR over the next three plus years? How many attorneys of color will continue to be abused, misused, and under-appreciated by an Administration pledged to “do better?” What will be left of racial justice in America if entrusted to a DOJ that doesn’t even believe in the concept in their own court system?
SCOTUSblog: The Supreme Court on Tuesday night rejected the Biden administration’s plea for a reprieve from a district-court order requiring it to reinstate a Trump-era program known as the “remain in Mexico” policy, which requires asylum seekers to stay in Mexico while they wait for a hearing in U.S. immigration court. The court was divided on the decision to deny relief, with the court’s three liberal justices – Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – indicating that they would have granted the government’s request and put the district court’s order on hold. See also The Supreme Court’s stunning, radical immigration decision, explained; Biden administration will continue challenging ‘Remain in Mexico’.
Politico: U.S. officials in Kabul gave the Taliban a list of names of American citizens, green card holders and Afghan allies to grant entry into the militant-controlled outer perimeter of the city’s airport, a choice that’s prompted outrage behind the scenes from lawmakers and military officials. See also In evacuation mission’s 11th hour, hope dims for Afghans seeking escape.
AP: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement must test detainees for COVID-19 before they are transferred to the immigrant detention center in Tacoma, a federal judge ordered Monday.
The Intercept: ATLAS helps DHS investigate immigrants’ personal relationships and backgrounds, examining biometric information like fingerprints and, in certain circumstances, considering an immigrant’s race, ethnicity, and national origin. It draws information from a variety of unknown sources, plus two that have been criticized as being poorly managed: the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Database, also known as the terrorist watchlist, and the National Crime Information Center. Powered by servers at tech giant Amazon, the system in 2019 alone conducted 16.5 million screenings and flagged more than 120,000 cases of potential fraud or threats to national security and public safety.
AP: Five months after the Biden administration declared an emergency and raced to set up shelters to house a record number of children crossing the U.S.-Mexico border alone, kids continue to languish at the sites, while more keep coming, child welfare advocates say.
NYT: a new camp sprang up about 55 miles farther west, in the Mexican city of Reynosa, and this one, aid workers say, is far worse than the one at Matamoros ever was. Overcrowded already, with more than 2,000 people, it is filthy and foul-smelling, lacking the health and sanitation infrastructure that nonprofit groups had spent months installing at Matamoros. Assaults and kidnappings for ransom are commonplace.
NYT: . Through July, Border Patrol officials found 383 dead migrants, the highest toll in nearly a decade, and one already far surpassing the 253 recovered in the previous fiscal year.
Law360: Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis demanded the Biden administration provide personal information on undocumented migrants being relocated to Florida, including names, addresses and the number of people who tested positive for COVID-19 or refused the coronavirus vaccine.
Law360: A federal watchdog on Wednesday called on U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to improve its employment eligibility verification system, finding shortcomings that kept the agency from accurately confirming workers’ identities and work authorization in at least 800,000 instances.
AILA: The Supreme Court denied the application for a stay and thus preventing the Biden administration’s effort to halt the reminstatement of “Remain in Mexico.” (Biden, et al. v. Texas, et al., 8/24/21)
AILA: The court extended the district court stay on the preliminary injunction on the Biden immigration enforcement memos indefinitely. (Texas, et al., v. USA, et al., 8/27/21)
Law360: A Nepalese asylum-seeker has another shot at avoiding deportation after the Second Circuit ruled Friday that an immigration judge had prematurely declared his story of Maoist intimidation and violence not credible without giving him a chance to address minor discrepancies.
Law360: The Second Circuit rejected an immigrant’s arguments Wednesday that after being beaten by members of a rival political party for his affiliation with a Sikh party, he could not escape the threat of more violence by moving within India, affirming a Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision to deny asylum and deport the man.
Law360: A panel of Fifth Circuit judges vacated a Pakistani man’s deportation order issued after he was convicted for synthetic marijuana possession, finding that the Board of Immigration Appeals failed to fully consider whether his state law conviction is equivalent to federal drug law.
AILA: Where the petitioner alleged that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Sessions v. Dimaya made his removal unlawful, the court held that the BIA did not err by construing his motion as a motion to reconsider nor by denying it as time barred. (Gonzalez Hernandez v. Garland, 8/13/21)
AILA: The court granted the petition for review of the BIA’s denial of the petitioners’ motion to reopen, finding the BIA abused its discretion by departing from established policy when it failed to apply the Matter of Sanchez Sosa factors. (Gonzales Quecheluno v. Garland, 8/12/21)
AILA: Where BIA had reversed the IJ’s findings that petitioner would more likely than not be tortured in Somalia, the court found that BIA applied the correct legal standard to the Convention Against Torture (CAT) claim and did not engage in impermissible fact finding. (Mohamed v. Garland, 8/13/21)
Law360: The Eighth Circuit refused to stop an Ethiopian refugee’s deportation, ruling Friday that a portion of the Immigration and Nationality Act allowing the deportation of certain migrants who face persecution upon return is ambiguous, but not unconstitutionally vague.
Law360: The Ninth Circuit Wednesday revived a Cameroonian rape survivor’s asylum bid, ruling that the immigration judge cherry-picked discrepancies in the woman’s testimony to justify deporting her and “displayed a dubious understanding of how rape survivors ought to act.”
AILA: The court upheld BIA’s determination that petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal under INA §240A(b)(1)(C) due to his conviction for an offense described in INA §212(a)(2), even though he had been previously admitted into the United States. (Sanchez-Ruano v. Garland, 8/11/21)
AILA: The court held that the IJ failed to put the petitioner on notice that his alleged false claim of U.S. citizenship would be at issue during his hearing, and that such failure violated due process by denying him a full and fair hearing. (Flores-Rodriguez v. Garland, 8/16/21)
AILA: The court found it lacked jurisdiction to review petitioner’s challenge to his expedited removal proceedings, concluding that the Supreme Court’s decision in DHS v. Thuraissigiam abrogated any colorable constitutional claim exception to INA §242(a)(2)(A). (Guerrier v. Garland, 8/16/21)
AILA: The court held that an Interpol Red Notice, among other evidence, created a serious reason to believe that the petitioner had committed a serious nonpolitical crime before entering the United States, and that he was ineligible for withholding of removal. (Villalobos Sura v. Garland, 8/17/21)
AILA: The court held that the record did not compel the conclusion that the petitioner suffered hardship in India that rose to the level of past persecution, where he did not experience significant physical harm and his harm was an isolated event, among other factors. (Sharma v. Garland, 8/17/21)
AILA: Granting in part the petition for review, the court held that vehicle theft under California Vehicle Code §10851(a) is indivisible in its treatment of accessories after the fact, and thus is not an aggravated felony theft offense under INA §101(a)(43)(G). (Lopez-Marroquin v. Garland, 8/18/21)
AILA: The court denied the petition for review, holding that because petitioner was convicted of a violation of 18 USC §1546(a) and his sentence was greater than one year, his conviction expressly fell under the definition of aggravated felony in INA §101(a)(43)(P). (Germain v. Att’y Gen., 8/18/21)
Law360: A split Eleventh Circuit panel refused Tuesday to grant asylum to a member of a Sri Lankan ethnic minority or to block his deportation, ruling he hasn’t proven past persecution or credible fear of future persecution.
Law360: A Texas federal judge has blocked an executive order from the state’s governor banning the transportation of certain migrants in the state, holding it violates the supremacy clause of the Constitution by authorizing state officials to make federal immigration determinations.
Law360: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement must test immigrants for COVID-19 before transferring them to a Washington state detention center, after a federal judge blamed the agency for 240 detainees and facility staff contracting the virus over the past three months.
Law360: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has told a California federal judge that it could not produce an administrative record related to its practice of turning back asylum-seekers at the southern border because no such policy existed.
AILA: USCIS provided information regarding a proposed class settlement in A.O., et al. v. Jaddou, et al. No. 19-cv-6151 (N.D. Cal.) regarding juvenile court orders in the California Juvenile Court with subsequent filed Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) petitions after the age of 18 years old.
AILA: DHS released a memo with guidance on immigration processing for certain Afghan nationals, stating that they will be paroled into the U.S. on a case-by-case basis for a two-year period and may be eligible to apply for status through USCIS.
AILA: EOIR launched its FOIA Public Access Link (PAL), which will allow users to submit requests, check the status of requests, download records, browse the FOIA reading room, and correspond with the EOIR FOIA Service Center. The PAL also allows users to pay required fees online.
AILA: ICE issued interim guidance to all OPLA attorneys to guide them in appropriately executing interim civil immigration enforcement and removal priorities and exercising prosecutorial discretion. Note, on 8/19/21, OPLA suspended reliance on this guidance due to litigation.
Thanks, Elizabeth! It’s interesting and satisfying that several Circuits, including the 2d and the 9th, are openly rejecting EOIR’s practice of “nit-picking” asylum applicants’ testimony in an attempt to deny meritorious applications. It’s all part of the “culture of denial” that continues to flourish at EOIR’s deportation assembly line under Garland.
Sadly, the Circuits haven’t yet had the guts to face the larger problem here — the EOIR system, as currently staffed with too many “Trump plants” as judges and a continuing lack of expertise and anti-asylum, anti-immigrant bias is clearly unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment!
Indeed, some Circuit panels take judicial review seriously, others function as rubber stamps, and most individuals wronged in Immigration Court lack the lawyers and wherewithal to take their case to the Circuits. This means that inconsistent results and lack of consistently applied expertise at all levels of the Federal legal system just add to the inconsistencies and unfairness heaped on migrants in violation of the Due Process Clause. To date, no Circuit has been willing to act on the glaring constitutional defects at EOIR staring them in the face.
Unhappily, Congress also has failed to act on long-overdue legislation to create an independent, Article I Immigration Court. In the interim, it would be possible to ameliorate, if not entirely eliminate, these constitutional problems by replacing marginally qualified IJs and BIA judges with well-qualified progressive experts and then giving them independence to issue precedents and make necessary procedural and structural changes to restore some semblence of Due Process, quality control, fair procedures, and efficiency to this disgracefully dysfunctional, unnecessarily backlogged system. The private bar could be constructively involved in creating universal representation and sane docket management. Indeed experts recommended these very changes to Garland, only to be ignored in favor of the “same old, same old” incredible mess and gross indifference to both the rule of law and human life at EOIR!
Not surprisingly, a recently issued report from the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) highlighted lack of “shareholder engagement” — something specifically discouraged by the Trump kakistocracy — as an endemic and continuing problem at EOIR. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-104404
Shareholder engagement means having a meaningful dialogue with those practicing before the courts, and honestly considering their input in advance of promulgating new policies. So called “Town Halls” to announce unilaterally developed bureaucratic policies are the antithesis of this meaningful process. It’s no mystery why EOIR continues to founder and stumble under Garland.
Here’s the ugly truth about what two Administrations and some really bad Federal Judges have done to our vulnerable fellow humans seeking legal refuge at our borders:
I refer to this as the “harsh reality that the nativist Ted Cruz ‘let ‘em enjoy the beaches in Cancun’ crowd doesn’t get!”
And, here’s the truth about migrants helping our nation thrive and who are a key component of our hopes for the future. Progressives and their allies must double down and act upon these truths to combat the type of ridiculous, dangerous, anti- American nativist lies and myths that were driving some of the misinformed callers, also pushed by the “insurrectionist wing” of the GOP:
Significantly, this article came from the George W. Bush Institute, hardly a “left wing think tank.”
“Geoffrey’s 40 minutes” shows that there is, indeed, an imminent threat to American democracy, leadership, and future prosperity out there. But, it definitely does not come from migrants! A nation where about 98% of the population came from immigrant lineage can’t afford to turn our backs on today’s immigrants.
Trumpy nativists, posing as fiscal conservatives, want you to question whether the United States can afford to take in Afghan allies and refugees.
The better question is whether we can afford not to.
The Republican Party has cleaved in recent weeks over the issue of Afghan refugees, specifically those who served as military interpreters or otherwise aided U.S. efforts. On the one hand, Republican governors and lawmakers around the country have volunteered to resettle Afghan evacuees in their states. Likewise, a recent CBS News/YouGov poll found that bringing these allies to the United States is phenomenally popular, garnering support from 76 percent of Republican respondents. Influential conservative constituencies are invested in this issue, too, including veterans’ groups and faith leaders.
On the other hand, the Trump strain within the GOP has been fighting such magnanimous impulses with misinformation.
Xenophobic politicians and media personalities have been conspiracy-theorizing about the dangers of resettling Afghan allies here — even though we had previously entrusted these same Afghans with the lives of U.S. troops and granted them security clearances. And even though they go through additional extensive screening before being brought to our shores.
No matter; if you listen to Tucker Carlson and his ilk, you’ll hear that these Afghans are apparently part of a secret plot to replace White Americans, and that untamed Afghan hordes are going to rape your wife and daughter.
Often these demagogues try to disguise their racist objections to refugee resettlement (and immigration more broadly) as economic concerns. Their claim: that however heartbreaking the footage from the Kabul airport, compassion for Afghan refugees is a luxury Americans simply cannot afford.
Refugees are somehow responsible for existing housing shortages, proclaims Carlson. (This is demonstrably false; the reason we have too little affordable housing is primarily because people like Carlson oppose building more and denser housing.) More refugees would sponge up precious taxpayer dollars, according to Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.). And in general, refugees — like all immigrants — are a massive drain on the U.S. economy, alleges Stephen Miller.
This is nonsense.
. . . .
***********************
Read Catherine’s complete op-ed at the link!
Thanks, Catherine, for once again standing up to and speaking truth against disgraceful, neo-Nazi, nativist racists like Stephen Miller, Tucker Carlson, and Marjorie Taylor Greene!
By contrast, one might well ask what “value added” folks like Stephen Miller and his buddies, (Miller has largely sponged off of taxpayer funds while looking for ways to inflict misery on others and destroy America) bring to the table. None, that I can see!
Moreover, even beyond the undoubted value of robust refugee admissions, there is good reason to believe that large-scale migration presents our best opportunity for salvation and prosperity, rather than the “bogus threat” posited by Miller & Co.
As Deepak Bhargava and Ruth Milkman recently, and quite cogently, wrote in American Prospect:
. . . .
A “Statue of Liberty Plan” for the 21st century could make the United States the world’s most welcoming country for immigrants. Right now, the foreign-born share of the U.S. population lags behind that of Canada, Australia, and Switzerland. In order to surpass them, the United States would have to admit millions more people each year for a decade or longer. We currently admit immigrants to promote family integration, meet economic needs, respond to humanitarian crises, and increase the diversity of our population from historically underrepresented countries. Under this plan, we could dramatically expand admissions in all four categories and add a fifth category to recognize the claims of climate migrants. As a civic project of national renewal, with millions of people playing a role in welcoming new immigrants, such a policy could reweave frayed social bonds and create a healthier, outward-looking, multiracial national identity.
The politics of immigration, however, lag far behind the moral and economic logic of the case for a pro-immigration policy. The immigrant threat narrative has become so pervasive that many liberals have embraced it, if only because they hope to fend off threats from right-wing nationalists. President Obama not only deprioritized immigration reform in his first term but deported record numbers of immigrants, hoping that such a display of “toughness” might win support for legalization of the undocumented immigrants already here. Hillary Clinton advocated liberal immigration policies in her 2016 presidential campaign but later tacked toward restrictionism. Liberals and leftists across the global North, from Austria to France to the U.K., have offered similar concessions to nativism. But mimicking right-wing appeals is a losing gamble that only serves to legitimize the anti-immigrant agenda and its standard-bearers.
There are promising signs of potential for shifting the debate, however, if progressives lean in. Polling shows that Americans increasingly reject the immigrant threat narrative, largely due to Trump’s shameless cruelty. Last year, for the first time since Gallup began asking the question in 1965, more Americans supported increased levels of immigration than supported reduced levels. A telling barometer of how the sands are shifting is that President Biden’s proposed immigration bill is far to the left of what Obama proposed.
The work of shifting gears toward a more welcoming policy can begin right now by fully welcoming immigrants who already reside in our country. A crucial starting point would be to include a path to citizenship for essential workers, Dreamers, farmworkers, and Temporary Protected Status holders in the American Jobs Plan Congress is considering. This is not only a humane approach, but it also will stimulate economic growth and thus help finance other parts of the plan. A separate campaign by the Biden administration (not requiring congressional action) to simplify the naturalization process for nine million eligible green-card holders would help make the nation’s electorate more reflective of its population.
Getting the politics of immigration right isn’t just important for immigrants. Nativism, built upon the sturdy foundation of racism, remains among the most potent tools in the arsenal of right-wing authoritarians. Any program for economic equity or democracy will be fragile in the absence of a coherent immigration agenda. The antidote to authoritarianism is not to duck, cower, or imitate the nativists, but rather to make the case for opening the door to millions more immigrants.
If slavery and genocide were the country’s original sins, its occasional and often accidental genius has been to renew itself through periodic waves of immigration. Once we expose the immigration threat narrative as the Big Lie that it is, it becomes plain that immigration is not a problem to be solved but an opportunity and necessity to be embraced.
This, of course, also casts doubt on the wisdom of our current, wasteful and ultimately ineffective, policy of illegally rejecting legal asylum applicants at our Southern Border, rather than attempting in good faith to fit as many as qualify under our current system, as properly and honestly administered (something that hasn’t happened in the past). Additionally wise leaders would be looking for ways to expand our legal immigration system to admit, temporarily or permanently, those whose presence would be mutually beneficial, even if they aren’t “refugees” within existing legal definitions. In this respect, the proposal to modernize our laws to admit climate migrants is compelling.
Remember, as stated above:
Getting the politics of immigration right isn’t just important for immigrants. Nativism, built upon the sturdy foundation of racism, remains among the most potent tools in the arsenal of right-wing authoritarians. Any program for economic equity or democracy will be fragile in the absence of a coherent immigration agenda. The antidote to authoritarianism is not to duck, cower, or imitate the nativists, but rather to make the case for opening the door to millions more immigrants.
NDPA members, keep listening to Catherine and the other voices of progressive wisdom, humanity, practicality, and tolerance. The key to the future is insuring that the “Stephen Millers of the world” never again get a chance to implement their vile, racist propaganda in the guise of “government policy.”
Happily, many Northern Virginians have listened to our “better angels.” Humanitarian aid and resettlement opportunities for Afghan refugees are pouring in, as shown by this report from our good friend Julie Carey @ NBC 4 news:
Julie Carey NOVA Bureau Chief, NBC4 Washington PHOTO: Twitter
The local couple interviewed by Julie emphasized the impressive “human dignity” of the Afghan refugees! (I also observed this during many years of hearing asylum cases in person at the Arlington Immigration Court.) Compare that with the lack thereof (not to mention absence of empathy and kindness) shown by the nativist naysayers!
“Kevelin Danery Espinal-Lagos and her two minor sons were ordered removed to Honduras by an Immigration Judge. While their appeal was pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals, the petitioners filed derivative U visa applications with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services that, if granted, would allow them to move to reopen their removal proceedings. Accordingly, the petitioners filed a motion requesting that the Board remand their case so that they could seek a continuance from the Immigration Judge pending the resolution of their derivative U visa applications. The Board dismissed their appeal and denied their motion to remand, reasoning that their “U-visa eligibility and the steps being taken in pursuit of a U-visa could have been discussed at the hearing before the Immigration Judge entered a decision.” For the narrow ground articulated herein, we hold that the Board abused its discretion in its reason for denying the petitioners’ motion to remand. … Espinal-Lagos did not become prima facie “eligible” for a derivative U visa until her husband filed his U visa application with USCIS on July 6, 2018—several months after her hearing before the IJ on February 7, 2018. Indeed, during oral argument when asked, “When was Ms. Espinal-Lagos eligible for a U visa?”, the Government responded that she was “eligible when it’s filed”—“it” being Bethanco’s U visa application.1 The position the Government urges—that Espinal-Lagos should have disclosed to the IJ her potential future eligibility given the district attorney signature on her husband’s U visa certification— has no basis in the regulations. Therefore, the Board’s denial of Espinal-Lagos’s motion to remand was based on a legally erroneous interpretation of the governing regulations. Navarrete-Lopez, 919 F.3d at 953. The Board’s decision was also irrational because it required Espinal-Lagos to have presented information to the IJ that could not have been discovered or presented at that time. … Because the Board abused its discretion in its single reason for denying Espinal-Lagos’s motion to remand, we grant the petition for review and REMAND to the Board for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Although this case is unpublished, it’s significant for these reasons:
The “super-conservative” 5th Circuit seldom reverses removal orders;
Granting the legally-required remand in this case would have been about a 30-second “adjudication” (tops) by a competent BIA appellate judge;
Instead of confessing error and asking for a remand, OIL defended this clearly wrong garbage, a likely violation of ethics, an abuse of the Circuit Court’s time, and dilatory action that took the Fifth Circuit two years to correct;
Why would a rational, ethical system even want to remove a family eligible for derivative U status, let along violate the law and make extra work to achieve an irrational, inhumane, and counterproductive result;
For Pete’s sake, this was an UNOPPOSED MOTION TO REMAND at the BIA, but incompetent judges, bad lawyering, and a vile anti-immigrant culture at DOJ created an unnecessary disaster;
As those of us who are actually familiar with the EOIR system know, mistakes like this are a daily, if not hourly, occurrence at today’s thoroughly dysfunctional EOIR! It’s just that relatively few individuals are fortunate to have the time, knowledge, and competent legal assistance to obtain justice at the Court of Appeals level.
NO, Judge Garland, as all outside experts have been telling you, the answer to largely unnecessary, self-created, out of control EOIR backlogs is NOT “dedicated dockets,” idiotic quotas, more mindless gimmicks, or even throwing more judges into an already out of control and dysfunctional system.
It starts, but does not end, with replacing the BIA and incompetent judges at EOIR with qualified progressive experts, bringing in dynamic progressive judicial leadership that solves problems rather than creates them, ending the anti-immigrant “culture of denial” at EOIR and DOJ generally, installing real, due-process-focused training and giving new progressive expert judges independence to establish and enforce quality decision-making, due process, and best practices!
Also, OIL needs a remake and some leadership from skilled, progressive immigration litigators committed to “speaking for justice,” using judicial time wisely, and making the system work rather than mindlessly assisting in the building of backlog.
Due process is a team effort! Sadly, after four years of enabling and defending the indefensible actions of the Trump fascist kakistocracy, there aren’t many folks out there at EOIR and DOJ generally who can “play this game.”
“Can’t anyone here play this game?” So far, the answer at Garland’s EOIR is a resounding “No!” PHOTO: Rudi Reit Creative Commons
🇺🇸Due Process Forever!
PWS
08-27-21
ADDENDUM:
Even as I was writing this, Dan Kowalski sent me yet another 5th Circuit BIA remand. This one was on “divisibility” and was the result of three years of litigation to correct the BIA’s unprofessional work. THAT’S what generates unnecessary backlogs! Efficiency comes from getting thing right in the first instance, particularly when proceedings should be terminated or relief granted.
“Sajid Momin Wali, a native and citizen of Pakistan, became a lawful permanent resident in 2012. In 2017, he pleaded guilty in Texas state court to possession with intent to deliver a synthetic cannabinoid. As a result, he was charged as removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) for having been convicted of a state-law crime relating to a controlled substance defined in the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 802. Both the Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals sustained that removability determination, concluding that although the Texas statute that formed the basis of Wali’s conviction was broader than the Controlled Substances Act, Wali was removable because the Texas statute under which he was convicted was divisible. After the BIA issued its decision, this court decided Alejos-Perez v. Garland, 991 F.3d 642 (5th Cir. 2021). Under Alejos-Perez, the BIA’s determination that Wali’s statute of conviction was divisible was error. Accordingly, we grant Wali’s petition for review, reverse the BIA’s order, and remand for the BIA to reconsider whether Texas Penalty Group 2-A is divisible in light of Alejos-Perez.”
[Hats off to Amber Gracia for fighting this case since 2018!]
Amber García, Esquire Houston, TX PHOTO: AVVO
*******************
Way to go, Amber! Welcome to the NDPA “star circle!” 🌟 Amber knows “crimigration!” Why doesn’t the BIA?
Why hasn’t Garland brought in better progressive judges? Why does he think the human lives and futures at stake in Immigration Court are expendable? ☠️👎🏽🤮
This is NOT, I repeat NOT, how an “expert court” functions! And, you can’t create and operate an expert court without experts. The “expertise” needed to fix this system is primarily on the outside. Garland needs to make long overdue personnel, leadership, structural, and attitude changes at EOIR! Lives are at stake, and they are “chargeable” to Garland!
🇺🇸DPF!
PWS
08-27-21
ADDENDUM #2
BIA screwups on the x’s and o’s of judicial decision-making continue to “burn up the internet.”
Here’s yet another unpublished rebuke from the 2d Cir. on EOIR’s “any reason to deny worst practices” sent in by my colleague “Sir Jeffrey” Chase of Round Table ⚔️🛡fame:
We conclude that the BIA and IJ erred by relying on an alleged inconsistency between Tamrakar’s testimony before the IJ that the Maoists threatened him and tried to grab him before he escaped and Tamrakar’s statement during his credible fear interview that the Maoists left after threatening him to support its adverse credibility determination without first raising that discrepancy to Tamrakar. That inconsistency was not “self-evident,” Ming Shi Xue, 439 F.3d at 114, because, during the same credible fear interview, Tamrakar stated that the Maoists “tried to grab [him] but [he] ran away from them.” A.R. at 369. This statement was consistent with his testimony. Because the IJ and BIA “relied on the combined force of [three] inconsistencies,” Singh, 2021 WL 3176764, at *7, and did not provide Tamrakar the opportunity to explain one of them, we “cannot confidently predict whether the agency would adhere to [its] determination absent [its] error[].” Id. at *4. Further lessening our confidence, one of the other inconsistencies that the BIA and IJ relied on (whether Tamrakar’s friend accompanied him during the first incident or not) is closely analogous to one that our Court determined gave “no substantial support” to an adverse credibility finding on its own. Id. at *8 (noting that an inconsistency regarding whether a third party accompanied the petitioner to the police station after a key attack could be explained by differing recollections or another innocent explanation). Because we cannot confidently predict what the agency would do absent error, we vacate its decision.
Unfortunately, chronically sloppy work and wrongful denials have become so “routinized” at EOIR that the Circuits don’t even publish many of them any more! But, there are plenty of them out there!
They are just the “tip of the iceberg” of the systemic unfairness, racially-tinged bias, utter disdain for due process, lack of equal justice, unprofessionalism, glaring lack of expertise, and gross abuse of Government resources taking place in “Garland’s Star Chamber/Clown Courts!” Even one of these these is one too many!
The Human Rights advocacy community needs to organize and demand progressive changes from Garland, starting with long-overdue personnel and leadership changes at EOIR! How many more vulnerable individuals will be wrongfully denied or deported before a “responsible government official” (of which there seems to be as distinct shortage at Garland’s DOJ) pulls the plug 🔌 on this ongoing, intolerable human rights and racial justice farce going on at the DOJ!
The Honorable Alejandro N. Mayorkas Secretary of Homeland Security
U.S. Department of Homeland Security Washington, DC 20528
The Honorable Antony Blinken Secretary of State
U.S. Department of State Washington, DC 20520
Dear Secretaries Mayorkas and Blinken:
We write as former senior officials with responsibilities for U.S. refugee and immigration programs at both the federal and state levels.
There is no question that the current situation in Afghanistan demands a significant, substantial, and generous U.S. humanitarian response, including through urgent action to evacuate Afghans who have been associated with the United States presence in Afghanistan as well as Afghans at serious and severe risk due to their participation and leadership in activities that were strongly supported and endorsed by the United States. Such activities have included promoting the rights of women and girls, leadership of civil society organizations and initiatives, involvement in journalism, and engagement in the arts, among others.
Under current exigent circumstances, we believe that the administration should use the broadest array of authorities to secure the rescue of Afghans and to provide resettlement in the United States and other countries, as part of an international responsibility-sharing effort.
In this respect, we want in particular to convey our support for use of the parole authority as one critical tool, especially to supplement authorities of the Refugee Act, which—while crucially important—may prove in some respects to be too limited and cumbersome to address fully the urgent and emergency situation.
As you know, 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A), vests in the Secretary of DHS the discretionary authority to grant parole for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit to applicants for admission temporarily on a case-by- case basis. To be sure, in 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(B), Congress limited the parole authority by restricting its use with respect to those who are refugees, unless the Secretary determines that ‘‘compelling reasons in the public interest with respect to that particular alien require that the alien be paroled . . . rather than be admitted as a refugee.”
The current situation in Afghanistan surely constitutes such a compelling reason, in light of the life-threatening circumstances for would-be applicants and the inability of the U.S. Refugee Admissions program to quickly accommodate the requirements of rescue. Of course, parole is not an end in itself, but would permit further processing through available statutory or administrative mechanisms.
2
Moreover, whatever the respective requirements and benefits of both case-by-case decision- making and the establishment of regulations authorizing a particular program, it has long been acknowledged and accepted that administrations may identify particular groups of individuals who may be eligible for consideration of parole.
Thus, we believe it important to convey our support for your use of this authority, and our willingness to support you in any way possible in the challenging days, weeks, and months ahead.
Sincerely,
T. Alexander Aleinikoff
Former General Counsel and subsequently Executive Associate Commissioner for Programs, Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) (1994–1997)
Mette Brogden
Former Wisconsin State Refugee Coordinator (2010–2016)
Bo Cooper
Former General Counsel, INS (1999–2003)
Paul Stein
Former Colorado State Refugee Coordinator (2005–2014)
Stephen H. Legomsky
Former Senior Counselor to Secretary of Homeland Security (2015)
Former Chief Counsel, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) (2011–2013)
Hiram Ruiz
Former Florida State Refugee Coordinator (2008–2015)
David A. Martin
Former Principal Deputy General Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (2009–2010) Former General Counsel, INS (1995-1998)
Maria Otero
Former Undersecretary of State for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights (2009–2013)
Anne C. Richard
Former Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration (2012–2017)
Myrta (Chris) Sale
Former Acting Commissioner, INS (1997) Former Deputy Commissioner, INS (1997–1999)
Paul Wickham Schmidt
Former Chair, Board of Immigration Appeals (1995–2001)
Former Acting General Counsel, INS (1979–1981; 1986–1987)
Eric Schwartz
Former Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration (2009–2011) Former National Security Council Director for Human Rights, Refugees, and Humanitarian Affairs and subsequently Senior Director for Multilateral and Humanitarian Affairs (1993–2001)
Samuel Witten
Former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, U.S. Department of State (2007–2010)
Former Deputy Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (2001–2007)
*****************************
Many thanks to Eric Schwartz and Alex Aleinikofffor spearheading this effort! I’m so proud and honored to be a member of this distinguished group and to speak up for the lives and safety of those in peril.
This, of course, supports the recent LA Times op-ed from our good friend Professor Karen Musalo of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at Hastings Law, which I recently republished:
PANEL: MARTIN (Obama), NEWSOM (Trump), and BRANCH (Trump), Circuit Judges.
OPINION BY: Judge Branch
DISSENT: Judge Martin
KEY QUOTES FROM DISSENT:
The majority opinion gives no more consideration to Mr. Murugan’s claims
and individualized evidence than did the Board of Immigration Appeals and the Immigration Judge. That is to say not much consideration at all.
Mr. Murugan produced evidence that in October 2018, the Sri Lankan government changed drastically when the former president, who had been accused of authorizing war crimes and other human rights abuses against Tamils “blindsided” political observers and “sudden[ly]” returned as prime minister. Because Mr. Murugan is a member of the Tamil ethnic group, his attorney brought up these facts at the hearing before the IJ. But the IJ took no notice of this evidence, finding that Mr. Murugan’s country conditions evidence was outdated because it included materials related to the former president’s rule from 2014 to 2016. Mr. Murugan argued to the BIA that the IJ improperly disregarded these new facts, because they were relevant to what treatment the Tamils could expect from the newly returned prime minister. Even so, the BIA mechanically adopted the IJ’s decision that Mr. Murugan’s evidence was outdated. Mr. Murugan has now tried a third time, pointing out the significance of this evidence in his brief before this Court.
The majority opinion, like the IJ and the BIA, fails to engage with this
evidence. But I see it as substantial and highly probative evidence of a pattern or 19
USCA11 Case: 19-13715 Date Filed: 08/24/2021 Page: 20 of 34
practice of government persecution of Tamils. Because I believe Mr. Murugan met his burden of showing he had a well-founded fear of future persecution based on the Sri Lankan government’s practice of persecuting Tamils, I would grant him relief on this claim.
. . . .
When this Court is tasked with reviewing a decision of the BIA, we must
actually review it, albeit with deference. This majority opinion may condemn Mr. Murugan to extreme persecution in Sri Lanka because it failed to actually examine the evidence of recent political changes in that country. When a dictator with a well-documented history of persecuting an ethnic group returns to power, surely
33
USCA11 Case: 19-13715 Date Filed: 08/24/2021 Page: 34 of 34
our law does not require a member of that group wait to again experience persecution before he can claim asylum. Mr. Murugan has met his burden here. I respectfully dissent.
************
I encourage everyone to read Judge Martin’s complete dissent. By contrast, Judge Elizabeth Branch’s majority opinion is a vapid, disingenuous, piece of right-wing legal sophistry. As my colleague, Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase observed, Branch was “Associate General Counsel for Rules and Legislation, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in 2004-2005,” during the Bush II Administration.
Judge Martin will retire from the bench on September 30, 2021, thus giving President Biden a chance to appoint her replacement. So, this might be her last immigration opinion.
Judge Martin calls out her intellectually dishonest Trumpy colleagues and accurately characterizes BIA review as no review at all. (Actually, it’s worse than no review, because the BIA sometimes reverses correct IJ asylum grants and rewrites decisions to make it easier for OIL to defend bad denials.)
No matter how poorly they perform their judicial duties (the majority decision in this case certainly stands out as one of many low points in recent American jurisprudence) Trump’s and McConnell’s far righty Article IIIs enjoy lifetime sinecures.
But, EOIR “judges,” particularly after the last two decades of political interference with any semblance of “judicial independence,” enjoy no such exalted lifetime protection. As DOJ keeps pointing out, they are “mere Government attorneys” who can be reassigned to a wide range of attorney positions at the discretion of the AttorneyGeneral.
Thus Garland could, and should, remove and reassign poorly qualified judges and replace them with real, well-qualified expert progressive judges who understand asylum law, will fairly apply it, will issue some positive asylum precedents, and will control the “Asylum Deniers Club” operating in Immigration Courts throughout America. The dysfunction, institutionalized unfairness, and “worst practices,” are particularly acute after four years of poor judicial selections, a BIA packed with anti-asylum zealots, and defective training by biased, anti-asylum AGs under fatally flawed and discriminatory selection procedures
Judge Martin “gets it.” How come nobody on Team Garland does?
As we can see, from the Supremes to the “retail level” at the Immigration Courts, the consequences of poor right-wing judging fall most heavily on migrants, women, children, and people of color. Progressives could change that around at EOIR. But, Judge Garland doesn’t seem up to the job, as the opportunity for long overdue, systemic, life saving changes at EOIR continues to slip through his fingers!
The Supreme Court on Tuesday said the Biden administration must comply with a lower court’s ruling to reinstate President Donald Trump’s policy that required many asylum seekers to wait outside the United States for their cases to be decided.
The administration had asked the court to put on hold a federal judge’s order that the “Remain in Mexico” policy known as Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) had to be immediately reimplemented. U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ruled earlier this month that the Biden administration did not provide an adequate reason for getting rid of the policy and that its procedures regarding asylum seekers who enter the country were unlawful.
Over the objections of the three liberal justices, the court’s conservative majority agreed that the administration had not done enough to justify changing the policy.
The administration “failed to show a likelihood of success on the claim that the memorandum rescinding the Migrant Protection Protocols was not arbitrary and capricious,” the court said in a short, unsigned order. In such emergency matters, the court often does not elaborate on its reasoning.
It said Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan would have granted the administration’s request. The three also gave no reason.
The action could be an ominous sign for the new administration. The court is considering a request that it dissolve the pandemic-related evictions moratorium implemented by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about which the court’s most conservative justices have already expressed skepticism.
The court often showed deference to the Trump administration in such emergency matters, including when the MPP was first implemented.
. . . .
*************
Read Robert’s full article at the link.
“Floaters — How The World’s Richest Country Responds To Asylum Seekers” — Supremes’ GOP majority makes it clear that it considers asylum seekers of color as something less than human, whose rights and lives simply don’t matter! They are expendable, according to elite ivory tower righty jurists who don’t even give asylees lives a thought and condemn them without rationale. Not their kids, not anyone they can relate to. 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)
Not too surprising, given the Roberts Court’s fairly consistent disregard for human rights, the rule of law, the Due Process Clause of the Constitution, and ill-concealed contempt for racial justice and people of color! They had already gone “belly up” on MPP after it was properly blocked by lower Federal Courts during the Trump regime.
It’s going to be a long four years for American democracy, human rights, and individuals of color if the Dems can’t get it together, eliminate the filibuster, and enact some legislation while they are still in control of all three branches. But, it’s the Dems, so don’t count on much besides some hand-wringing and feckless rhetoric.
And to be fair, the Biden Administration’s continuedlawless use of Title 42 to suspend the rule of law for many at the border compliments both the Trump regime’s xenophobic policies and the Supremes’ dissing of people of color. Dred Scott is still alive and kicking in 21st Century America, even as our nation grows more diverse.
🇺🇸Due Process Forever!
PWS
08-24-21
ADDENDUM:
As recently posted by Dean Kevin Johnson on ImmigrationProf Blog:
“Thousands of people have suffered the horrible consequences of the Migrant Protection Protocols. The Supreme Court has now upheld the Texas court’s decision and, instead of keeping MPP a stain in the history books, it will continue to be a present-day disaster.
“Forcing vulnerable families and children to wait in provisional camps in Mexico puts their lives at risk, while also making it nearly impossible for them to access the asylum process. The Biden administration can and must work to terminate the policy again immediately. Rather than turning away people fleeing harm, we should ensure people have a fair day in court.”
Inside the Gulag — PHOTO: Creative Commons In the fine tradition of Josef Stalin, like US Presidents before him, President Biden finds it useful to have a “due process free zone” to stash people of color and other “undesirables” whose “crime” is to demand due process under law! How subversive!
The Supreme Court has decided a number of immigrant detention cases in recent years. Next Term brings another case. Alyssa Aquino for Law360 reports that the Court agreed today to review a Ninth Circuit decision that required bond hearings for immigrants who have been detained for more than six months with final removal orders. A split ruled that the Immigration and Nationality Act requires the federal government to hold bond hearings for detained migrants, and that the government bears the burden of proving that detainees are a flight risk or public safety threat.
Notice any difference between the Biden-Harris campaign rhetoric and actual performance once elected?
Never know when a “due process free zone” where individuals not charged with crimes can be detained forever without individualized bond determinations will be a handy hammer to have in your toolbox!
And, don’t forget those huge profits being raked in by the private detention industry, so beloved by DHS and politicos who receive contributions and can tout the “job creation” in the Gulag! Also, states and localities who rent out substandard prison space on questionable contracts love the Gulag!
Significantly, none of the lower court decisions the Biden Administration seeks to overturn requires the release of anyone! Nope! All the lower courts have done is to give the “civil prisoners” a right to plead their cases for release and to require the Government to provide an individualized rationale for continued indefinite detention! Sure sounds like simple due process to me!
Maybe, if Garland, Mayorkas, and the Supremes had a chance to spend a few “overnights in the Gulag” they would take the Fifth Amendment’s application to people of color in our nation and pleading for their lives at our borders more seriously!
🇺🇸Due Process Forever! The “New American Gulag,” Never!
Honorable Elizabeth Young Assistant Chief Immigration Judge
My good friend Professor Alberto Benitez @ GW Immigration Clinic reports:
Friends,
I’m pleased to share the news that our friend, colleague, and alum Elizabeth L. Young was appointed an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge in the Executive Office for Immigration Review of the US Department of Justice. While at GW Judge Young was a student in my Immigration Law I course, a student-attorney in the Immigration Clinic, and later interim director of the Immigration Clinic during my leave. The press release link follows.
Many congrats to Assistant Chief Judge Young. Significantly, Judge Young has a 72% asylum grant rate that has remained consistent even during the Trump-era meltdown of due process and institution of the “asylum denial culture” and anti-asylum precedents and procedures in the Immigration Courts. That assault on justice, humanity, and the rule of law drove a once higher than 50% nationwide grant rate down to an artificially-low and intentionally unfair 33%.
As all NDPA warriors know, asylum adjudication at EOIR over the past four years has become a deadly national disgrace, as yet largely unaddressed by Judge Garland, whose dozens of inexplicably lackluster appointments to the Immigration Courts to date have drawn ire and fire from human rights experts.
Assistant Chief Judge Young immediately becomes one of the few “beacons of due process, best practices, and proper asylum adjudication” in a leadership position at EOIR. Hopefully, there will be more to follow! Make no mistake, EOIR is in “meltdown mode.”
ELIE MYSTAL, Justice Correspondent, writes in The Nation:
. . . .
The opinion is thorough and well-reasoned, and Judge Du’s arguments are so obvious in retrospect that it’s kind of amazing they aren’t a staple of the immigration debate in this country. But this is where Judge Du’s background perhaps becomes important.
DONATE NOW TO POWER THE NATION.
Readers like you make our independent journalism possible.
Miranda Du was born in Ca Mau, Vietnam, in 1969. Her family fled the nation after the Vietnam War when she was 9, first to Malaysia, before eventually making its way to Alabama. She went to Berkeley for law school and was an employment lawyer in Nevada when Harry Reid and Barack Obama made her a federal district judge in 2011. I would imagine that Judge Du looks at the US immigration system with a fresh perspective, at least as compared to a person like me, who was born here and has been taught to just accept a background level of bigotry as an immutable fact of immigration law. One of the more striking parts of her opinion in this case is the section in which she calls out other courts for not doing this sooner. She essentially says that courts in other jurisdictions that have looked at Section 1326 have blindly accepted the government’s reasoning that the 1952 reauthorization cleansed the statute of its racial bias, without really looking at the 1952 Congress.
The opinion is brilliant, and I’m going to print it out so I’ll still have a copy of it when Justice Samuel Alito and the other conservatives on the Supreme Court reverse it and order Du’s opinion to be nuked from orbit. There is, practically speaking, no chance this ruling survives Supreme Court review. The high court will skate over the disparate impact analysis by saying that any person, regardless of race, who crosses the southern border will experience the same over-enforcement. Or the court will reverse the ruling of racist intent by finding, as other courts have, that the 1952 Congress did cleanse the statute of racism. Or they’ll find that the government does have a legitimate and permissible interest in discriminating against southern border crossers. After all, the Supreme Court found bigotry to be okay in Trump v. Hawaii, which upheld the Muslim ban, so finding a reason to uphold Section 1326 will be child’s play for the conservatives who like a little bigotry in their immigration rulings.
And that’s if the case even makes it to the Supreme Court, which it probably won’t. Judge Du’s ruling will first be appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and I could see it getting reversed there. It’s unlikely that other liberal judges will even want to open this can of worms. As I said, Judge Du relies on a disparate impact analysis, and I can think of at least three Supreme Court justices who might be in the mood to overturn disparate impact analysis altogether.
Judge Du is right about the bigotry inherent in our immigration laws, but conservatives like the bigotry and liberals will be afraid that trying to stop it will just piss off the conservatives.
But at least this opinion exists now. It’s out there, and future lawyers and judges can read it and maybe think differently about the core assumptions at the heart of our immigration system. A lone federal judge cannot stop 100 years of bigoted policies, but if you want to know what a truly progressive legal analysis looks like, Judge Du just spelled one out.
Now, President Biden just needs to read it and go out and nominate 100 judges who agree.
***************
Read the full article at the link.
Biden could start by telling Garland to “redo” the U.S. Immigration Courts with well-qualified, expert, progressive judges in the “ Chief Judge Miranda Du” image!
Different backgrounds and new, “real life” perspectives! That’s why two decades of appointments of almost exclusively prosecutors and government bureaucrats, to the exclusion of human rights experts and advocates, to the Immigration Judiciary has produced such unfair and disastrous results for humanity and American law! Similar to other “blind spots” in American law, it has also created misery and cost innocent lives.
For the most part, judges of all philosophies hate being confronted with “ugly truths” about the system they are a part of. Consequently, the impetus to sweep historical truth and logical legal reasoning under the carpet when it produces uncomfortable, unpopular, and highly controversial results is overwhelming on all sides of the judicial spectrum, with the exception of a few “brave souls” like Chief Judge Du.
One of the most obvious and disgraceful of these “dodges,” is the abject failure of the Article IIIs to confront head on the clear Fifth Amendment unconstitutionality of the Executive’s “captive Immigration Courts,” particularly as currently staffed and still operating in “Miller Lite, White Nationalist mode.”
But, courageous decisions like this will be a part of our permanent legal history and come back to haunt today’s go along to get along Federal Judges, at all levels!
From “Letters From An American:”
