"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.
“In sum, we conclude that the BIA abused its discretion in two respects: it departed from established policy when it failed either to apply the Sanchez Sosa factors or to remand to allow the IJ do so, and it failed to provide a rational explanation for its decision, including its treatment of this court’s binding precedent in Caballero-Martinez. … We grant the petition for review, vacate the BIA’s May 2020 order, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
[Hats off to David L. Wilson and amici Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota, ASISTA Immigration Assistance Project and National Network To End Domestic Violence!]
*******************************
Folks, all of this nonsense, delay, needless litigation, and remarkable legal/judicial incompetence was for the “purpose” of denying a well-deserved continuance to a U visa applicant — what should have been about a 5-minute positive adjudication, at max. No wonder the Federal Courts are clogged, the EOIR backlog grows, and the system has lost all respect and credibility!
I wish that Lucas Guttentag, Lisa Monaco, Vanita Gupta, and Merrick Garland would explain to all of us what is the purpose of an “expert tribunal” that lacks expertise, fundamental legal skills, judicial independence, moral courage, and common sense, as well as the backbone to have stood up to folks like Sessions and Barr (see, e.g., the Census Bureau career civil servants for stark contrast).
EOIR needs, among other things, changes at the top, real courageous progressive leadership, and a new, well-qualified, progressive, practical, expert BIA that puts due process and fair adjudication above all else. The practical experts are out there! Lucas knows exactly who should be leaders, role models, and appellate judges at the BIA! He knows that EOIR is the one critically important Federal Judiciary that can be transformed in the short run into a progressive, due-process-focused, “model judiciary!” Every day wasted in making the necessary changes in personnel and procedures is a life-changing, life-preserving opportunity wasted!
So, what’s the delay? Why is this nonsense, injustice, and waste of resources continuing nearly seven months into the Biden Administration? What’s with the continuing, due-process-denying, corner-cutting, sophomoric “denial quotas” for EOIR “judges” that produce wasteful, unjust “garbage adjudications” like this litigation exemplifies?
Lucas Guttentag Senior Counselor to the Deputy Attorney General
It shouldn’t be this hard to get long, long overdue, well-documented, common sense, readily achievable changes at EOIR! It shouldn’t be this hard for asylum seekers and other migrants, as well as their long-suffering representatives, to get the due process and fair and impartial adjudication that is their absolute right under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to our Constitution!
USCIS has a new Director. Ur Mendoza Jaddou is the daughter of a Mexican immigrant and an Iraqi immigrant. She started her career on Capitol Hill working for pro-immigrant Congresswoman (and former immigration attorney) Zoe Lofgren, and later served in the Department of Homeland Security during the Obama Administration. Ms. Jaddou spent her Trump-Administration exile as a law professor at American University. Earlier this year, President Biden nominated her to direct USCIS. The Senate confirmed her nomination on July 30, 2021 and she assumed the directorship last week.
In her first news release, Director Jaddou states–
As a proud American and a daughter of immigrants, I am deeply humbled and honored to return to USCIS as director. I look forward to leading a team of dedicated public servants committed to honoring the aspirations of people like my parents and millions of others who are proud to choose this country as their own. USCIS embodies America’s welcoming spirit as a land of opportunity for all and a place where possibilities are realized.
Since January, USCIS has taken immediate steps to reduce barriers to legal immigration, increase accessibility for immigration benefits, and reinvigorate the size and scope of humanitarian relief. As USCIS director, I will work each and every day to ensure our nation’s legal immigration system is managed in a way that honors our heritage as a nation of welcome and as a beacon of hope to the world; reducing unnecessary barriers and supporting our agency’s modernization.
As we look to the future, I am excited for the work ahead and ready to roll up my sleeves to implement Secretary Mayorkas’ goals and the priorities of the Biden-Harris Administration to ensure that the work of USCIS lives up to our nation’s highest values.
I do not know Director Jaddou personally, but I have heard good things about her for several years now, and so her appointment is a cause for optimism. That said, she has her work cut out for her. From my perspective as an asylum attorney, USCIS is a disaster. There are so many problems that need fixing, it is difficult to know where to begin. Luckily, I am here to offer some suggestions. These will focus on asylum and “asylum adjacent” issues. Without further ado, here are ten great ideas for Director Jaddou–
The new USCIS Director, Ur Jaddou, reveals her plan for the agency.
Say Goodbye to LIFO and Hello to FIFO: I’ve written extensively about the unfair and unpredictable nature of the “Last In, First Out” system for affirmative asylum interviews. Due to LIFO, asylum applicants who filed years ago have still not received an interview and have little hope of ever seeing their cases resolved. Living in these uncertain circumstances, often separated from family members, is psychologically traumatizing. We need a system that is fair and predictable, so applicants and their attorneys know when to expect an interview and have time to prepare in advance. FIFO (“First In, First Out”) and the Asylum Office Scheduling Bulletin provides more predictability and more notice to asylum seekers. While we’re discussing asylum interviews, we also need rules about expediting asylum cases, so those with the most compelling needs are able to schedule their interviews more quickly.
Reasonable Security Background Checks: Security background checks at the Asylum Office often cause significant delays. Sometimes, these delays stretch on for years, with no real explanation. The worst affected people seem to be men from Muslim countries, but others suffer from these delays as well. We never see such delays in Immigration Court. Why? According to a former Asylum Division Director, it’s because there are different systems at the Asylum Office and in court. These systems should be harmonized so that background checks for asylum cases are completed in the same timely manner as background checks in court.
Overhaul the Texas Service Center: The TSC is a nightmare. Processing times are through the roof (for example, the processing time for an I-485 is up to 62.5 months or 5+ years! Contrast that to the processing time for the same form at the NSC, which is “only” 17 months). The TSC also routinely rejects cases for nonsensical or incorrect reasons. They sometimes “disappear” cases, and Valhalla help you if you ever want to add a dependent to an existing asylum case. These problems and others have been ongoing for years. It’s time–in fact, long past time–for a top to bottom re-do of the TSC.
Reform the Forms: USCIS forms are inconsistent with each other, confusing, too long, and culturally insensitive. I’ve written more extensively about this problem, but the short answer is that the forms need a major overhaul. While we’re at it, maybe we can make all forms available for online filing.
Asylum Office Websites: Speaking of online, it’s high time that the Asylum Offices had functional, informative websites that actually help asylum seekers understand the process and navigate the system. In fact, a few years ago, I offered a re-design of the Asylum Office website. Now would be a terrific time to implement my ideas!
Extend the Validity of the Refugee Travel Document: The RTD is valid for only one year. If you want to renew this document before your current RTD expires, you have to mail in the original (unexpired) RTD. As a result, asylees (and lawful permanent residents who received status through asylum) are left with long periods of time when they are either prevented from traveling or are forced to use their home country passport, which could have negative implications for their status. Why not make the RTD valid for five or 10 years? That would give asylees and refugees the ability to safely travel and return to the United States.
Make Advance Parole Easier: For most applicants with an asylum case pending, the only way to travel outside the U.S. and return is with Advance Parole. Unfortunately, AP is difficult to get because an applicant must show a “humanitarian” need for the travel, and USCIS can be strict on this point. Also, the AP document is valid for unpredictable periods of time. There was a time, during the salad days of the Obama Administration, when USCIS basically accepted any “humanitarian” reason as valid for travel. We should return to that system. Also, the AP document should be issued for a longer period of time and for multiple trips. AP would be less necessary if asylum cases took months. But they take years. And asylum seekers often have very valid and important reasons for travel, even if those reasons do not always meet USCIS’s definition of “humanitarian.”
Make EADs Easier: Last summer, the Trump Administration made it more difficult for asylum applicants to get their EADs. The change has been partly blocked by a court, but it is still significantly more work for an asylum applicant to get an EAD today, and some applications are being rejected. Also, the processing time for EADs keeps getting longer, and so many people are left with gaps in work eligibility when they try to renew their work permits. USCIS should return to the pre-Trump system for obtaining an EAD while asylum is pending. Also, because processing times are so long, applicants should be permitted to apply earlier for their initial EAD and their renewals. Better yet, USCIS should just send an EAD to every asylum applicant automatically and this EAD should be valid for the duration of the asylum case (dare to dream!).
Automatic Green Cards for Asylees: It should not take years for an asylee to obtain a Green Card. All asylees have undergone extensive investigation and background checks. Also, many asylees have already spent years waiting to obtain asylum. USCIS should be able to quickly process Green Card applications for such people. Even better, USCIS should automatically issue the Green Card after one year with asylum (and an updated background check).
Prioritize Follow-to-Join Asylee Petitions: Many people who receive asylum have been separated from close family members for years. Often times, those family members are living in unsafe conditions. Currently, the I-730 process is very slow (processing times range from 15 to 28 months + additional time for consular processing). These cases should be given a higher priority by USCIS, so asylee families can be re-united as quickly as possible.
So there you have it. If you have additional ideas, please leave them in the comments below. You never know who might see them. And to Director Jaddou, if you are reading this, I am sorry to give you so much homework! And thank you in advance.
**********************
As we know, the “Trump/Miller Era” Directors of USCIS, Cissna & Rogue (Non)Director “Cooch Cooch the Illegal” worked diligently to eradicate all vestiges of “customer service” from the USCIS “mission.” They turned it into an incompetent and highly inefficient adjunct of ICE Enforcement, even while squandering resources to such an amazing extent that what once had been a self-supporting service agency, one of the few in Government,became a bankrupt “budget black hole.”
Of course, focusing USCIS primarily on enforcement was also a direct contradiction of the Congressional intent in placing immigration enforcement and immigration benefits in separate agencies when dismembering the “Legacy INS” and establishing DHS!
Many of the best suggestions for achievable fixes and improvements to the Federal immigration bureaucracy come from practitioners who deal with its “mission failure” on a daily basis. Sadly, these practical suggestions all too often are pushed aside in favor of preconceived bureaucratic assumptions, ideological agendas (see, Trump kakistocracy), political goals often largely unrelated to immigration, and unrealistic “blueprints” that have little relation to either reality or practicality.
I hope that Ur will listen to “practical experts” like Jason and others and make the very achievable changes necessary to restore customer service and some semblance of order and lawfulness to our legal immigration system at USCIS.
For the reasons provided above, in absentia orders involving proceedings commenced through a defective NTA are rendered invalid by Niz-Chavez. This is true whether the Board ultimately determines that the decision impacts the Immigration Courts’ jurisdiction, or is in the alternative a claim-processing rule.
**************************
Thanks so much, “Sir Jeffrey,” my friend and colleague!
Unfortunately, the recent practice of the BIA has been to construe Supreme Court decisions favoring respondents narrowly against them in Immigration Court. Thus, the BIA has needlessly protracted litigation, produced conflicting results, and lessened justice, all while dramatically increasing backlogs. We’ll see whether that practice, apparently designed to appease and please DHS Enforcement and litigators at the DOJ, holds true here.
Additionally, the status quo does not guarantee that no one will be present in the United States without permission. In fact, with the plenary power doctrine in place, there are approximately 10 million individuals living in the United States without permission. (And most of them crossed the border legally, entering the territory with legal authorization for some period that expired.) Despite this, the United States continues to exist. Noncitizens, however, are denied more independent adjudicators under the false idea that by denying them we somehow protect the nation’s sovereignty. These are complex lives interwoven with our communities, businesses, schools, and the lives of US citizens. The failure to provide fair process affects more than just the noncitizen; in fact, it degrades our democracy and affects us all.
Perhaps the sovereignty fear is shorthand for something else? Is it an objection to multiculturalism? The reflection of a desire to give the president power to thwart statutory immigration law? Or perhaps courts and policymakers have been invoking the phrase “plenary power” for so long that it has become an out of date, knee-jerk reaction.
Sovereignty and foreign policy will remain intact even with more independent immigration adjudication. The sovereignty fear is a distraction from what really needs our attention; we should not let it stop us from providing fair process.
*******************
The threat to our democracy hardly comes from those seeking legal refuge to save their lives or to find meaningful work to support their families and contribute to society.A more robust and fair legal immigration system would assist in identifying the relatively small percentage of migrants who seek to do us harm.
No, the bigger threat comes from GOP neo-fascist insurrectionists and their spineless political enablers who actively seek to undermine our democracy with lies and White Nationalist racism.
In a more functional system, Professor Family and those like her who understand and are committed to the “big picture” of American democracy and equal justice for all would be the Appellate Immigration Judges and Article III Judges — jurists ready and willing to stand up to Executive abuses of authority! The Immigration Courts should be the “starting place” for restoring and reinforcing American democracy. Does the Biden Administration have the vision and guts to make it happen?
USCIS: Individuals applying for Haiti TPS must submit Form I-821, Application for Temporary Protected Status, during the 18-month initial registration period that runs from Aug. 3, 2021, through Feb. 3, 2023. Haiti TPS applicants are eligible to file Form I-821 online.
TRAC: The number of new cases continues to severely outpace the rate at which judges can keep up, resulting in a growing backlog that is approaching 1.4 million.
ImmProf: A Biden administration official announced last week that the government has processed green card applications at such a slow pace that it will come at least 100,000 slots short of using up the annual limit. Without drastic revisions in the glacial processing times, President Biden will have presided over one of the largest cuts to legal immigration in U.S. history — and almost no one is talking about it.
AIC: All told, available data shows that ICE arrested 674 potential U.S. citizens, detained 121, and deported 70 during the time frame the government watchdog analyzed.
NYT: Mr. Biden said on Thursday night that White House staff were “putting out a message right now” that “we should include in the reconciliation bill the immigration proposal.”
Hill: Although the document is deeply critical of the Trump administration, it leads with border management, relegating the Biden administration’s “root causes” initiative to the last section.
Vox: [D]iversity visa lottery winners who applied for visas amid the Covid-19 pandemic now risk losing their opportunity to come to the US — in part because the State Department has continued the Trump-era policy of deprioritizing their applications.
Buzzfeed: Thirty-two unaccompanied immigrant children who were deported to Guatemala despite a judge’s order have yet to be brought back to the US to apply for asylum, six months after the government admitted it was in the wrong. Now, immigration advocates are ramping up pressure on the Biden administration to speed up the process.
Reuters: Garland’s letter comes just a day after Abbott signed the order, which states that “no person, other than a federal, state, or local law-enforcement official, shall provide ground transportation to a group of migrants” who have been detained by federal immigration officials for crossing the border.
AP: Unless there’s a legal challenge or other exception, ICE’s options are to either transfer current detainees in Illinois to other states or release them.
WaPo: “The IRS is aware some taxpayers who filed tax returns with ITIN numbers did not receive their child tax credit payment for July. We have worked expeditiously to correct this issue and these taxpayers will start receiving payments in August. All impacted taxpayers will receive their July payment.”
Advance copy of USCIS notice announcing the designation of Haiti for Temporary Protected Status for 18 months, effective 8/3/21 through 2/3/23. The notice will be published in the Federal Register on 8/3/21. AILA Doc. No. 21073002
Lexis: Matter of Aguilar-Barajas, 28 I&N Dec. 354 (BIA 2021) (1) The offense of aggravated statutory rape under section 39-13-506(c) of the Tennessee Code Annotated is categorically a “crime of child abuse” within the meaning of section 237(a)(2)(E)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) (2018). (2) The Supreme Court’s holding that a statutory rape offense does not…
Law360: The Eighth Circuit refused on Thursday to review a Honduran man’s bid for deportation relief reserved for victims of child abuse, saying the government had discretion to decide he didn’t deserve exemption because of his criminal history.
Law360: A split Ninth Circuit panel denied a Mexican woman’s petition for review of her deportation, which was previously blocked due to the ambiguous nature of her drug conviction, citing a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that an unclear conviction alone cannot save an applicant’s case.
Lexis: Maie v. Garland “Maie’s petition contends that his petty theft convictions are not categorically CIMTs. The government’s initial response argued only that Maie failed to preserve this argument. For reasons explained more fully below, we conclude that Maie’s argument was not waived. Because Maie’s argument presents an issue we have yet to address in a published opinion, we ordered supplemental…
Lexis: Romero v. Garland “Romero had been admitted before he applied for adjustment of status. Thus, he is not now an “applicant for admission,” and therefore the “clearly and beyond doubt” burden does not apply. Rather, the “preponderance of the evidence” burden from 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d) applies. … [W]e remand for the BIA to reconsider whether Romero met his burden to show by…
Law360: An LGBTQ American expat is closing down her lawsuit seeking to obtain citizenship for her daughter born overseas, following a policy change from the Biden administration that allowed the child to secure a passport even though she’s not biologically related to a U.S. citizen.
AILA: The United States filed a lawsuit in federal district court against Texas and its governor, Greg Abbott, alleging that the governor’s 7/28/21 executive order relating to the transportation of certain migrants during the COVID-19 pandemic is unlawful. (United States v. Texas, et al., 7/30/21) AILA Doc. No. 21080239
Politico: The American Civil Liberties Union on Monday announced it will resume a lawsuit against the Biden administration to force an end to the use of a provision of U.S. health code known as Title 42 to expel migrant families arriving at the border.
AILA: DHS announced that it resumed expedited removal flights for certain families who recently arrived at the southern border, cannot be expelled under Title 42, and do not have a legal basis to stay in the United States. CBP returned individuals to Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. AILA Doc. No. 21080231
AILA: DOS announced that certain Afghan nationals and their eligible family members are now eligible for a Priority 2 designation granting U.S. Refugee Admissions Program access. Notice outlines eligibility. AILA Doc. No. 21080240
AILA: USCIS announced the opening of a new asylum office in Tampa, Florida on August 2, 2021, in response to an increasing asylum workload in Florida. This is the 11th asylum office in the country and the second in Florida. The Tampa and Miami asylum offices will divide the state’s asylum workload.AILA Doc. No. 21080238
AILA: DHS published its semiannual regulatory agenda providing a summary of projected regulations, existing regulations, and completed actions of DHS and its components. (86 FR 41226, 7/30/21) AILA Doc. No. 21080237
Immigration Court backlogs continue to mushroom as Garland to date has failed to take the aggressive measures needed and recommended to slash the docket by getting so-called “non-priority” cases off the docket (see, e.g., “Chen/Moskowitz proposal”) and bringing in more “progressive practical scholar judges” who know how to complete cases without compromising due process;
Biden’s announced support for “immigration legislation by reconciliation” might be the best shot for an Article I Immigration Court — is it an “idea whose time has finally come” as Judge Dana Leigh Marks, long-time Article I advocate, said recently;
Biden Administration mindlessly chooses to go to war with ACLU and human rights advocates on continued abuse of Title 42 to suspend asylum at the border (why not instead enlist these experts to restore a functioning asylum system at the border?);
ICE evidently has been deporting U.S. citizens, and not just “one or two;”
Circuits continue to “ding” BIA on basics like standard of proof, categorical approach;
Lucas Guttentag arrives on the scene @ DOJ not a moment too soon— but he’ll need lots of expert help on the inside to “right this sinking ship;”
Haste makes waste once again, as Gov. drags feet on returning 32 illegally removed children, spurring yet more unnecessary litigation (what about getting it right the first time around? — saves time and resources, also lives!);
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2021/07/lets-call-the-border-crisis-what-it-is-another-big-lie-from-the-right.html is also a “good read.” It seems pretty obvious, as many of us have been saying over and over, that having no legal system for screening and admitting refugees would add to the number of apprehensions and illegal entries — what other choice do desperate refugees have under the dysfunctional system maliciously created by Trump and mindlessly and illegally being maintained by Biden? Blaming the “victims” for our Government’s own intellectually dishonest, scofflaw, and immoral actions is a particularly cowardly thing to do! After nearly seven months in office (and over two months to prepare after the election) there is no excuse for the Biden Administration’s failure to have in place a fair and efficient asylum system, staffed by experts and better IJs who understand asylum and protection laws and are willing and well-qualified to grant relief to the deserving! Properly screening and establishing an orderly, fair adjudication system, with the assistance of NGOs and legal aid groups across the nation, would take pressure off of border communities. It would also allow qualified asylum seekers to become legal residents and begin fully contributing to our society and economy. Almost all experts, economists, and demographers say we need more legal immigration. Here it is staring us in the face; but, our Government wastes time and resources futilely trying to deter and expel folks who can help us out (while saving their own lives — a “win-win”)!
Immigration Court, where hundreds of judges daily preside over wrenching decisions, including matters of family separation, detention, and even life and death, is structurally and functionally unsound. Closures during the pandemic, coupled with unprecedented backlogs, low morale, and both procedural and substantive damage inflicted by the Trump Administration, have created a full-fledged crisis. The Court’s critics call for radical reforms. That is unlikely to happen. Instead, the Biden Administration is returning to a go-to, cure-all solution: adding 100 Immigration Court judges and support personnel[1] to help address the backlog that now approaches 1.3 million cases.[2]
No one could oppose effective reform or additional resources. Nor could anyone oppose practical case management changes that do not require legislation and that could expedite and professionalize the practice in Immigration Court. Linked with a more transparent and more inclusive process for selecting Immigration Judges, these changes would make the Immigration Courts more efficient, more accurate and fairer but not at the expense of the compelling humanitarian stakes in the daily work of the Court. Immediate changes that do not require legislation but do require the will to transform the practice and culture of the Court would be a major step forward in improving the experiences and the outcomes in Immigration Court.
. . . .
Is there a life preserver on this sinking ship? Courts reopening following the pandemic are facing an unprecedented backlog with cases already postponed years into the future. The new Administration, in the position to institute real reform to the way business is conducted, has started to steer in a positive direction due to a now shared interest of the Court and ICE to address the burdensome and shameful backlog. This is a potentially defining moment when change may actually happen. Meanwhile, the new administration is articulating goals to ameliorate not only the backlog but to seriously change enforcement priorities. If these two agents of potential change take advantage of the crisis that is affecting everyone involved with the system to work collaboratively with each other and consult sincerely with the immigrant advocates bar and other stakeholders, there may be some hope. To make this happen, a true cultural change must occur at every level. A few small steps have been taken: The EOIR is reacting to the prosecutorial discretion directive but the jury is still out on the buy-in to any kind of genuine reform.[48]
Like a lifeboat, survival depends on a commitment to problem-solving, trust and collaboration until rescue arrives. Someday structural reform may truly reshape the court to enough to eliminate the qualifier quasi. IJs will become full-fledged judges capable of making legally sound decisions in courtrooms where dignity, respect, patience and compassion are the norm without fear of retribution. Give the judges the tools they need to manage their courtrooms and the parties to achieve goals of integrity, efficiency and fairness. Recalibrate the balance between the parties. Recognize the demands of presiding over life-altering matters on their own wellbeing by giving them the resources, the power and the trust to be full-fledged judges.
Until then, directives from the top down are an important start; transformation still depends on change in the field in order to bring this court in conformity with general adjudication norms and practices, as well as to successfully implement the policy instructions that have the potential address the court crisis from the government’s standpoint without sacrificing fairness and humanitarian considerations.
Guest author Professor Stacy Caplow teaches Immigration Law at Brooklyn Law School where she also has co-directed the Safe Harbor Project since 1997.
**************************
Read the complete article at the link.
I just hope that Stacy and Cyrus have sent copies of this article to Lucas, Lisa Monaco, Merrick Garland, Vanita Gupta, Kristen Clarke, and the Chairs of the House and Senate Immigration Subcommittees!
Anti-immigrant, anti-asylum, misogynist culture (actively promoted by Sessions and Barr), biased and clearly defective judicial selection procedures, and the resulting lack of practical scholarship and human rights expertise are festering problems at EOIR. They must be solved now!
The virtual exclusion of progressive practical scholars and advocates — essentially, the best and brightest — from the “21st Century Immigration Judiciary” has been both systematic and intentional. Disturbingly, the Obama Administration produced results only marginally different from Bush II and Trump!
That’s why many of us were so shocked and outraged when Judge Garland continued to “honor” fatally flawed, biased, and exclusionary hiring practices by his predecessors.
Culture also plays a role in creating a biased judiciary. Why would a talented progressive expert, particularly a women of color, want to serve in a “bogus” judiciary that basically furthers racist narratives and myths, demeans women and minimizes their persecution (probably the most significant persecuted group in the world right now), and where the AG publicly slanders courageous private advocates while treating his “personally owned judges” like enforcement stooges.
The BIA has been “inflated” back to its “Schmidt-era” 23 Appellate Judges, after Ashcroft’s transparent “purge” cut the number to an unworkable 12 to remove the liberal judges (who were in the minority anyway). Yet, for Pete’s sake, there hasn’t been an outside appointment to the BIA since the Clinton Administration — more than two decades ago! Totally inexcusable.
And, this lack of outside expertise is a primary reason why EOIR is in deep trouble that threatens the stability of our entire justice system and democracy itself. A number of the existing BIA Members were selected NOT because of their demonstrated reputations for fairness, scholarship, respect, and timeliness, but because of their notoriety for denying almost every asylum case that came before them.
Here’s an excerpt from a letter that SPLC court observers sent to then Director Juan Osuna in 2017 describing the in-court bias of two Immigration Judges sitting in Atlanta:
In one hearing, an attorney for a detained respondent argued that his client was neither a threat to society nor a flight risk. 19 In this hearing, IJ Cassidy rejected the respondent’s request for bond, stating broadly that “an open border is a danger to the community.” He then analogized an immigrant to “a person coming to your home in a Halloween mask, waving a knife dripping with blood” and asked the attorney if he would let that person in. The attorney disagreed with IJ Cassidy, who then responded that the “individuals before [him] were economic migrants and that they do not pay taxes.” The attorney again disagreed with both claims. IJ Cassidy concluded the hearing by stating that the credible fear standard is not a proper test for review of asylum seekers, wholly disregarding the established legal standard for such cases.20 In a private conversation after this case, IJ Cassidy told the observer that the cases that come before him involve individuals “trying to scam the system” and that none of them want to be citizens. He also remarked that he thought the U.S. should be more like Putin’s Russia, where “if you come to America, you must speak English.”21 In another hearing, IJ Wilson told a respondent that “this case is like every case . . . came in from Mexico for medical treatment then try to claim asylum.”22 [text of footnotes omitted].
Director Osuna resigned a short time later, apparently in response to his concerns about the legitimacy of policies that the Trump immigration kakistocracy at DOJ intended to pursue. (Tragically, he died a short time later.) I am unaware that James McHenry, Osuna’s successor, hand-picked by AG Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions to “deconstruct due process @ EOIR” ever undertook a thorough investigation or that any sanctions were imposed upon these judges. But, stunningly, both were later appointed to the BIA by former AG Barr and continue to serve today under Garland.
These are the types of life-threatening, humanity-degrading, anti-due-process actions that became routine at EOIR over the past four years, and caused my friend and expert Professor Karen Musalo of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at Hastings Law to ask in a recent press report: “How can you have a fair game when the referee is unfair?” https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/08/03/😎👍🏼good-news-justice-even-as-latest-report-shows-massisive-failure-👎🏽🤮-eoir-poor-judging-politicized-practices-unhel/
Obviously, you can’t have a “fair game” under these circumstances. That was the whole point of the Trump DOJ, along with some gratuitous cruelty, malicious incompetence, and outright scofflaw behavior thrown in!
As Dean Caplow points out, the solutions aren’t “rocket science.” 🚀 But, so far, the problems EOIR continue to fester and undermine American justice!
Immigration Law Professor Named Senior Counselor on Immigration Policy in Biden’s Justice Department
Monday, August 2, 2021
By Immigration Prof
Good immigration news from Washington D.C.!Immigration law professor Lucas Guttentag has been named senior counselor on immigration policy and report to the Department of Justice’s Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco. Guttantag served in the Obama administration as a senior adviser on immigration policy, including as senior counselor to the secretary of Homeland Security.Anita Kumar for Politico states that “Guttentag will not only help dismantle Trump-era policies but will coordinate Biden policy among various agencies and departments.”
Kumar writes that “[p]rior to entering the administration, Guttentag served as law professor at Stanford Law School and lecturer at Yale Law School. He launched the Immigration Policy Tracking Project in 2017 to develop and maintain a complete record of Trump administration immigration actions.
In total, Trump made more than 400 alterations to immigration policy during his time in office, according to the Migration Policy Institute, a think tank with staffers across the political spectrum that provides data and analysis on immigration policy. The Immigration Policy Tracking Project put that number closer to 1,000.”
If you are an immigrant requesting asylum or fighting deportation before the federal immigration court in San Francisco, it’s likely to take nearly three years for your case to be resolved — the average processing time, as of June, was 1,057 days.
That’s because the San Francisco court’s 26 judges are working their way through close to 76,000 cases — the third highest number of pending cases in the country, after New York and Miami. Nationwide, the backlog has grown to an unprecedented 1.3 million cases, more than twice what it was when President Donald Trump took office.
What’s at stake, says Doris Meissner, a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute in Washington DC, is the credibility of the entire immigration system — both for the individuals whose futures are on the line, and for broader public confidence.
. . . .
The epic case backlog results from a convergence of factors.
Immigration enforcement, which had increased under President Barack Obama, ballooned during the presidency of Donald Trump. Trump ended Obama-era prosecution priorities that focused on immigrants with serious criminal histories, and instead pursued deportation of any undocumented immigrant. As of last December, more than 98% of the cases in immigration court were for people whose only charge was an immigration violation, according to an analysis by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University.
Also in the past several years, a much larger share of the migrants arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border are people requesting asylum, rather than trying to evade border authorities to come work or join family in the U.S. And if migrants can establish a “credible fear” of persecution in a screening interview with an asylum officer, they can’t be quickly removed from the country. Instead, their cases go straight into the immigration court system.
But that court system is chronically underfunded, with not enough judges or support staff, according to a 2019 report by the American Bar Association. While the Trump administration hired more judges and imposed a case completion quota on judges meant to speed up their work, neither made a dent in the backlog. Meanwhile the ABA report found that hiring practices became politicized and the administration’s policies threatened due process.
On top of all of that came the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to months of closed courts, suspended hearings and delayed processing.
While many state and federal courts moved quickly to conduct hearings over video conference calls, the Executive Office of Immigration Review, as the immigration court system is known, was behind the curve, according to longtime San Francisco immigration judge, Dana Leigh Marks, who is the executive vice president of the National Association of Immigration Judges.
“What the pandemic and quarantine restrictions revealed is just how abysmally prepared EOIR has been from the technology aspect,” said Marks, speaking in her role with the NAIJ, the judge’s union. “And we do not have universal electronic filing… so there’s roughly a million cases or more that are still paper-based. And that really makes hearings from a judge’s home much more problematic.”
. . . .
Advocates for asylum seekers are also looking forward to seeing new regulations from the Biden administration in another area: establishing clear eligibility standards for asylum so as to prevent future instances where an attorney general can override decades of case law, as Sessions did in the case of a Salvadoran woman fleeing domestic violence, known as the Matter of A-B-.
Karen Musalo, director of the Center on Gender and Refugee Studies at UC Hastings in San Francisco, said she was relieved when Garland reversed that ruling in June, but she called that just a first step in restoring fairness to the asylum system.
“What is much more important is asylum regulations that specifically look at aligning U.S. law with international norms,” she said. “We need to get the law back on track.”
‘What is much more important is asylum regulations that specifically look at aligning U.S. law with international norms. We need to get the law back on track.’Karen Musalo, Center on Gender and Refugee Studies at UC Hastings
That regulation is being drafted jointly by the departments of Justice and Homeland Security and is expected by late October, she said.
Musalo also called on the Biden administration to improve training and oversight for immigration judges, who are appointed to the bench by the U.S. attorney general. The fact that asylum grant rates vary wildly between judges suggests that rulings can be influenced by political leanings more than an impartial application of the law, she said.
“You could have very good rules and laws, but if you don’t have fair, unbiased, competent, professional individuals applying the rules in the law, you don’t solve the problems,” she said. “How can you have a fair game when the referee is unfair?”
. . . .
Legal organizations including the American Bar Association, the American Immigration Lawyers Association and NAIJ, the judges’ union, have long called on Congress to overhaul the immigration courts by taking them out of the Department of Justice altogether. And this summer there’s a move to do just that.
Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, the chair of the House immigration subcommittee, will soon introduce a bill to make the immigration court system a so-called Article I court, akin to federal tax court or bankruptcy court. Staff involved in drafting the bill say the new system would better protect due process of law and would be shielded from political pressure from presidents, be they Democratic or Republican.
Some observers, including Meissner and Musalo, say such a change is needed but they aren’t convinced the bill could win enough support to pass.
But Marks, the immigration judge, says the current dysfunction shows how badly the immigration courts are compromised and how urgently they need independence from the Department of Justice.
“It’s an uncomfortable and inappropriate placement for a neutral court system. And that’s the inherent structural flaw that we need Congress to fix,” she said. “I really feel like it is an idea whose time has come… now.”
*********************
You can read Tyche’s complete article at the link.
With deep experience in advocacy, Government, academics, senior management, and scholarship, Lucas is definitely the person for this job! A proven problem solver, to be sure! Many congrats, Lucas! Your appointment is like a breath of fresh air at what has been a mostly “stale show” at Justice so far!
Professor Karen Musalo Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Hastings Law
Nevertheless, as ProfessorKaren Musalo cogently points out, without better judges and leaders at EOIR — high caliber, proven progressive experts “in theGuttentag-Musalo mold,” — any favorable regulatory or even legislative changes willlikely founder. As currently staffed and led, EOIR simply lacks the expertise, independence, moral/intellectual leadership, courage, and “judicial firepower” to achieve a progressive, practical, due-process-compliant immigration and human rights system. Due process, fundamental fairness, and a correct application of U.S. asylum law — one that honors Cardoza-Fonseca and Mogharrabi — can only be realized by replacing “Club Denial @ EOIR” — actively encouraged and promoted by Sessions and Barr, with competent, expert, progressive judges committed to fair and humane treatment of asylum seekers and other migrants under law.
Simply adding more judges to an incredibly broken system, without correcting the legal, personnel, and judicial administration issues that led to this massive (largely self-created) dysfunction will not solve the problem! Lucas knows this as well as anyone! So does Judge Dana Marks, who actually litigated and won the landmark “well-founded fear” case INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca before the Supremes!
Hon. Dana Leigh Marks U.S. Immigration Judge San Francisco Immigration Court Past President, National Association of Immigration Judges
But even with experts like Lucas at DOJ, Ur Jaddou, John Trasvina, and Judge Ashley Tabaddor in place at DHS, it’s going to take a huge additional infusion of progressive expertise at EOIR, DHS, HHS, and throughout Government to get immigration and refugee policy under control.
GOP Administrations have proved willing to make the bold, often-criticized personnel and policy moves necessary to carry out a nativist, restrictionist, anti-immigrant agenda. Their “response” to criticism has basically been: “We’re in power, you’re not! So, go pound sand!”
Will the Biden Administration “break the Dem mold” and be bold and visionary enough to make the available, necessary, yet potentially controversial, moves to restore and improve due process and efficiency to the Government immigration bureaucracy? Will Lucas finally be able to get Team Garland to see and realize the cosmic importance of developing a progressive Immigration Judiciary: One that will eventually provide the “Article III ready” judicial candidates who will bring balance and quality to the Article III system perverted by four years of Trump-McConnell extremest right-wing, ideological, far out of the mainstream, judicial picks? Contrary to the timid, ineffective, ultimately destructive Obama Administration approach, EOIR is “a boat that needs to be rocked” — big time!
It’s an ambitious task to be sure. But, those with the vision and courage to accomplish it might well go down in history as the saviors ofAmerican democracy. It’s that important!
“Ur Jaddou will become the first woman and first person of Arab and Mexican descent to be sworn in as director of US Citizenship and Immigration Services after the Senate confirmed her nomination on Friday.
The agency has not had a Senate-confirmed leader in more than two years . . . . ”
“It is my honor to congratulate Ur Mendoza Jaddou on her confirmation as Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. Ur has two decades of experience in immigration law, policy, and administration. She will administer our Nation’s immigration system fairly and justly. As the daughter of hard-working immigrants, Ur understands how immigrant families enrich our country and the challenges they face. I want to thank the United States Senate for confirming Ur. I look forward to working closely with her to rebuild and restore trust in our immigration system.”
In announcing Jaddou’s nomination, President Biden offered the following biography:
“Ur Mendoza Jaddou has two decades of experience in immigration law, policy, and administration. Most recently, she was the Director of DHS Watch, a project of America’s Voice, where she shined a light on immigration policies and administration that failed to adhere to basic principles of good governance, transparency, and accountability. She is an adjunct professor of law at American University, Washington College of Law and counsel at Potomac Law Group, PLLC. Previously, Jaddou was the Chief Counsel for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) . . . from June 2014 to January 2017. Jaddou’s experience on immigration policy began as counsel to U.S. House of Representative Zoe Lofgren (2002-2007) and later as Chief Counsel to the House Immigration Subcommittee chaired by Rep. Lofgren (2007-2011). Jaddou has also served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regional, Global and Functional Affairs in the Bureau of Legislative Affairs at the U.S. Department of State (2012-2014). Jaddou is a daughter of immigrants – a mother from Mexico and a father from Iraq – born and raised in Chula Vista, California. She received a bachelor’s and a master’s degree from Stanford University and a law degree from UCLA School of Law. ” (bold added).
***************************
Great choice, and congrats to Ur!
USCIS was one of the “major victims” of the Trump immigration kakistocracy! Overt xenophobia and malicious incompetence literally “bankrupted” what was once one of the USG’s few self-supporting and “money making” operations. Think about that the next time some GOP “magamoron” babbles on about “fiscal responsibility!”
Wonderful as this news is, Ur would have been even better as Director of EOIR or BIA Chair. THAT’S where the real “progressive leadership gap” and absence of “practical scholarship and experience in understanding and respecting the rights of migrants” is so glaring and debilitating. Also, I think that without better qualified, enlightened, progressive leadership at EOIR (or Article 1) many “reforms” at USCIS will be ineffective or not achieve their full potential.
For example, the Asylum Offices are a key component of USCIS. But the lousy guidance and precedent setting from past AGs and the BIA has severely limited the ability of the Asylum Office to achieve its full potential.
Hon. A. Ashley Tabaddor, Chief Counsel, USCIS Former President, National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”)
Ur does have some much needed help from experienced USCIS Chief Counsel Judge Ashley Tabaddor, former President of the NAIJ. Perhaps, working together, they can get the attention of Garland, Monaco, Gupta, and Clarke and successfully urge some long overdue progressive, due-process-oriented changes and better judicial appointments at EOIR.
U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals
(1) The offense of aggravated statutory rape under section 39-13-506(c) of the Tennessee Code Annotated is categorically a “crime of child abuse” within the meaning of section 237(a)(2)(E)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) (2018).
(2) The Supreme Court’s holding that a statutory rape offense does not qualify as “sexual abuse of a minor” based solely on the age of the participants, unless it involves a victim under 16, does not affect our definition of a “crime of child abuse” in Matter of Velazquez-Herrera, 24 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 2008), nor does it control whether the respondent’s statutory rape offense falls within this definition. Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, 137 S. Ct. 1562 (2017), distinguished.
FOR RESPONDENT: Sean Lewis, Esquire, Nashville, Tennessee
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Peter Gannon, Associate Legal Advisor
The Supreme Court has held that the generic age of consent is 16. Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, 137 S. Ct. 1562, 1572 (2017). Accordingly, absent aggravating circumstances, consensual sexual activity between an adult and a minor over 16 is not categorically “abusive.” If a statutory rape statute sweeps more broadly than the generic definition (in other words, if it sets the age of consent above 16) it cannot form the predicate offense for removability under section 237(a)(2)(E)(i) of the Act for having been convicted of a crime of child abuse. There can be no categorical “child abuse” where the criminalized conduct is not categorically abusive. Here, the respondent was convicted of violating a statute that sets the age of consent at 18. Because the Supreme Court has left us no other option, I would dismiss the DHS’s appeal and terminate the respondent’s removal proceedings.
*****************************
In the Pereira fiasco, the BIA’s unwillingness to follow the Supremes’ lead when it conflicted with their “mission” of helping out DHS enforcement (a stated objective of Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions) created big time practical problems that could and should have been avoided.
WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice will examine its sexual harassment policies for potential reform, a move that comes after The Chronicle’s reporting on inappropriate behavior in the immigration courts, according to an announcement obtained by the newspaper.
The announcement went out to all department staff Thursday in an email seen by The Chronicle. In it, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco wrote it was “critical to our duty as principled defenders of the law to combat sexual harassment and misconduct in our own workplace and hold offenders accountable for their actions.”
Monaco said she is forming a committee to review all sexual harassment policies of the many sub-agencies of the Justice Department and assess where they may need to be changed, as well as evaluate current training and education. Two senior officials from her office will chair the effort and include members from across the department, and she said she wanted results of the review in six months.
. . . .
***********************
Thanks, and congrats, Tal! Those with access can read the rest of Tal’s report at the link.
Not surprisingly, according to the research, the fairest Immigration Judges for asylum applicants and other migrants “profile” as female, with immigration experience, in the 9th Circuit, in a Dem Administration. Not exactly the Sessions, Barr, Garland (to date) judicial profile. That could have something to do with these festering problems at EOIR that haven’t been dealt with despite numerous warning signs and “alerts.”
Also, the Garland DOJ would do well to investigate and correct the effects of the virulent misogyny directed at female refugees of color by Sessions, Barr, and their toadies and furthered by EOIR policies, procedures, and precedents over the past four years. Endemic problems don’t happen by chance!
According to the Ryo-Peacock study I posted, the “difference” that better Immigration Judges could make is over 200,000 lives potentially saved or altered for the better. That’s not exactly “chump change,” particularly when the interests of family members, employers, communities, our larger justice system, and our overall society are considered.
It also calls into question the apparent lack of seriousness with which “Team Garland” has taken Immigration Judge appointments to date. Throwing dozens of “not the best qualified available” IJs — without any concerted recruitment or diversification efforts —into an already broken, biased, and reeling system that deals with human lives in a cavalier manner is NOT GOOD POLICY! Particularly when the chronic problems of bad judging at EOIR had been clearly and articulately identified and many viable action plans and reform programs had been set forth by private sector experts even before the 2020 election.
EOIR needs new progressive leadership, a new progressive expert BIA that will truly be the “Supreme Court” of immigration and human rights, and better qualified and more diverse Immigration Judges who finally will implement the noble and correct vision of “through teamwork and innovation, being the world’s best tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all!” That would include treating all individuals coming before the courts, staff, and colleagues with dignity, respect, and fairness.
Sadly, the Biden Administration’s immigration policies, whatever they are on any particular day and place, seem to be mired in confusion, questionable competence, and a barrage of largely meaningless and confusing bureaucratic doublespeak. Meanwhile, in reality, it appears that Central Americans, Haitians, and others are being returned to danger zones without any process in place to insure fair treatment. Certainly, “Title 42” is the equivalent of no process whatsoever. While “expedited removal” might have the potential to be used fairly, there is little reason to believe that it is now being fairly and professionally administered by anyone committed to fundamental fairness over expedient enforcement.
Yes, Garland has sued racist moron Gov. Greg Abbott on his illegal Trumpist grandstanding (like Texas doesn’t have real problems to solve?). Stunts like Abbott’s were entirely predictable. However, if the Biden Administration had “hit the ground running” on asylum, the issue might well have been put to bed by now, and Abbott might have to focus instead on his normal job of mis-governing Texas, rather than focusing attention elsewhere.
The Administration could and should have had a robust refugee system up and running in the Northern Triangle that would reduce border pressure, a functioning asylum system that would encourage asylum applicants to apply at ports of entry rather than seeking irregular entry, a professional screening program in place at DHS, and a relatively “backlog free” Immigration Court, led by a progressive BIA, providing positive guidance on cases that could be granted. They would also have resettlement agreements and programs in place with NGOs and legal service groups to appropriately represent and resettle those granted asylum and those in the process to the locations where they could best reside.
Fair, expert, courageous leadership, leadership with a humane, positive, practical vision of immigration and an unswerving commitment to fairly granting asylum, is critical to success on immigration, human rights, and racial justice issues. So far, nobody in the Biden Administration appears to fit the bill! That’s probably why the Administration’s confused and ever-vacillating policies are being blasted by both progressives and reactionaries — the worst of all political worlds, as I have observed before!
There are experts out here in the private sector with the vision and leadership ability to solve these problems while putting White Nationalist restrictionists like Abbott in their place. Even though it’s late, the Biden Administration still needs to get a better team in place and let them solve the problems with knowledge, competence, and compassion, not more “knee-jerk reactions” and continuations of the cruel, inhumane, counterproductive, and often illegal policies and practices of the Trump regime.
Substantial research and policymaking have focused on the importance of lawyers in ensuring access to civil justice. But do lawyers matter more in cases decided by certain types of judges than others? Do lawyers matter more in certain political, legal, and organizational contexts than others? We explore these questions by investigating removal proceedings in the United States—a court process in which immigration judges decide whether to admit noncitizens into the United States or deport them. Drawing on over 1.9 million removal proceedings decided between 1998 and 2020, we examine whether the representation effect (the increased probability of a favorable outcome associated with legal representation) depends on judge characteristics and contextual factors. We find that the representation effect is larger among female (than male) judges and among more experienced judges. In addition, the representation effect is larger during Democratic presidential administrations, in immigration courts located in the Ninth Circuit, and in times of increasing caseload. These findings suggest that the representation effect depends on who the judge is and their decisional environment, and that increasing noncitzens’ access to counsel—even of high quality—might be insufficient under current circumstances to ensure fair and consistent outcomes in immigration courts.
Keywords: access to justice, immigration courts, removal proceedings, judicial decisionmaking
Suggested Citation:
Ryo, Emily and Peacock, Ian, Represented But Unequal: The Contingent Effect of Legal Representation in Removal Proceedings (July 13, 2021). Law & Society Review, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3885995
Sessions and Barr appointed over half of the current approximately 550 U.S. Immigration Judges;
Many of those appointed had little or no immigration experience — almost none had actual experience representing asylum seekers or any other migrants in Immigration Court;
With 27 IJ appointments since taking office, AG Garland now has appointed approximately 5% of the Immigration Judiciary;
Only one of Garland’s first 27 appointments has impressive progressive immigration credentials and experience;
The balance of Garland’s appointees to date profile much like Sessions’s and Barr’s — not surprising, because Garland used the same flawed recruiting and selection criteria that Barr had been using;
An Immigration Judge is required to complete 700 cases annually, just too retain his or her job;
Unlike most civil cases in U.S. District Courts, lives and futures are at stake in almost all Immigration Court cases, with the family, communal, economic, and societal effect of each decision often extending far beyond the individual migrant whose life and/or future is at stake.
Members of the NDPA, let AG Garland, VP Harris, and President Biden know that we need a better and more aggressively progressive system for recruiting (virtually “null” right now — “Sir Jeffrey” Chase and I, along with other members of our Round Table, do more “recruiting” among “practical scholars and progressive experts” in the private sector than the Administration!), selecting, training, and retaining Immigration Judges for these life or death determining positions that, in a better functioning and wiser Administration, would be the door to, and training ground for, a better, more diverse, more representative, more progressive Article III Judiciary!
Lack of creative and aggressive recruiting for a better and more diverse expert Immigration Judiciary is a particular sore point! We now have our first immigrant family, African-American, AAPI, female Vice President, Kamala Harris, a talented lawyer! She has an important immigration and human rights portfolio!
So why isn’t she out there aggressively encouraging diverse, well-qualified, progressive “practical scholars and immigration advocates,” many of whom might not have seen themselves as potential Immigration Judges and BIA Members to apply for these critical jobs? Why aren’t the recruiting and selection criteria for IJs and Board Members both more transparent and involving of some outside expert input!
As VP Harris knows, the key to changing the composition of the power structure is for progressives, particularly female progressives of color, to see others like them in these positions to act as role models. It’s going to take aggressive positive actions by individuals like VP Harris, AAG Gupta, and Assistant AG Clarke to “change the face” of the Immigration Judiciary and the power structure for the better!
With the recent hiring of NDPA superstar Professor Cori Alonso Yoder, VP Harris’s alma mater, Howard University Law, now has it’s most high-profile “immigration and human rights presence” ever! Why isn’t VP Harris over there aggressively encouraging Howard Law grads to seek careers in immigration and human rights, eventually aspiring to the the Federal Judiciary, including the Immigration Judiciary? That’s how real change in the power structure happens!
This is becoming a totally inexcusable “blown opportunity” for progressives! Who knows if or when it will come again?
Asylum Seekers Wikimedia Commons — “Will US asylum seekers finally be treated fairly, humanely, and in accordance with full due process? Or is the Biden Administration’s recent “plan” just another “designed to fail enforcement gimmick” masquerading as legitimate asylum policy? Only time — and the details — will tell!
I found the White House “Fact Sheet” to be largely a mix of bureaucratic doublespeak, shame, blame, and few details about how it’s actually going to work. Also, not much about who is going to be responsible (and accountable) for making it work!
Will those whose cases are denied by an Asylum Officer still have a right to IJ/BIA/Judicial Review?
How will they set up dedicated dockets without pushing back cases already on the docket?
What steps will be taken to insure that Judges assigned to these dockets aren’t members of the “90% Denial Club?”
How will they screen asylum cases with Title 42 still in effect?
What will be the role of detention? If detention is used, how will reasonable access to counsel be be guaranteed in detention centers?
Who will be training the CBP Agents, Asylum Offices, and Immigration Judges to recognize asylum claims, even those that might not be well-articulated by migrants or that might involve novel applications of protection laws?
What advance coordination will take place with legal services groups to maximize representation.
How will positive asylum guidance be issued (given that the BIA has issued almost none in the past four years, and a number of negative precedents have been vacated by the AG or rejected by various Circuits)?
How will the success of this program be measured, particularly with respect to insuring full due process and fundamental fairness to all asylum applicants?
What type of resettlement opportunities or assistance will be made available for successful asylum, seekers and who will provide and fund it?
Will there be any role for the UNHCR? If so, what?
How will DHS and EOIR solve the “effective notice problems” that have plagued the Immigration Court system for years and resulted in far too many “bogus in absentia removal orders.”
Who will insure the accuracy of statistics and that “gamed” or manipulated statistics are not used (as the Trump regime did) to create false narratives about “success” by the Administration or to promote unfair and inaccurate “myths” about asylum seekers.
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration JudgesMe
Excerpts from Jennifer’s article:
. . . .
Garland’s latest vacatur was well-received by Jeffrey S. Chase and Paul W. Schmidt, who were among 40 retired immigration judges to sign a letter last spring urging Garland to undo all 17 BIA decisions issued by his Trump-appointed predecessors.
“Prohibiting an appellate body from accepting party stipulations below or honoring concessions on appeal is simply insane. Why would any party stipulate to an issue if it will simply be ignored on appeal?” Judge Schmidt said in a statement to Law360, calling such agreements “a really important part of encouraging efficiency in litigation and reducing backlog.”
According to Judge Chase, Monday’s order “will again allow valuable court time to be spent focusing only on issues actually in dispute between the parties, a practice that could save hours of hearing time on a single case.”
“And limiting the scope of administrative review to the issues actually raised on appeal by the parties eliminates the need to sacrifice fairness in order to achieve that increased efficiency,” he continued.
Reuters: U.S. President Joe Biden on Sunday said he remained adamant about the need to create a pathway for U.S. citizenship for so-called Dreamer immigrants, but it “remains to be seen” if that will be part of a $3.5 trillion budget measure.
NBC: The public health order barring border migration, known as Title 42, has expelled back to Mexico almost 1 million immigrants trying to cross the southern border since the Trump administration put it in place in March 2020.
NPR: It’s against this backdrop that Biden is set to give remarks on Monday to the nation’s largest Latino advocacy organization, UnidosUS. But some of Biden’s supporters hope his speech is directed more broadly to the American people — particularly to swing voters who are concerned about migration yet recognize the value of immigrants in their communities, and not just his base.
AP: Supporters say the trend is crucial during a coronavirus pandemic that has left immigrants, who are disproportionately essential workers, more vulnerable to COVID-19 and as federal remedies, like an immigration overhaul or “public option” health insurance, face tough political odds.
WaPo: Fleeing gang violence in El Salvador, Nancy and her two children sought asylum in the United States. Instead, they found themselves stuck in a border camp in Matamoros, Mexico — and the U.S. immigration system. Over the course of a year, in texts, voicemails and other dispatches from Matamoros, Nancy slowly unspooled her harrowing story.
BIA: (1) Matter of A-C-A-A-, 28 I&N Dec. 84 (A.G. 2020) (“A-C-A-A- I”), is vacated in its entirety. Immigration judges and the Board should no longer follow A-C-A-A- I in pending or future cases and should conduct proceedings consistent with this opinion and the opinions in Matter of L-E-A-, 28 I&N Dec. 304 (A.G. 2021) (“L-E-A- III”), and Matter of A-B-, 28 I&N Dec. 307 (A.G. 2021) (“A-B- III”).
(2) The Board’s longstanding review practices that A-C-A-A- I apparently prohibited, including its case-by-case discretion to rely on immigration court stipulations, are restored.
The BIA found respondent did not submit sufficient objective evidence to support his fear of torture by the Rwandan government and that IJs and the Board lack the authority to recognize the equitable defense of laches in removal proceedings. Matter of O-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. 330 (BIA 2021) AILA Doc. No. 21072233
Where the IJ had failed to provide a citation or reference to the record in denying the petitioner’s Convention Against Torture (CAT) claim, the court found that the IJ’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence. (Valarezo-Tirado v. Att’y Gen., 7/15/21) AILA Doc. No. 21072137
The court denied the petition for review, finding that the petitioner’s conviction in Texas for delivering cocaine under Texas Health and Safety Code §481.112 was included in the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). (Ochoa-Salgado v. Garland, 7/16/21) AILA Doc. No. 21072238
The court determined that the BIA correctly denied the petitioner’s motion to reopen, holding that the petitioner’s original removal order was not subject to being reopened because he had illegally reentered the United States pursuant to INA §241(a)(5). (Sanchez-Gonzalez v. Garland, 7/16/21) AILA Doc. No. 21072240
The court upheld the BIA’s determination that petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal for lacking good moral character, where he had been convicted of drunk driving, had multiple vehicle-related traffic violations, and used a fake social security card. (Meza v. Garland, 7/20/21) AILA Doc. No. 21072605
The court held that the issuance of the decision denying cancellation of removal to the petitioner by a different IJ than the one who had conducted the petitioner’s merits hearing did not violate his due process rights or the text of INA §240(c)(1)(A). (Orpinel-Robledo v. Garland, 7/19/21) AILA Doc. No. 21072331
Where the BIA had held that the petitioner was removable because his conviction for enticing a minor in violation of Iowa Code §710.10(3) constituted a “crime of child abuse,” the court granted the petition for review, vacated the BIA’s decision, and remanded. (Pah Peh v. Garland, 7/16/21) AILA Doc. No. 21072330
The court granted in part the plaintiffs’ motion to vacate its December 31, 2020, reversal of the district court’s injunction of the Healthcare Proclamation (PP 9945), and denied as moot the petition for rehearing en banc. (Doe #1, et al. v. Biden, et al., 7/16/21) AILA Doc. No. 21072334
Upholding the denial of asylum to petitioners, an Armenian family, the court held that substantial evidence supported the adverse credibility determination as to the husband based on implausibilities in the record, and as to the wife based on evasive testimony. (Lalayan v. Garland, 7/13/21) AILA Doc. No. 21072333
The court held that DOS has statutory authority to impose an in-person requirement to seek a certificate of loss of nationality (CLN), but found that the department acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying the appellant a CLN. (Farrell v. Blinken, et al., 7/13/21) AILA Doc. No. 21072606
Law360: A California federal judge dismissed visa seekers’ legal challenge to a now-rescinded Trump-era order that blocked them from moving to the U.S. on new green cards, saying there was no longer a live controversy after the Biden White House ended the ban.
Advocates reached a settlement after challenging USCIS policy to reject applications with a blank response field. USCIS will accept the original submission date as the filing date for the applications it has identified as having rejected pursuant to the policy. (Vangala v. USCIS, 7/19/21) AILA Doc. No. 20112034
Law360: The federal government on Thursday and Friday filed for the dismissal of five visa fraud suits against Chinese researchers accused of being a part of an orchestrated program by the Chinese government to send military scientists to the U.S.
CDC notice of an order fully excepting unaccompanied children from the 10/13/20 “Order Suspending the Right to Introduce Certain Persons from Countries Where a Quarantinable Communicable Disease Exists.” The new order went into effect 7/16/21. (86 FR 38717, 7/22/21) AILA Doc. No. 21072140
DHS notice of Temporary Protected Status extension and redesignation of Somalia for 18 months, from 9/18/21 through 3/17/23. (86 FR 38744, 7/22/21) AILA Doc. No. 21072133
USCIS announced that TPS applicants who are eligible nationals of Burma, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela or Yemen, or individuals without nationality who last habitually resided in one of those countries, can now file their initial Form I-821, Application for Temporary Protected Status, online. AILA Doc. No. 21072138
USCIS posted statements regarding the Texas v. United States decision, stating that DHS will continue to accept the filing of both initial and renewal DACA requests, as well as accompanying requests for employment authorization. AILA Doc. No. 21072031
On June 24, 2021, USCIS extended the flexibilities it announced on March 30, 2020, for responding to certain agency requests. This flexibility applies if the issuance date listed on the request, notice, or decision is between March 1, 2020, and September 30, 2021, inclusive. AILA Doc. No. 20050133
U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General
(1) Matter of A-C-A-A-, 28 I&N Dec. 84 (A.G. 2020) (“A-C-A-A- I”), is vacated in its entirety. Immigration judges and the Board should no longer follow A-C-A-A- I in pending or future cases and should conduct proceedings consistent with this opinion and the opinions in Matter of L-E-A-, 28 I&N Dec. 304 (A.G. 2021) (“L-E-A- III”), and Matter of A-B-, 28 I&N Dec. 307 (A.G. 2021) (“A-B- III”).
(2) The Board’s longstanding review practices that A-C-A-A- I apparently prohibited, including its case-by-case discretion to rely on immigration court stipulations, are restored.
***************
Way to go Judge Garland!
Yes, I feel good about this! This was one of the “Sessions-Barr follow-ons” to A-B-, L-E-A-, and Castro-Tum that had undermined due process and fundamental fairness while inhibiting sound case management. It was part of a virulent, racist, anti-asylum agenda promoted by Trump and Miller and unethically carried out by Sessions and Barr. It was a backlog-building, due-process-denying national disgrace to be sure! One that unethically targeted people of color and sought to improperly eradicate our legal (and moral) obligations to protect refugees — without any legislative authority!
Prohibiting an appellate body from accepting party stipulations below or honoring concessions on appeal is simply insane! Why would any party stipulate to an issue if it will simply be ignored on appeal?
Stipulations are a really important part of encouraging efficiency in litigation and reducing backlog. I used them all the time at both the BIA and the Arlington Immigration Court!
Why on earth would the BIA revisit an issue that was so well-established and logical that the parties had already agreed upon it below? Why would an already overwhelmed tribunal be required to decide issues that were uncontested by the litigants?
No wonder the Immigration Court system was completely out of control and counterproductive during the Trump Administration!
“Floaters — How The World’s Richest Country Responds To Asylum Seekers” — The Biden Administration still can’t get beyond this “vision” of appropriate treatment of legal asylum seekers. This is the “human face (down)” of “deterrence-only policies.” Six months in, and the Administration still has nobody in leadership who understands human rights, refugees, asylees, and the relationship of scenes like this one to the overall failure of equal justice and dimishment of the rule of law in America. 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)
However, lest we start thinking that the Biden Administration finally “gets it” on asylum policy, DHS immediately countered with a totally tone-deaf announcement on “punishing” asylum seekers for the Administration’s failure to live up to it’s campaign promises ands re-establish a viable legal asylum system at the border:
DHS Statement on the Resumption of Expedited Removal for Certain Family Units
Release Date:
July 26, 2021
Beginning today, certain family units who are not able to be expelled under Title 42 will be placed in expedited removal proceedings. Expedited removal provides a lawful, more accelerated procedure to remove those family units who do not have a basis under U.S. law to be in the United States.
Attempting to cross into the United States between ports of entry, or circumventing inspection at ports of entry, is the wrong way to come to the United States. These acts are dangerous and can carry long-term immigration consequences for individuals who attempt to do so. The Biden-Harris Administration is working to build a safe, orderly, and humane immigration system, and the Department of Homeland Security continues to take several steps to improve lawful processing at ports of entry and reforms to strengthen the asylum system.
Perhaps somebody needs to tell these DHS/Biden Administration scofflaws that: 1) we have no functioning legal asylum system at ports of entry right now; and 2) refugees and asylees can’t wait for the Administration to get its act together. As one asylum seeker from the Northern Triangle stated in a recent Courtside post: “Nobody wants to die.”
Deterrence always has been and always will be a failure, both in terms of legal policy and morality. We need some progressive experts with some guts and ability “on the inside” to fix this system before more lives are lost.
Enough with the inane “wait to die” deterrence statements that actually insult the intelligence of asylum seekers and demean their dire situations! Fixing this system is not rocket science! But, it requires some progressive human rights leadership and expertise now sadly lacking in the Biden Administration’s approach!
