"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
Judge Merrick B. Garland Official White House Photo Public Realm
Really this guy
Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com
In disguise all along?
An anonymous source reports:
As a follow-up to the recent IJ appointments, I thought you might be interested to know that Anna Little is rumored to be the new ACIJ in NYC. I haven’t seen that officially, though, so you would need to confirm before posting about it (and you didn’t hear it from me). I honestly know nothing about her and she might be great, but there’s a little concern given that she was appointed as an IJ by Trump just two years ago, has never worked as an IJ at a NY court, and apparently was a Tea Party political candidate.
Normally, I’d say that this is far, far too insane to be true, even in a Dem Administration! But, given Garland’s incredibly abysmal performance so far at DOJ, I can’t completely rule it out.
Progressives who helped Biden get his job need to start demanding better from this Administration. If true, and I personally don’t want to believe it, this should call into question Garland’s continued tenure @ Justice!
What kind of “Dem” Administration promotes GOP Tea Partiers as judges over better qualified progressive candidates?
True or not, the fact that this rumor is even out there shows a dramatic loss of confidence by progressive Dems in Garland in an amazingly short amount of time! It’s basically the equivalent of a rumor that Joe Biden intends to name Kevin McCarthy as his Chief of Staff. And, where, oh where, is Vice President Harris as Garland is totally undermining the Administration and grotesquely failing to reverse the course of injustice @ Trump’s broken and corrupt “Justice” Department?
We all know who won the 2020:election. So, why is Stephen Miller apparently still in charge of the DOJ?
Professor Karen Musalo Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Hastings LawProfessor Stephen H. Legomsky Emeritus Professor of Law & Former USG Senior Executive Washington U. Law PHOTO: Washington U. Law website
With the stroke of a pen, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland could restore access to life-saving protection for domestic violence survivors and others caught in the crosshairs of his predecessors’ campaign to exclude refugees. Garland can and should immediately vacate Jeff Sessions’ 2018 decision in the case known as Matter of A-B-, which all but eliminated asylum for people fleeing brutal domestic violence.
On the campaign trail Joe Bidenpledged to reverse Matter of A-B- and ensure a fair opportunity for survivors to seek asylum. As president, Biden has issued an executive order directing his Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to review their asylum policies and, by August, determine whether our country protects people fleeing domestic violence in a way that’s consistent with international standards. Following this review, the agencies will issue regulations that bring our treatment of asylum seekers into alignment with our treaty obligations, and with basic principles of humanity and fairness.
But this process will span many months, and when lives are on the line, more immediate action is imperative. Every day Matter of A-B- remains in effect, people are being wrongly denied asylum and delivered into the hands of the very persecutors they’ve fled.
How did we get into this mess? In 2018, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions personally intervened in the case of Ms. A.B., a Salvadoran woman. He used her case as a vehicle to overrule a landmark Justice Department opinion recognizing domestic violence as a potential basis for asylum. That ruling was the culmination of 15 years of advocacy and extensive consideration by government agencies and refugee law experts.
The impact of Sessions’ decision was immediate and catastrophic. Immigration judges around the country began denying asylum in cases that — pre-Matter of A-B- — should have been relatively straightforward. Though some survivors could still prevail in immigration court, Trump administration attorneys would often appeal these cases to the Justice Department’s appellate tribunal, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and get them overturned.
. . . .
One of the authors — Professor Musalo — represents a victim of Sessions’ attack on survivors: We’ll call her “Cristina” to protect anonymity. Cristina fled Honduras after enduring nearly two decades of domestic violence so severe it once put her in a month-long coma. Cristina was also terrorized by a politically powerful family that murdered multiple siblings and close relatives. When Cristina received a note threatening her with the same fate, she knew she had no choice but to seek asylum.
Cases like Cristina’s have life-or-death stakes, but with Sessions’ ruling intact they are being denied automatically. Though Cristina presented a strong asylum application, in 2020 the Board of Immigration Appeals denied her case, ruling that Matter of A-B- precluded protection. Cristina now faces imminent deportation to Honduras, where she is terrified she’ll be killed.
Merrick Garland can protect survivors like Cristina by simply vacating Sessions’ decision and related asylum rulings from Trump’s Department of Justice. This would at least bring us back to where we were before — not a perfect world, but one where asylum seekers had a fairer shot — while the Justice Department prepares a more humane and legally defensible set of principles to guide future decision-making in asylum cases.
. . . .
******************
Tortured & abused refugee women’s lives continue to hang in the balance while Judge Garland diddles and runs “Miller Lite Judicial Selection Happy Hour” at failing DOJ! Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Read the complete op-ed at the link.
If the current BIA were replaced with competent, expert, progressive, due-process oriented judges tomorrow, as should have happened months ago, this problem could be solved immediately.
I have no doubt that with real asylum experts like Karen as appellate judges at the BIA, Matter of A-B-would rapidly be turned into a blueprint for efficiently granting needed protection to persecuted women. It would also serve as a much needed tool for ending the “asylum free zones” unethically and unprofessionally established by some Immigration Judges throughout the country and starting the long overdue process for removing those unqualified Immigration Judges who are unable or unwilling to fairly grant asylum to qualified applicants and who have created an unacceptable anti-asylum, racist, misogynist culture in some parts of EOIR, in other words the “95% denial club” needs to go! Now!
Disgracefully, that culture was actually encouraged and rewarded by White Nationalist political hacks like Sessions and Barr — folks who never, ever should have had any role in asylum adjudication in America, let alone been permitted to unethically act as “judges” in cases they had “pre-decided” on a mass basis! “Fair and impartial adjudicator,” the core of American constitutional due process, became a sick joke under Sessions and Barr as the Supremes and many Article IIIs disgracefully and spinelessly looked the other way. And, Garland has done nothing to effectively address or reverse this toxic, anti-due-process, racist, misogynist “culture” despite having been told by experts that it was an emergency that could not wait!
Karen and Steve also point out how the BIA disintegrated from a tribunal that was supposed to guarantee fairness and due process for migrants, implement best judicial practices, and protect the most vulnerable from Government overreach into a tool and weapon of DHS enforcement! Yet, 100 days into the Biden Administration, BIA appellate judges who “toadied up” to the Trump regime’s White Nationalist agenda and aided “Dred Scottification” of “the other” by Stephen MIller remain, and experts who should have replaced them remain “on the outside looking in.”
If the Biden Administration and Garland are incapable of putting diverse, qualified progressive experts into a judiciary that they actually control, what are the prospects for progressive transformation of the Article IIIs? That makes this week’s disclosure that Garland mindlessly appointed 17“Miller Lite” Immigration Judges left over from Barr’s flawed recruitment and scummy tenure instead of properly using these valuable positions to start building a long overdue progressive, expert judiciary at EOIR all the more infuriating and outrageous!
The unmitigated, entirely unnecessary, and potentially solvable due process disaster at EOIR will prevent any meaningful progressive immigraton reforms, whether by legislation or Executive action! It’s also undermines racial justice, threatens the future of American justice, and undermines our democracy every day that it festers away, unaddressed.
Garland must fix this problem starting now! Reassigning the 17 judges who should not have been hired and are still in probation, re-competing their positions under merit criteria that encourage applications from all sources and promote diversity, and cancelling the ridiculous plans for the unneeded, due process denying Richmond Adjudication Center (“Star Chamber”) should be just the start.
“It’s a long way to Richmond,” as country singer Travis Tritt would say!
“Unit Chief Immigration Judges” are needed like a hole in the head, probably less. They were a bogus idea cooked up by now deposed former Director McHenry to aid in his misguided union busting initiative. What is needed is less bogus judicial supervision (whoever heard of qualified judges needing “supervisors”) and the accompanying time and resource wasting gimmicks, better professional judicial management, and more competent, progressive, independent, expert immigration judges with experience representing asylum applicants and other immigrants in Immigration Courts and judges with NGO and clinical experience who actually know how to manage dockets and solve problems — skills that are in perilously short supply at EOIR.
Garland needs to replace the “gang that can’t shoot straight” @ DOJ and EOIR with some progressive experts and let them start fixing problems and knocking heads of those still stuck in the Sessions/Barr era! Some of us believe that elections should have consequences. Among those is the immediate end of “Miller Lite Justice @ Justice” and the type of promised due process reforms that got Biden and Harris elected in the first place!
“Miller Lite Justice Hour” is over at DOJ — It’s time for Garland to get on the ball and install progressive judges, competent administrators, and long overdue progressive due process reforms at EOIR — America’s worst and most grotesquely dysfunctional “courts,” that don’t operate as courts at all and which daily destroy the lives of refugee women and other migrants!
“Eyore In Distress” — Garland’s failure to set tone of due process, human rights, excellence, independence @ EOIR threatens U.S. Justice System — could led to downfall of American democracy! Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”
Because of it’s critical importance and it’s “right on” expose of the most glaring problem in American justice today, this timely editorial is quoted in full:
Immigration Courts Aren’t Real Courts. Time to Change That.
The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom.
President Biden took office with a promise to “restore humanity and American values” to the immigration system. If he’s going to succeed, it will take more than shutting down construction on his predecessor’s border wall. The most formidable obstacle to making the U.S. immigration system more humane and functional is invisible to most Americans: the nation’s broken, overwhelmed immigration court system.
Every day, hundreds of immigration judges slog through thousands of cases, unable to keep up with a crushing backlog that has more than doubled since 2016. Many cases involve complex claims of asylum by those who fear for their safety in their home countries. Most end up in legal limbo, waiting years for even an initial hearing. Some people sit in detention centers for months or longer, despite posing no risk to the public. None have the right to a lawyer, which few could afford anyway.
“The system is failing, there is no doubt about it,” one immigration judge said in 2018. As long as the system is failing, it will be impossible to achieve any broad-based immigration reform — whether proposed by Mr. Biden or anyone else.
The problem with these courts isn’t new, but it became significantly worse under the Trump administration. When he took office in 2017, President Donald Trump inherited a backlog of about 540,000 cases, already a major crisis. The administration could have used numerous means to bring that number down. Instead, Mr. Trump’s team drove it up. By the time he left office in January, the backlog had ballooned to nearly 1.3 million pending cases.
How did that number get so high? Some of the increase was the result of ramped up enforcement of immigration laws, leading to many more arrests and detentions that required court attention. The Trump administration also reopened hundreds of thousands of low-priority cases that had been shelved under President Barack Obama. Finally, Mr. Trump starved the courts of funding and restricted how much control judges had over their own dockets, making the job nearly impossible for those judges who care about providing fair and impartial justice to immigrants.
At the same time, Mr. Trump hired hundreds of new judges, prioritizing ideology over experience, such as by tapping former Immigration and Customs Enforcement prosecutors and others who would help convert the courts into a conveyor belt of deportation. In 2018, then Attorney General Jeff Sessions imposed an annual quota of 700 cases per judge. One judge testified before a House committee last year that Mr. Trump’s system was “a widget factory management model of speed over substance.”
By some measures, the plan worked: In 2020, the immigration courts denied 72 percent of asylum claims, the highest portion ever, and far above the denial rates during the Obama and George W. Bush administrations.
If the goal was to empty the United States of all those asylum seekers, Mr. Trump clearly failed, as evidenced by the huge backlog he left Mr. Biden. But the ease with which he imposed his will on the immigration courts revealed a central structural flaw in the system: They are not actual courts, at least not in the sense that Americans are used to thinking of courts — as neutral arbiters of law, honoring due process and meting out impartial justice. Nor are immigration judges real judges. They are attorneys employed by the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which is housed in the Department of Justice. It’s hard to imagine a more glaring conflict of interest than the nation’s top law-enforcement agency running a court system in which it regularly appears as a party.
The result is that immigration courts and judges operate at the mercy of whoever is sitting in the Oval Office. How much money they get, what cases they focus on — it’s all politics. That didn’t used to be such a problem, because attorneys general rarely got involved in immigration issues. Then Mr. Trump came along and reminded everyone just how much power the head of the executive branch has when it comes to immigration.
The solution is clear: Congress needs to take immigration courts out of the Justice Department and make them independent, similar to other administrative courts that handle bankruptcy, income-tax and veterans’ cases. Immigration judges would then be freed from political influence and be able to run their dockets as they see fit, which could help reduce the backlog and improve the courts’ standing in the public eye. Reform advocates, including the Federal Bar Association, have pushed the idea of a stand-alone immigration court for years without success. The Trump administration made the case for independence that much clearer.
In the meantime, there are shorter-term fixes that could help restore a semblance of impartiality and professionalism to the immigration courts.
First, the system must be properly staffed and funded to deal with its backlog. One way to do that is by hiring more judges, and staff members to support them. Today there are about 550 immigration judges carrying an average of almost 3,000 cases each, which makes it nearly impossible to provide anything like fair and consistent justice. Earlier this week, Attorney General Merrick Garland asked Congress for a 21 percent increase in the court system’s budget. That’s a start, but it doesn’t come close to solving the problem. Even if 600 judges were able to get through 700 cases a year each — as Mr. Sessions ordered them to — it would take years to clear up the existing backlog, and that’s before taking on a single new case.
This is why another important fix is to stop a large number of those cases from being heard in the first place. The Justice Department has the power to immediately remove as many as 700,000 cases from the courts’ calendar, most of them for low-level immigration violations — people who have entered the country illegally, most from Mexico or Central America, or those who have overstayed a visa. Many of these cases are years old, or involve people who are likely to get a green card. Forcing judges to hear cases like these clutters the docket and makes it hard to focus on the small number of more serious cases, like those involving terrorism or national-security threats, or defendants facing aggravated felony charges. At the moment, barely 1 percent of all cases in the system fall into one of these categories.
A thornier problem is how to stamp out the hard-line anti-immigrant culture that spread throughout the Justice Department under Mr. Trump, Mr. Sessions and the former president’s top immigration adviser, Stephen Miller. For instance, a 2019 department newsletter sent to immigration judges included an anti-Semitic reference and a link to VDare, an anti-immigrant group that regularly publishes white nationalists.
One of Mr. Biden’s first steps in office was to reassign the head of the immigration court system, James McHenry, who played a central role in many of Mr. Trump’s initiatives. But it’s generally hard to fire career civil servants, like the many judges and other officials tapped to promote Mr. Trump’s agenda. The Biden administration can reduce their influence by reassigning them, but this is not a long-term fix. While these judges are subject to political pressures, there can be no true judicial process.
If there’s any silver lining here, it is to be found in Mr. Trump’s overreach. The egregiousness of his administration’s approach to immigration may have accelerated efforts to solve the deeper structural rot at the core of the nation’s immigration courts.
***********************
We know that they aren’t “real courts;” but, they could and should be — progressive, due process oriented, model courts to boot! It will never happen, however, with the tone-deaf way Garland has approached EOIR in his first 60 days!
As progressives, immigration, human rights, women’s rights, due process, and racial justice advocates well know, Garland’s incredibly poor, downright insultingstewardship @ DOJ has already made things worse at EOIR! Every day this “fake” court system — a massive “big middle finger” to the integrity of American justice and a shocking betrayal of those who fought to preserve justice and bring the Biden Administration into power — continues is a “bad day” for equal justice, racial justice, and gender justice in America!
It’s also an inexcusable squandered opportunity for the Biden Administration to “recreate” the broken, biased, lacking in competence “Immigration Judiciary” as an independent progressive judiciary that was promised in rhetoric, but has been mocked in action.
Can any progressive imagine how the Heritage Foundation or the Federalist Society might have reacted if Trump, McConnell, Miller, and the DOJ had treated their recommendations for creating a reactionary far-right judiciary with the callous disregard and total disrespect that Garland has shown for the blueprint set forth by progressives for rapidly reforming the Immigration Judiciary into the model progressive judiciary needed to save American justice (not to mention save the lives of many of the most vulnerable, deserving, and needy among us)?
For Pete’s sake, Garland just gave Stephen Miller, “Billy the Bigot” Barr, and “Monty Python” “deference” on his first 17 totally inappropriate “judicial picks” while telling fighters for due process and human dignity to “go pound sand.” We weren’t even given the courtesy of being informed — Kowalski and I had to “smoke it out” with the help of “DT-21.”
“Courtesy and deference” for Miller, Barr, and “Monty Python;” total disrespect for the NDPA and the humans (“persons” under the Constitution) we represent? Come on, man!
The BIA has “restrictionist judges” going all the way back to the Bush II political travesty supplemented by Miller, Sessions, and Barr. Yet, there is not a single, not one, true progressive practical scholar-immigration/human rights expert among this “Gang of 23”— a group that includes a number of “appellate judges” who distinguished themselves with their overt hostility, to immigrants’ rights, rudeness to attorneys, and denial of nearly 100% of asylum claims coming before them. These are “Garland’s Judges?”
Worse, yet another totally inappropriate “insider appointment” to the BIA by Garland— bypassing the numerous far better qualified “practical scholars” in the private sector — is rumored to be in the offing! NO! This outrageous, tone-deaf performance and disrespect for progressive human rights experts by Garland must stop!
As the editorial correctly suggests, starting to fix EOIR, even in the absence of long overdue congressional action, is not rocket science! The incompetent senior “management” @ EOIR and the entire membership of the BIA can and should be reassigned. Tomorrow!
Experienced, highly competent, scholarly, creative, courageous, progressive judges already on the EOIR bench — like Judge (and former BIA Appellate Judge and DOJ Senior Executive) Noel Brennan (NY), Judge Dana Marks (SF), and Judge Amiena Kahn (NY) — should be detailed to Falls Church HQ to start fixing EOIR and getting the BIA functioning as a real appellate court — focused on due process, high quality scholarship, best practices, and holding ICE accountable for following the law — until more permanent appointments and necessary due process reforms can be made.
In the meantime, competent, progressive, temporary leadership can bring in temporary appellate judges at the BIA with sound records of fair asylum adjudication to end “refugee roulette” and eradicate the disgraceful “asylum free zones” being improperly run by unqualified IJs in some Immigration Courts. Reform of this disgustingly broken system can’t “wait for Godot” any longer!
As Judge Jeffrey Chase cogently stated in Law360, further “permanent” judicial appointments @ EOIR should be frozen pending development of merit-based criteria and active recruitment aimed at creating a more diverse, progressive judiciary. All existing “probationary judges” selected by Barr should have their positions “re-competed” under these merit-based criteria, with avenues of public input built into the permanent selection system.
Progressives, colleagues, members of the Round Table, members of the NDPA, if you’ve had enough of Garland’s lousy, insulting, tone-deaf, indolent, due-process-disparaging performance at EOIR let your voices be heard with the Biden Administration! What is going on at EOIR every day under Garland is not acceptable! The life-threatening, demeaning, totally unnecessary EOIR Clown Show must go! Now!
“EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept — Continues to be in demand under Garland!
Risch’s last-minute appointment at EOIR was particularly egregious, since he had no known Immigration Court experience. EOIR currently is in an existential crisis that threatens to topple the entire U.S. Justice System, with a highly politicized “judiciary” and an astounding, largely self-inflicted 1.3 million case backlog.
That backlog multiplied much faster than the additional Immigration Judges that Sessions and Barr used to “pack” the Immigration Courts with restrictionists and judges sympathetic to ICE enforcdement and often hostile to asylum seekers and their lawyers. As many experts have observed, the Trump era hires often had highly questionable judicial qualifications, many lacking any immigration law expertise or experience. Perhaps, that’s a reason why the backlog continued to grow exponentially even as Sessions and Barr tried gimmick after gimmick, a number of them blatantly illegal and enjoined by Federal Courts, to cut corners and “rev up” the “Trump Deportation Railroad @ EOIR.”
Obviously, throwing an unqualified political hack like Risch into this mess in a senior “management” position was just another example of the Trump Administration’s abuse of government resources and manipulation of personnel practices @ DOJ. It took some time for Judge Garland to get this one right. But, better late than never.
However encouraging the news of Risch’s departure might be, there is still much more “housecleaning” to be done by Garland at the EOIR Tower. That should start with BIA Chair David Wetmore, a Stephen Miller/Gene Hamilton crony with no positive reputation for scholarship or expertise in the immigration/human rights community and no known experience representing asylum seekers or other migrants in Immigration Court.
It’s little wonder that with “appellate judges” who have earned little respect in the legal community at large comprising the BIA, the system is a mess, turning out poor work product and elementary errors, “outed” by the Article IIIs on a regular basis.
Excerpts from “A New Opportunity to Build a 21st-Century Immigration Court System” by Elizabeth M. Mendoza:
This lack of judicial independence, along with heavy dockets and the vulnerability of the EOIR to the political influence of the administration in power, has created the crisis we have today. It also presents the Biden-Harris administration with the opportunity to course-correct and put the EOIR on a path to effectively, nimbly, and fairly navigate the 21st century and beyond.
. . . .
Immigration judges need to be able to manage their dockets. A practical tool to help them do so is the use of administrative closure. This tool allows judges to “freeze” cases, or make them inactive, at their discretion or when requested to do so by the UP or the Department of Homeland Security. The case remains in the court system under the control of the immigration judge, but it is not on an active docket requiring hearings in court. This tool is commonly used when the UP has a petition pending with another agency, usually Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS), that if approved would allow the UP to apply for permanent residency in court or with CIS. Through administrative closure, the judge can put the UP’s case on inactive status, allowing the UP to process the petition with another agency. This allows the judge to free up docket slots for other cases and thereby process more cases that do not have collateral relief or are higher priority.
. . . .
It is against this backdrop that the EOIR currently uses quotas. The quota metric imposed by the last presidential administration does little to promote a fair, nimble, effective court system. It is a policy that should be rescinded as soon as possible.
. . . .
Certifying cases without transparency or regard to the reality of the immigration situation at our borders, in our communities, and in the EOIR system itself does not engender confidence that the EOIR is independent. Indeed, case certification is the antithesis of an immigration judge’s judicial independence. And, while an administration may be tempted to use the certification tool to achieve its political and policy goals, it is not appropriate within the judicial context unless it is used to undo precedents clearly at odds with statutes, regulations, or congressional intent.
. . . .
With over 1 million cases pending in its system, the EOIR cannot continue down this path. It should institute reasonable, practical, real-world solutions to manage its docket and afford due process and fairness to those who come before it presenting their cases for relief.
. . . .
The EOIR must be effective, nimble, and fair. The Biden-Harris administration has all the tools at its disposal to recreate an EOIR that embodies these traits. It will require a thoughtful approach, competent management, consistent policy deployment, and transparency to achieve these goals. The last four years saw numerous policy and regulatory changes to the EOIR that fundamentally changed the focus of the immigration court system into what could be considered a “deportation machine.” As noted earlier, the EOIR is a civil court system housed inside a law enforcement agency. It is not an independent court.
. . . .
The people who appear before the EOIR deserve a well-functioning court system. Our communities deserve a court system that promptly adjudicates the cases of bad actors so they can be quickly removed. And our nation deserves an EOIR that reflects the best of American principles—that all people are equal under the law.
*********************************
“Nimble” certainly isn’t a word I’ve ever used to describe EOIR. But, it shows exactly why new thinking and dynamic creative leadership is required @ DOJ and EOIR. And, Elizabeth and others are more than ready to provide it! I just don’t think anyone asked them to come on board.
Something I learned as a Senior Executive in the Government and in private practice: If you want to change the composition of your workforce and attract the”best and the brightest” you must ACTIVELY recruit! It’s also something that I learned from rebuilding the Legacy INS legal program under General Counsel Maurice C. “Iron Mike” Inman, Jr.
Mike told me to treat every law school appearance, public speech, CLE, bar luncheon, or training session as a “recruitment opportunity” and never, never to rely solely on the “USG system” for getting out the word to the folks we wanted to reach to improve our program and provide better legal services to the Commissioner. He also insisted that I deliver that message to each member of our senior legal staff: every engagement was a potential selling and recruiting opportunity!
So, here’s Elizabeth’s “resume” —
About Attorney Elizabeth M. Mendoza
Attorney Elizabeth M. Mendoza practices exclusively immigration law since 1993. She is a graduate of Rice University and the University of Houston Law Center.
Attorney Mendoza represents immigrants and their families in family-based immigration, removal defense in immigration court (asylum, CAT, withholding of removal, cancellation of removal, voluntary departure), appeals and motions, consular processing, waivers, citizenship, work permits, TPS, NACARA, VAWA, U and T visas, Deferred Action, widow\er petitions, removal of conditionals of residency, and renewals of residency card.
For over two decades Attorney Mendoza has provided pro bono legal assistance to non-profit organizations throughout the Houston area, such as Catholic Charities. She volunteered at Bush Airport in Houston, Texas to assist travelers affected by the travel ban. Attorney Mendoza volunteered in Matamoros, Mexico in a camp along the Rio Grande helping asylum seekers.
Committed to supporting fair and just immigration laws, Attorney Mendoza has lobbied at the Texas capitol and in Washington, D.C. for comprehensive immigration legislation.
Advocating for immigrants and their families, Attorney Mendoza is a frequent speaker at community know your rights talks in churches and schools.
Attorney Mendoza is a speaker at workshops for the University of Houston Law Center and the state bar of Texas where she presents to colleagues about different immigration law topics.
Currently, Attorney Mendoza serves as the liaison to immigration courts (Executive Office for Immigration Review) in the Houston area on behalf of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA).
Attorney Mendoza is licensed by the state bar of Texas since 1993. She is a member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association since 1996.
So, here’s someone who not only has intellectual brilliance, comprehensive knowledge of immigration, human rights, and due process, organizational skills, presentation and writing skills, creativity, and demonstrated leadership and inspirational mentoring ability, but has actually used them to represent individuals in Immigration Court and to solve real life problems!
Everything a real judge or a competent judicial administrator should be!
Compare Elizabeth’s qualifications and background with the ridiculously thin qualifications of the “Miller Lite Holdover Gang of 17” that Garland had the audacity to announce publicly yesterday! (Only after “DT-21,” Kowalski, and I “outed” the sordid story.) You can’t compare them because there is no comparison! Elizabeth and other NDPA superstars are the folks we need in charge of EOIR, replacing the existing BIA, and on the Immigration Bench across the country. And, they aren’t hiding under rocks!
For obvious reasons many exceptionally well qualified practical scholars and advocates did not apply for largely fraudulent Immigration “Judgeships” that were more like “Deportation Clerkships” operating under a scofflaw, unethical, xenophobic, racist, misogynistic Trump DOJ.
For Pete’s sake, this is a life or death court system, not a stupid bureaucracy! It’s up to folks like Garland to actively recruit the “best and brightest” from the private sector, NGOs, academia, and minority communities to build a diverse, progressive judiciary that eventually will model “best judicial practices” and “feed” the Article IIIs “battle tested” judicial talent unswervingly committed to due process and equal justice for all.
Part of that is “repackaging and reinventing” these jobs as independent judgeships, with good working conditions, adequate support, no political interference, and where courage, integrity, and top flight scholarship in pursuit of due process, fundamental fairness, and equal justice for all will be encouraged, respected, and honored! In simple terms, “more Elizabeth Mendozas.” It’s also why all “recruitments” conducted under the Trump DOJ should be considered tainted and inherently suspect!
Not only was Barr being personally “disingenuous” by announcing his decision before the Mueller report was released and pretending he used the report to reach a conclusion instead of simply announcing the one he’d come to beforethe special counsel’s work had even finished his work, she wrote, “but DOJ has been disingenuous to this Court.”
“The fact that (Trump) would not be prosecuted was a given,” the judge wrote. In reality, it was a given from the moment Barr was appointed by Trump, as the past inevitably became prelude given his first stint as attorney general under George H.W. Bush. Back then, DOJ resisted efforts to get to the bottom of U.S. government-backed financing of Iraq in the run-up to Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait.
. . . .
Think of Barr as an updated version of Roy Cohn, an earlier Trump lawyer. Both men attended Horace Mann, the swank private school in the Riverdale section of New York City, and Columbia University. As with Cohn, things are not ending well for Barr.
. . . .
**************************
This is actually just the “tip of the ethics iceberg” at the DOJ. Unethical behavior was a staple of the DOJ’s various defenses of the Trump/Miller/Sessions/Barr White Nationalist agenda.
How about things like:
There is no child separation policy;
The “Muslim ban” isn’t a Muslim ban even though Trump said that was exactly what it was;
DHS is taking proper COVID-19 precautions in detention centers;
We can’t find children separated from their families under our child separation policy that we previously said didn’t exist;
The proposed census changes were necessary to protect the civil rights of minorities;
The need to prevent refugees from legally seeking asylum at our borders is a “national emergency” requiring Supreme intervention.
That just a small sampling of the “disingenuous” arguments that were a regular part of defending basically indefensible (and often clearly illegal) positions and policies in immigration cases presented by OIL and the SG’s Office during the Trump regime.
As a number of us have observed, the DOJ needed an immediate and thorough “housecleaning” which there is no sign of Garland being willing to undertake. Most DOJ attorneys are in the “excepted service” or “management officials” meaning that they largely are exempted from civil service protections and basically serve at the AG’s pleasure.
Just this week, we discovered that Garland had “honored” all of the Barr/Miller “holdover” appointments of Immigration Judges. There was absolutely no requirement that he do so, and every single reason why he should have withdrawn and cancelled these inappropriate, if not outright illegal, “holdover appointments” of judges who clearly and beyond any doubt were not the “best and brightest” selections for these important, life-determining Federal judgeships!
Who needs Mitch McConnell to gum up the works when you have Judge Garland to shoot himself and his Administration in the foot 17 times over while their (perhaps soon to be former) supporters look on in outrage and horror at yet another “unforced error” by the Biden Administration on immigration?
Honestly, doesn’t any Dem know how to play “hardball?” Maybe they need to take a seminar from the GOP!
“Can’t anyone here play this game?” Casey Stengel might understand Judge Garland’s strategy. The rest of us not so much. PHOTO: Rudi Reit Creative Commons
As all of us who served in the Federal Government know, you don’t have a Federal job until you take the oath of office and enter on duty. Until then, appointments can, and have in the past been, withdrawn and/or cancelled.
Given the nearly universal condemnation of the Trump Administration’s Immigration Judge and BIA selection criteria — from conservative commentators like Nolan Rappaport (The Hill), as well as liberals and progressives — a moratorium on further judicial appointments generated by the Trump Administration as many recommended should have been a “no brainer” for Garland.
At a minimum, these jobs should have been re-competed under new merit-based criteria that required immigration expertise and fairly credited experience gained through actually representing individuals in Immigration Court or teaching or supervising others doing so. Another requirement should be legitimate recruitment efforts within communities of minority attorneys and the immigration, human rights, and constitutional due process litigation bars.
Additionally, to state the blatantly obvious, the overt racism, misogyny, and improper and unethical enforcement weaponization of the Immigration Judiciary during the Trump regime discouraged many well-qualified progressive candidates from applying! Indeed, a number who were already in Immigration Judge positions, like some esteemed members of our Round Table, felt compelled to resign their judicial positions because of unethical or illegal interference by the Trump DOJ and their EOIR toadies with their quasi-judicial independence and their sworn obligation to uphold the Constitution.
Therefore, the 17 holdover Barr/Miller IJ appointments are necessarily tainted! Far beyond not making further appointments from Barr/Miller lists, a competent Dem AG would institute a review of all Barr IJ appointments still within the two-year probation period and apply merit-based retention criteria — with avenues for comment from the private immigration bar — to decisions as to whether these “probationary judges” should remain on the bench. Based on the anecdotal comments I have received at Courtside from across the country, a number of the Barr-appointed judges should not be on the bench under any circumstances.
This is not about the imaginary “job rights” of Barr/Miller selectees and appointees. No, it’s about the due process rights of migrants in Immigration Court — rights to a fair hearing before a qualified, impartial judge that are being violated on a wide-scale, daily basis in EOIR “courts” (a/k/a “Garland’s Star Chambers”) throughout the nation! It’s also about the right of those representing individuals in Immigration Court, many pro bono or “low-bono,” to respectful, professional treatment by well-qualified Immigration Judges.
Right now, attorneys are sometimes forced to appear before “judges” who know far less about asylum and immigration laws than they do. Many believe that they actually have to “train” these new judges in the law, only to have them go on and deny their meritorious cases on specious grounds.
How would Judge Garland and his “ivory tower lieutenants” like to “practice law” under these conditions! To be honest, “retail level experience” representing humans (not government agencies) in Immigration Count should be a minimum requirement for all Federal Judges up to the Supremes, not just for Immigration Judges! The caviler attitudes and fundamental misunderstandings that Federal Judges at all levels of our broken justice system too often exhibit toward the lives and rights of asylum seekers and migrants are both appalling and unacceptable in a functioning democracy.
This system is broken, and despite having the blueprints for reform in his hands, and hundreds of NDPA experts he could tap to help, Garland hasn’t done squat to fix it!
All and all, Judge Garland is off to a disappointing, actually horrible, start at Justice. And, the idea that he can fix racial justice, equal justice, voting rights, and civil rights while running “Star Chambers” at EOIR is total non-starter. Not going to happen!
“Justice” Star Chamber Style
Those of us who actually recognize what justice is, and who know there will be neither equal justice nor racial justice unless and until there is justice for asylum seekers and immigrants in the Immigration Courts, have an obligation to keep up the criticism until these problems are solved. It’s not rocket science. 🚀 But, it does require a far different approach, much different personnel choices, and bolder, more courageous actions than we have seen to date from the Biden Administration!
The Biden administration’s approach to the border and immigration has been heavily criticized. With Trump-era policies still in place, some advocates object to the way the rules are being enforced right now, specifically a provision known as Title 42.
Geoffrey Hoffman is a clinical professor and director of the immigration clinic at the University of Houston Law Center. Hoffman told Texas Standard that Title 42 authorizes the surgeon general to suspend immigration into the United States on public health grounds. It has been on the books since the 1940s, and though Title 42 has been evoked several times, its use increased significantly during the Trump administration.
“Back in March of 2020, the Trump administration used Title 42 to curtail, basically, entry of almost everyone from the Mexican border coming in to try to seek asylum,” Hoffman said. “And so that was a very, very big impact on those people.”
Hoffman says 600,000 people have been expelled from the country under Title 42.
Immigration advocates say Title 42 is being used as an “end run” around laws allowing asylum-seekers to enter the United States and pursue their claims.
“The issue is really that it’s being used at the land border in Mexico and Canada, and not through other entries. So it’s been seen as being discriminatory, and a racial-justice issue,” Hoffman said.
The Biden administration has continued to use Title 42, carving out an exception for unaccompanied minors who are being allowed into the country to pursue asylum claims. Some immigration advocates say applying Title 42 differently to different populations should be ended.
“You have Title 42 being used, according to immigration advocates, as a pretext,” Hoffman said. “It’s a pretext to prevent people who are otherwise legitimately seeking asylum, preventing them from seeking that relief.”
Hoffman says the United States has an obligation under the nation’s own laws, and under international law, to provide a means by which asylum-seekers can make their claims. Forcing migrants out of the country without a hearing, under Title 42, violates those laws, he says.
If you found the reporting above valuable, please consider making a donation to support it here. Your gift helps pay for everything you find on texasstandard.org and KUT.org. Thanks for donating today.
*****************
Remember how Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions was never shy about intervening in matters outside his agencyjurisdiction, like child separation and DACA, when it fit his White Nationalist political agenda?
But, Judge Garland has not only failed to restore an operating legal asylum system @ EOIR, but also has stood by and watched while DHS daily commits gross violations of international, constitutional, and statutory law — violations that threaten life and safety — under a pretext carried over from the Trumpists.
Significantly, a U.S. District Judge in D.C. recently ruled that:
It is the role of the political branches, and not the courts, to assess the merits of policy measures designed to combat the spread of disease, even during a global pandemic,” she continued. “The question for the Court is a narrow one: Does the Public Health Service Act grant the CDC the legal authority to impose a nationwide eviction moratorium? It does not.
This rationale appears equally applicable to CDC’s legal authority to suspend international conventions, asylum statutes, immigration laws, and constitutional due process on a cosmic scale as pretext for ending our legal asylum system without passing legislation!
Sure, there are problems at the border. But, the solution is to:
restore legal screening at the ports of entry;
reinstate a fair and robust legal asylum process using more trained Asylum Officers and better Immigration Judges — progressive experts in asylum law (NOT like the “gang of 17” same old, same old “bureaucratic retreads” the tone-deaf Judge Garland just put on the bench);
repeal of the Sessions/Barr anti-asylum precedents and replacing the BIA with judges who are asylum experts;
creating more opportunities for legal immigration for both refugees and needed workers;
enlisting the support of the UNHCR, NGOs, religious organizations, universities, and local governments to aid in the processing, representation, and resettlement of asylum seekers; and
slashing artificial and unnecessary Immigration Court backlogs to allow qualified expert Immigration Judges to adjudicate on a “real time” basis represented asylum cases that can’t quickly be granted at the Asylum Office and to establish some positive precedents in asylum law to govern and guide practitioners, Immigration Judges, and Asylum Officers.
It’s not rocket science. But, it very clearly is beyond the capability of Mayorkas, Garland, and the other folks Biden has put in charge of the Administration’s immigration policies. There are folks out there who can do the job — Professor Hoffman is just one of many.
The responsible positions necessary to reform, restore, and revitalize our nation’s refugee, asylum, and immigration laws are mostly at the sub-cabinet level, not requiring Senate confirmation. EOIR is a prime example of a great opportunity for progressive change being inexplicably squandered by Garland and his clueless lieutenants. What is important, and has been conspicuously absent from Biden immigration policies to date, is some inspired leadership and enlightened personnel choices from Mayorkas, Garland, and Becerra.
For example, Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions had no hesitation about spreading false narratives about asylum seekers, demeaning their humanity, disrespecting their hard-working attorneys, and encouraging “his” judges to deny more cases (particularly those involving women of color), and to elevate productivity, cutting corners, and obedience to his policies over quality, fairness, due process, and protecting the legal rights of asylum seekers and other immigrants from DHS overreach.
But, what inspiring statement has Judge Garland made about the necessity of making adherence to fundamental fairness, due process, best practices, quasi-judicial independence, and humane treatment of all respondents the touchstone of EOIR? What visible appointments of widely respected practical scholars and human rights experts has he made in EOIR management, the Immigration Judiciary, OIL, or elsewhere in the DOJ. NONE! Sometimes silence speaks more loudly than words!
With the pandemic and Trump’s xenophobic illegal attack on our legal immigration system, in the face of a sharply declining birth rate, we have plenty room for more immigrants, be they refugees, family members, or essential workers. As Professor Hoffman and others of us had predicted, the racist attack on our immigration system by Trump, unfortunately largely continued by the Biden Administration, has turned our immigration system over to smugglers, cartels, gangs, and pure chance.
A rational, orderly, humane, and most of all legal and constitutional immigration system would benefit all of us. It’s a shame that those currently in Government can’t or won’t make it happen.
Judge Garland’s vision of “justice” for immigrants @ Justice:
“Miller Lite” – Garland’s Vision of “Justice @ Justice” for Communities of ColorGone from the West Wing, but he and his EOIR “plants” remain an inspiration for “Dred Scottification” of the other, unconstitutional “judging,” worst practices, and demeaning treatment of human rights experts and due process advocates by the DOJ! Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com
Courtside Exclusive
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
May 5, 2021
This just in from a NDPA stalwart in Houston, TX:
Houston we still have a (huge) problem! Luckily we also have some great immigration advocates and members of the due process army.
. . . .
Houston EOIR is still closed for non-detained. They have just built a third immigration court here, “Greenspoint”, with over 30 brand new judges, just collecting dust (although that’s probably a good thing as it would only serve as a deportation mill). If you can believe the absurdity, you have to file a motion for change of venue + a motion to consolidate, to join family members whose cases have been placed in different courts all here in Houston. 🤦♂️🤦♂️
I believe Houston now has the 2nd largest backlog after New York City now, in large part due to the mismanagement by EOIR HQ.
***************
From coast to coast, from the Rio Grande to the Great Lakes, Courtside followers and NDPA warriors are making it clear: Garland’s failure to take due process and racial justice in Immigration Court seriously and his disregard and disrespect for immigration/human rights experts is furthering havoc in the American justice system!
Is it “malicious incompetence” or just plain old incompetence and disregard for the due process rights of “the other” by Garland? Does it make any difference?
What will make a difference is flooding the Article IIIs with litigation challenging this ongoing constitutional nonsense and squandering of taxpayer funds! Overwhelm EOIR with applications for judicial positions and “bore out” the rotten foundations of this system from the inside with the tools of due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices! Also, inundate your Congressional representatives with demands that this blot on American justice be removed from the DOJ forthwith!Write those op-eds and keep informing your local media about the unmitigated, unnecessary, unconscionable, unconstitutional continuing disaster at Garland’s EOIR and how it destroys human lives on a daily basis! Shine the beacon of due process and justice on the dark, secretive, unconstitutional “Star Chambers” Garland operates in the guise of Immigration “Courts.”
Progressives must put an end to Garland’s Star Chamber Style “Justice” @ Justice. Demand REAL courts with independent, progressive, expert judges who have actually represented human beings in Immigration Court! No more “plants,” “insiders,” and “go along to get along” appointments to America’s key human rights and racial justice judiciary. No more bureaucratic incompetence, assembly line justice, anti-immigrant misogynist culture, and “deportation adjudication centers” masquerading as “courts!” Open up this secretive, closed, unjust bureaucracy to the light of justice and the NDPA! Due Process Forever!
NDPA legions, don’t be content to “wander in the wilderness” while clueless politicos and bureaucrats @ Garland’s DOJ destroy your sanity and the lives of the humans you represent! Stand up to institutionalized racism, continuing incompetence, disgraceful misogyny, intransigence, and ongoing “Dred Scottification” of communities of color by the Garland DOJ! End the DOJ’s anti-immigrant culture and disrespect for the defenders of due process and American democracy that goes on Administration after Administration as if your clients’ lives and your professional expertise were “chopped liver!” Enough is enough! Fight back against “Miller Lite Justice!”
My fellow warriors for justice, YOU are again being ignored, shut out, marginalized, abused, looked down upon, dehumanized, insulted, and scorned by yet another Dem Administration that YOU helped put in office! Time to stand up and be heard for YOUR rights, the rights of the people YOU represent, and the future of our Federal Judiciary and our American Democracy!
NO MORE “MILLER LITE @ JUSTICE!” ASK YOURSELVES: WHO WON THE LAST ELECTION? WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO “WIN” IF GARLAND CONTINUES TO RUN THE IMMIGRATION COURTS LIKE STEPHEN MILLER IS STILL IN CHARGE?
but yesterday the Director’s message indicated that the 17 new judges were – In April, we welcomed 17 new Immigration Judges (IJs), including one Assistant Chief Immigration Judge, six Unit Chief Immigration Judges, and ten IJs. They will serve in the following locations: Adelanto, Atlanta, Chicago, Houston, New York, Portland, and Richmond
A thought to share – I suppose one who is familiar with the above courts could check out each court website listing the judges snd see who is new. Then some web searching can get backgrounds. Takes time, yes, but perhaps more fruitful than waiting for EOIR to respond.
*******************
So, EOIR “welcomed” new IJs in April without bothering to introduce them to the community whose lives and professional futures will be in their hands. This is how Garland intends to “do business” with those in the advocacy community who helped put him in his job! Nice touch, Judge G!
Heck, even Sessions & Barr were willing to announce publicly the names and backgrounds of those with whom the were “packing” their Immigration Courts. They actually were quite proud of their anti-due-process, anti-progressive, non-expert picks that they could “shove down the throats” of the advocacy community (“dirty lawyers” as Gonzo Sessions called them) and their clients — the “other” in our society, not worthy of the legal and human rights conferred on “real persons.”
But, Team Garland is neither as honest nor as forthcoming. “Get it though the rumor mill” or find out the day of your “star chamber proceeding” is apparently the new attitude of contempt at DOJ/EOIR for the NDPA!
Obviously, expansion and staffing of the “Richmond VTC” — a “kangaroo court” arrangement opposed and panned by most immigration and human rights experts is a slap in the face to ethnic communities and activists who helped put Biden and Harris (and indirectly Garland, Monaco, and Gupta) in office.
Fortunately, the NDPA knows a thing or two about how to “speak through litigation and political agitation” if that’s the game the Biden Administration wants to play. It’s now becoming clear that any positive changes and due process in the Immigration Courts over the next four years will come from outside the Administration.
So be it! It might not bode so well, though, for the Biden Administration when they come around seeking support from the immigration/human rights/civil rights communities for the next election!
The GOP treats the immigration advocacy community with consistent contempt. With Dems, the contempt is also pretty consistent — but with an exception every fourth year during Presidential campaigns.
Description:
After a tumultuous four years in immigration law, the Biden administration promised to make immigration reforms a priority. The term started off with a series of executive orders reversing some policies, directing implementation of new ones, and asking agencies to pause and reassess. This panel will explore what has changed in the first 100 days of the administration and what still needs to be done with regard to family separation, enforcement, and due process as well as humanitarian, family, and business immigration law.
Moderator:
Elizabeth Gibson, New York Legal Assistance Group (NYLAG)
Speakers:
Denise Bell, Amnesty International
Kennji Kizuka, Human Rights First
Claire Razzolini, Gibney Anthony & Flaherty, LLP
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, American Immigration Council
Charles Wheeler, Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC)
Program Fee:
Free for Members | Free for Non-Lawyers | $15 for Non-Member Lawyers
Non-Lawyers please call Customer Service at 212-382-6663 to register.
Presumably, the panel will discuss the ongoing failure of the Biden Administration & “Team Garland” to address the continuing due process disaster, institutionalized racism, and misogyny at EOIR.
We have just seen on refugee numbers how channeled public outrage and organized pressure can quickly turn around misguided nativist policies. How can the advocacy community, legal community, academia, humanitarians, religious groups, civil rights organizations, ethnic communities, and other members of NDPA unite to force Judge Garland to make the long, long, long overdue progressive changes in our Immigration Courts and to reinstitute at least some semblances of fairness, due process, and independence into this totally dysfunctional system until Congress creates an Article I Court?
President Biden is formally lifting the nation’s refugee cap to 62,500 this year, weeks after facing bipartisan blowback for his delay in removing former President Trump’s limit of 15,000.
Biden last month moved to expand the eligibility criteria for resettlements, removing one roadblock to refugees entering the U.S. put in place by Trump, but he had initially stopped short of lifting the annual cap, with aides saying they did not believe it was necessary. But Biden faced sharp pushback for not at least taking the symbolic step of authorizing more refugees to enter the U.S. this year and swiftly reversed course.
Biden, in a statement, said the new limit “erases the historically low number set by the previous administration,” adding that Trump’s cap “did not reflect America’s values as a nation that welcomes and supports refugees.”
“It is important to take this action today to remove any lingering doubt in the minds of refugees around the world who have suffered so much, and who are anxiously waiting for their new lives to begin,” Biden added.
**********************
So, excruciating, aggressive, very public pressure from progressive humanitarians works with a President who pays attention to facts and actually wants to govern in the public interest.
Maybe the same advocacy groups, interest groups, and legislators need to radically step up the pressure for progressive changes (or at least the end of active oppression) at the Immigration Courts, which are a main impediment to a fair asylum system. Folks, asylum seekers are “refugees” — first and foremost! The failure to recognize that and treat them legally and humanely is beyond disgraceful!
The unmitigated Immigration Court disaster also undermines racial justice in America every single day that “Team Garland” continues with Stephen Miller’s White Nationalist nativist policies and Miller’s restrictionist “judges” in the Immigration Courts!
Judge Garland has been “living in the Ivory Tower” for a long time, obviously too long! But Lisa Monaco and Vanita Gupta actually have had to make a living in the “real world” for the past four years. Somebody in the advocacy community who knows these two needs to pick up the phone and read them the “riot act” on the racist, misogynistic, nativist, anti-due-process, regressive, mismanaged human rights disaster unfolding on their watch every day at EOIR — America’s worst excuse for a “court system!”
WASHINGTON — With shaking hands, Karen Cruz Caceres manages to hit record on the call.
“How many days have you gone without food?” she asks into the phone.
Tani, her younger sister, is heard sobbing. “Help me,” she gets out.
Cruz Caceres assures her: “I am going to pay today. I’ll make another deposit.”
The April 1 call ends abruptly, and Cruz Caceres stops recording.
A week before, Cruz Caceres, a single mother from Honduras who won asylum in Tennessee, had gotten another call that upended her already precarious life: Kidnappers in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, had abducted her pregnant sister Tani and Tani’s 4-year-old son, and they wanted more than $20,000, according to a video recording of the call and messages reviewed by the Los Angeles Times. The family asked The Times not to use her sister’s last name, for fear of retribution from the kidnappers in Mexico and gangs back home.
Tani, 33, and her son were kidnapped on March 25, Cruz Caceres and lawyers said — just after U.S. authorities expelled them from Texas alongside other mothers and children under a Trump-era pandemic policy known as Title 42, which President Biden has continued.
The unprecedented policy, which relies on an obscure 1944 public health statute to indefinitely close the border to “nonessential” travel, has made migrant children and parents easy prey for the criminal groups waiting just on the other side. Biden’s continued reliance on Title 42 to quickly remove the vast majority of migrants at the southern border without due process contrasts with his pledge to restore “human dignity” to a U.S. immigration system targeted by former President Trump.
“My sister and my nephew were told they were going to kill them and feed them to the dogs,” Cruz Caceres told The Times. “If [U.S. officials] want to deport them back to their country, why don’t they do it now like prior presidents did?” she asked. “Why dump them to try their luck in the most dangerous cities in Mexico, to get abducted by kidnappers?”
The abduction of migrants in northern Mexico and the extortion from U.S. family members isn’t new, lawyers, experts and officials told The Times — what’s new is the reliance on Title 42 to expel thousands of these already vulnerable families, leaving them at the mercy of kidnappers and other criminals.
Since the Trump administration implemented Title 42 in March last year amid a global pandemic, U.S. border officials have carried out more than 630,000 expulsions under the policy, some 240,000 since Biden took office in January, according to a Times analysis of the latest government data.
. . . .
*****************
Read the rest of Molly’s article at the link.
The Biden Administration ran and took office on a platform of kinder, saner policies that would restore human rights and the rule of law at the border. So far, that promise has been a deadly lie!
Arbitrarily and unlawfully closing legal ports of entry to asylum seekers and abrogating asylum and refugee laws plays directly into the hands of human smugglers and cartels while expanding the extralegal immigration system and the resulting underground of undocumented residents. Many of these individuals could and should have been legally admitted through legal channels if we had a functioning immigration system overseen by fair, impartial, expert Immigration Courts staffed with well-qualified progressive Immigration Judges.
Naturally, with no legal asylum system in place, and with asylum seekers arbitrarily rejected at legal ports of entry, as described in Molly’s article, desperate individuals will turn to smugglers to achieve refuge. It’s not rocket science; but sadly the human tragedy that illegal, inhumane government policies cause at our border appear to be “out of sight, out of mind” to Judge Garland and other Biden Administration officials. That is, until the dead bodies start to pile up on their doorsteps!
“Floaters — How The World’s Richest Country Responds To Asylum Seekers” This appears to be the Garland, Monaco, Gupta view of human rights and the rule of law for asylum seeker! What if we thought of these folks as our fellow human beings, rather than statistics or problems to be “deterred” through illegal, deadly, and ultimately ineffective policies? What if Garland replaced Miller’s nativist “judges” with REAL progressive Immigration Judges who are experts in asylum and due process and have the guts to grant legal protection to eligible migrants in a prompt, fair, and timely manner and to demand that DHS Asylum Officers do likewise? (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)
“Reading the broad language of §§ 1003.10(b) and 1240.1(a)(1)(iv), we conclude that these regulations give the IJ the Attorney General’s discretionary authority to grant a § 1182(d)(3)(A)(ii) waiver. … [W]e grant the petition, vacate the BIA’s final removal order, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Seldom has a supposed quasi-judicial tribunal worked as hard as the current BIA to find limits on its ability to solve legal and humanitarian problems. That leaves the work to the Circuits, as in this case.
So, why have EOIR at all? The system clearly is unconstitutional because it lacks fair and impartial adjudicators and even minimally competent administration of due process. If Garland, Monaco, and Gupta have no interest in fixing these glaring problems, then why not just transfer EOIR’s functions to the U.S. District Courts and U.S. Magistrate Judges under the supervision of the Courts of Appeals?
Dems talk big about the need for a more progressive Federal Judiciary to achieve racial justice. But, given the chance actually to create one, they sit on their hands!
Not so the GOP! Restrictionists, nativists, reactionaries and White Nationalists recognize the repressive power of a captive and co-opted Immigration Judiciary and act accordingly. “Act” — that’s the operative word that doesn’t appear to be in the Dem’s vocabulary when it comes to building a better Federal Judiciary for a better America.
Progressives might initially have cheered the appointment of these three to top leadership posts @ the DOJ. But, to date, they have shown no interest in rescinding Stephen Miller’s White Nationalist immigration policies or replacing Miller’s nativist judges with progressive expert judges @ EOIR.
Judge Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney General Official White House Photo Public RealmLisa Monaco Deputy AG Official USG Photo, Public RealmVanita Gupta Associate Attorney General Photo: Brookings Institution, Paul Morigi, Creative Commons License.
Grundoon From Walt Kelly’s “Pogo” SOURCE: Pininterest
Grundoon: A diapered baby groundhog (or “woodchunk” in swamp-speak). An infant toddler, Grundoon speaks only gibberish, represented by strings of random consonants like “Bzfgt”, “ktpv”, “mnpx”, “gpss”, “twzkd”, or “znp”. Eventually, Grundoon learns to say two things: “Bye” and “Bye-bye”. He also has a baby sister, whose full name is Li’l Honey Bunny Ducky Downy Sweetie Chicken Pie Li’l Everlovin’ Jelly Bean. [From the Walt Kelly comic strip “Pogo.”]
In a recent blog post, I discussed the difficulty in establishing asylum based on a political opinion expressed against MS-13. In the specific case discussed, the Board of Immigration Appeals reversed the Immigration Judge’s finding that the asylum-seeker had expressed a political opinion to MS-13 members.1 In reversing the Immigration Judge, the BIA specifically stated as to MS-13 that “the gangs are criminal organizations, and not political or governmental organizations and gang activities are not political in nature.” The BIA has repeatedly expressed this same view (using this or similar boilerplate language) in its decisions denying asylum. In the particular case discussed in my blog post, a split panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals could not find enough evidence of record to compel the majority to overturn the BIA’s conclusion.
The BIA is of course a part of the U.S. Department of Justice; its judges are appointed by and employed by the Attorney General. Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was one of the Department officials to make the following point to a class of new Immigration Judges in March 2019:
Immigration judges appointed by the Attorney General and supervised by the Executive Office for Immigration Review are not only judges. First, you are not only judges because you are also employees of the United States Department of Justice. It is a great honor to serve in this Department. In the courtyard just outside the entrance to this Great Hall, high up on the interior wall of the Main Justice building, there is a depiction of the scales of justice and an inscription that reads, “Privilegium Obligatio.” It means that when you accept a privilege, you incur an obligation. In this Department, our duty is in our name. We are the only cabinet agency with a name that articulates a moral value.
Justice is not measured by statistics. Our employees learn from day one that their duty is to gather the facts, seek the truth, apply the law, and respect the policies and principles of the Department of Justice.
The second reason that you are not only judges is that in addition to your adjudicative function – finding facts and applying laws – you are a member of the executive branch. You follow lawful instructions from the Attorney General, and you share a duty to enforce the law.2
The clear message being conveyed is “Don’t get any big ideas of judicial independence and neutrality; you work for ‘Team Justice,’ and you will behave accordingly.” Am I alone in thinking that the motto cited by Rosenstein, “when you accept a privilege, you incur an obligation,” here comes across as a boss reminding new employees where their loyalties lie rather than as a commitment to truth and justice?
As wrong as this message is when conveyed to judges who are supposed to enjoy the independence and neutrality to rule against the Department of Justice and the Attorney General when the facts and law compel such an outcome, let’s examine this view for the consistency of its application as to all DOJ employees. Presumably, the Board’s official stance that MS-13 is not a political organization and that its activities are criminal and not political in nature enjoys the Department’s seal of approval. In fact, other Department of Justice attorneys, working for the Office of Immigration Litigation, defend that view when the BIA”s decisions are reviewed on appeal by the Circuit Courts. I’m not aware of any Attorney General action to certify a BIA decision expressing this view in order to correct the Board’s position on this issue, or even to remand to the Board for further consideration of its position in light of other conflicting views within the Department.
Regarding such conflicting views, I was recently made aware of a criminal indictment drafted by the U.S. Attorneys’ Office in the Eastern District of New York.3 The indictment was filed in December, 2020, while the Trump Administration was still in office. The opening paragraph of the indictment states that MS-13 is a transnational criminal organization engaged in terrorist activity, and that its members use violence “in order to obtain concessions from the government of El Salvador, achieve political goals and retaliate for government actions against MS-13’s members and leaders.” (emphasis added).
The indictment contains a specific section titled “Political Influence in El Salvador.” The indictment states that a unit of MS-13, the Ranfla Nacional, “gained political influence as a result of the violence and intimidation MS-13 exerted on the government and population of El Salvador.” It continued that the organization exercised leverage on the Salvadoran government through its control on the level of violence. The indictment states that in 2012, MS-13 exercised its leverage to negotiate a truce with the ruling FMLN party and its rival 18th Street “to reduce homicides in El Salvador in return for improved prison conditions, benefits and money.” According to the indictment, MS-13 also negotiated a similar agreement with the rival ARENA party, promising to deliver votes in return for benefits. The indictment states that over time, “the Ranfla Nacional continued to negotiate with political parties in El Salvador and use its control of the level of violence to influence the actions of the government in El Salvador.”
The indictment also contains a section explaining the purpose of the Ranfla Nacional. The second specific goal listed is: “Influencing the actions of governments in El Salvador and elsewhere to implement policies favorable to MS-13.”
The attorneys who made the above claims in an indictment filed in Federal District Court are also employees of the U.S. Department of Justice. They are also members of the executive branch, following lawful instructions from the Attorney General, and sharing a duty to enforce the law. In the Second Circuit case I recently discussed, other Department of Justice attorneys in their brief to the court defended the Board’s decision by depicting MS-13 as “an institution that is entirely non-governmental – that is…a group of criminals who, in fact, reject the rules set out by the government.” Noticeably absent from the same brief was any mention that this “rejection of the rules set out by government” includes strategies to pressure said government into undertaking specific actions, as well as its entering into negotiations and ultimately agreements with political parties, the terms of which include MS-13’s delivering votes in return for the parties’ commitment to enacting beneficial policies.
So how can it be that attorneys in one office of the Department of Justice argue that MS-13 as an organization is engaged in exerting political influence to achieve its political goals, and at the same time, another group of attorneys within the same Department of Justice can sign orders sending victims of the same MS-13 to their death by employing a boilerplate sentence that MS-13 is not a political organization and its activities are not political in nature? And that the decisions of that latter group are then defended by a third group of Department attorneys on appeal who make no mention of the conflicting arguments? Let’s remember that, according to Rosenstein, these attorneys were taught from day one that their duties as Department of Justice employees include gathering the facts and seeking the truth.
In 1997, a very different BIA wrote the following in a decision that, although still binding as precedent, seems long forgotten:
immigration enforcement obligations do not consist only of initiating and conducting prompt proceedings that lead to removals at any cost. Rather, as has been said, the government wins when justice is done. In that regard, the handbook for trial attorneys states that “[t]he respondent should be aided in obtaining any procedural rights or benefits required by the statute, regulation and controlling court decision, of the requirements of fairness.” Handbook for Trial Attorneys § 1.3 (1964). See generally Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas Co. v. FERC, 962 F.2d 45, 48 (D.C. Cir. 1992)(finding astonishing that counsel for a federal administrative agency denied that the A.B.A. Code of Professional Responsibility holds government lawyers to a higher standard and has obligations that “might sometimes trump the desire to pound an opponent into submission”); Reid v. INS, 949 F.2d 287 (9th Cir. 1991)(noting that government counsel has an interest only in the law being observed, not in victory or defeat).4
This matter deserves the immediate attention of Attorney General Merrick Garland. The ability of asylum seekers to receive a fair review of their claims based on accurate information is a matter of life and death. At this early stage of the Biden Administration, it is critical that the Department send a clear message that the “obligation” mentioned in its motto is to serve an ideal of justice that is independent of the particular politics of those temporally in charge.
Copyright 2021 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
Matter of S-M-J-, 21 I&N Dec. 722, 727 (BIA 1997).
APRIL 29, 2021
Reprinted by permission.
*************
As most outside the nativist world know, the BIA’s position that Northern Triangle gangs aren’t political in nature and action is absurd! For Pete’s sake, these guys negotiate “peace treaties” with governments, control large swaths of territory, manipulate “public death rates” for political gain, aid or punish political candidates and police, collect taxes, control jobs, and have economic policies. Sure sounds like a quasi-governmental, clearly political entity to me. Somewhere, there is a dissent of mine in an old published CAT case saying approximately that.
At least at one point, gangs in El Salvador controlled more jobs than did the Salvadoran Government! No competent, unbiased group of adjudicators (not to mention supposed “experts”) could have reached the BIA’s ridiculous, clearly politicized conclusions!
Sadly, to date, Judge Garland has followed in the footsteps of his dilatory Dem predecessors by destroying lives, promoting injustice, and blowing the Dems’ best chance to build a progressive, due process oriented, human rights advancing judiciary that also would help resolve America’s failure to come to grips with the 1951 U.N. Refugee Convention and its key role in our legal immigration system as well as being a prerequisite to achieving racial justice in America.
Supposedly, these are the goals of the Biden Administration. Unfortunately, Garland, Monaco, and Gupta haven’t gotten the message, although it has been “delivered” time after time by numerous experts and advocates!
A few historical notes:
I was on the en banc BIA that decided Matter of S-M-J-, cited by Jeffrey. It was written by Judge Michael J. Heilman, a fellow Wisconsinite who once had worked for me at the “Legacy INS” General Counsel, following service as a State Department consular officer. That case “originated” on a three-member panel of Heilman, the late Judge Lauri Steven Filppu, and me. It reflects the “government wins when justice is done” message that I had incorporated into INS attorney training years earlier, as well as fealty to UN Handbook standards encouraged by the Supremes in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, and the “best practices” that bygone BIA was consciously and aggressively advancing.
Former DAG Rod Rosenstein was once a respected career prosecutor who served Administrations of both parties. Then, he “sold out” to the Trump Administration and its neo-fascists. Although that probably should have ended his legal career, he’s currently enjoying life in “big law” while those victims harmed and wronged by the illegal and unethical policies (or, in some cases their survivors) he furthered continue to suffer.
Radical progressive due process reforms @ EOIR, starting with wholesale personnel changes and revocation of restrictionist, racist, misogynist policies and practices is long overdue. Nearly two months into his tenure Judge Garland has yet to demonstrate awareness of the need for immediate, decisive action. Meanwhile the bodies continue to pile up and the “adverse decisions” from the Article IIIs bearing his name and tarnishing his reputation continue to roll in!
Actually, Judge, each wrong decision from the BIA represents a human life ruined, often irrevocably. Is that the type of “impact” on American justice that you intend to leave as your “legacy?”
EOIR HQ, Falls Church, VA (a/k/a “The Tower of Babel”) By Pieter Bruegel The Elder Public Domain
NIZ-CHAVEZ v. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
No. 19–863. Argued November 9, 2020—Decided April 29, 2021
Nonpermanent resident aliens ordered removed from the United States under federal immigration law may be eligible for discretionary relief if, among other things, they can establish their continuous presence in the country for at least 10 years. 8 U. S. C. §1229b(b)(1). But the so- called stop-time rule included in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) provides that the pe- riod of continuous presence “shall be deemed to end . . . when the alien is served a notice to appear” in a removal proceeding under §1229a. §1229b(d)(1). The term “notice to appear” is defined as “written notice . . . specifying” certain information, such as the charges against the al- ien and the time and place at which the removal proceedings will be held. §1229(a)(1). A notice that omits any of this statutorily required information does not trigger the stop-time rule. See Pereira v. Ses- sions, 585 U. S. ___. Here, the government ordered the removal of pe- titioner Agusto Niz-Chavez and sent him a document containing the charges against him. Two months later, it sent a second document, providing Mr. Niz-Chavez with the time and place of his hearing. The government contends that because the two documents collectively specified all statutorily required information for “a notice to appear,” Mr. Niz-Chavez’s continuous presence in the country stopped when he was served with the second document.
Held: A notice to appear sufficient to trigger the IIRIRA’s stop-time rule is a single document containing all the information about an individ- ual’s removal hearing specified in §1229(a)(1). Pp. 4–12.
(a) Section 1229b(d)(1) states that the stop-time rule is triggered by serving “a notice,” and §1229(a)(1) explains that “written notice” is “re- ferred to as a ‘notice to appear.’ ” Congress’s decision to use the indef- inite article “a” suggests it envisioned “a” single notice provided at a
2
NIZ-CHAVEZ v. GARLAND Syllabus
discrete time rather than a series of notices that collectively provide the required information. While the indefinite article “a” can some- times be read to permit multiple installments (such as “a manuscript” delivered over months), that is not true for words like “notice” that can refer to either a countable object (“a notice”) or a noncountable abstrac- tion (“sufficient notice”). The inclusion of an indefinite article suggests Congress used “notice” in its countable sense. More broadly, Congress has used indefinite articles to describe other case-initiating plead- ings—such as an indictment, an information, or a civil complaint, see, e.g., Fed. Rules Crim. Proc. 7(a), (c)(1), (e); Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 3—and none suggest those documents might be delivered by installment. Nor does the Dictionary Act aid the government, as that provision merely tells readers of the U. S. Code to assume “words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things.” 1 U. S. C. §1. That provision means only that terms describing a single thing (“a no- tice”) can apply to more than one of that thing (“ten notices”). While it certainly allows the government to send multiple notices to appear to multiple people, it does not mean a notice to appear can consist of mul- tiple documents. Pp. 4–9.
(b) The IIRIRA’s structure and history support requiring the govern- ment to issue a single notice containing all the required information. Two related provisions, §§1229(e)(1) and 1229a(b)(7), both use a defi- nite article with a singular noun (“the notice”) when referring to the government’s charging document—a combination that again suggests a discrete document. Another provision, §1229(a)(2)(A), requires “a written notice” when the government wishes to change an alien’s hear- ing date. The government does not argue that this provision contem- plates providing “the new time or place of the proceedings” and the “consequences . . . of failing . . . to attend such proceedings” in separate documents. Yet the government fails to explain why “a notice to ap- pear” should operate differently. Finally, the predecessor to today’s “notice to appear” required the government to specify the place and time for the alien’s hearing “in the order to show cause or otherwise.” §1252(a)(2)(A). The phrase “or otherwise” has since disappeared, fur- ther suggesting that the required details must be included upfront to invoke the stop-time rule. Indeed, that is how the government itself initially read the statute. The year after Congress adopted IIRIRA, in the preamble to a proposed rule implementing these provisions, the government acknowledged that “the language of the amended Act in- dicat[es] that the time and place of the hearing must be on the Notice to Appear.” 62 Fed. Reg. 449 (1997). Pp. 9–13.
(c) The government claims that not knowing hearing officers’ avail- ability when it initiates removal proceedings makes it difficult to pro-duce compliant notices. It also claims that it makes little sense to re- quire time and place information in a notice to appear when that in- formation may be later changed. Besides, the government stresses, its own administrative regulations have always authorized its current practice. But on the government’s account, it would be free to send a person who is not from this country—someone who may be unfamiliar with English and the habits of American bureaucracies—a series of letters over the course of weeks, months, maybe years, each containing a new morsel of vital information. Congress could reasonably have wished to foreclose that possibility. And ultimately, pleas of adminis- trative inconvenience never “justify departing from the statute’s clear text.” Pereira, 585 U. S., at ___. The modest threshold Congress pro- vided to invoke the stop-time rule is clear from the text and must be complied with here. Pp. 13–16.
789 Fed. Appx. 523, reversed.
GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. KAVANAUGH, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and ALITO, J., joined.
*************************
This is the type of case where I had hoped that Justice Gorsuch would “stick to his interpretative guns” by stopping the Government from basically redesigning clear statutory requirements “willy nilly” to suit their own purposes and disadvantage respondents. And, he came through! Big time! I’ve been critical of Justice Gorsuch in the past and am likely to be so again in the future. But, in this case, he did the right thing, and I, for one, am grateful!
Most encouraging, Justice Gorsuch “got” the way that the DHS and EOIR, with the deck already unfairly stacked in their favor, manipulate clear legal requirements for their own nefarious purposes and to the disadvantage of those struggling for justice in an inherently unfair system. There is absolutely no doubt that receiving “piecemeal notice” — incomplete and often sent to incorrect addresses or “personally served” without the proper reading and explanations — works to further disadvantage respondents.
Indeed, illegal, ineffective notices — some setting hearings on “phantom dates” and “imaginary times” — lead directly to an over abundance of “in absentia” orders and consequent illegal removals. Some unrepresented individuals understand how to reopen their hearings for lack of notice — but many are clueless; the Government system strives to keep them that way to “jack up the numbers,” meet “quotas,” and improve stats. Worse yet, Congress sometimes uses the “bogus stats” generated by DOJ and DHS to write legislation, conduct oversight, and establish policy. This is an astoundingly broken, dysfunctional, and intentionally unfair system — a disgrace to our entire justice system and our national conscience each day it is allowed to continue to operate in its abusive ways!
The majority in this case was both very interesting, and at least mildly encouraging, for those of us who believe in due process and fundamental fairness for all persons, including migrants, under law. In addition to Trump appointees Justice Gorsuch and Justice Barrett, another GOP conservative appointee, Justice Thomas, joined Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor in the majority!
And, although this case has (incorrectly) seemed “hyper technical” to some Supremes’ watchers unfamiliar with immigration, it will have huge impact — forcing reopening and “redos” in tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of cases in the already backlogged (1.3 million cases) Immigration Court. That will be the direct result of poor jurisprudence by the BIA, lousy court administration by EOIR, and horrible policy decisions by DHS.
Just another prime example of how “haste makes waste” enforcement gimmicks continue to cause unnecessary chaos in the system. Why not just appoint progressive experts as Immigration Judges and BIA Appellate Judges. Qualified jurists who will understand immigration law, due process, and “get in right” in the first instance? Certainly seems like a reasonable approach. What is Judge Garland waiting for?
This, in turn should add to the already loud cries (from virtually everywhere outside Judge Garland’s universe and the restrictionist right) for sensible, readily available backlog reductions and accelerated movement toward better judges and independence in the Immigration Courts, not to mention better management in the DHS enforcement programs.
Here’s my favorite quote from Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion:
In the end, though, all this speculation is beside the point. The dissent tries to predict how the government will react to a ruling that requires it to follow the law and then pro- ceeds to assess the resulting “costs” and “benefits.” Post, at 17, 20–21. But that kind of raw consequentialist calcula- tion plays no role in our decision. Instead, when it comes to the policy arguments championed by the parties and the dissent alike, our points are simple: As usual, there are (at least) two sides to the policy questions before us; a rational Congress could reach the policy judgment the statutory text suggests it did; and no amount of policy-talk can overcome a plain statutory command. Our only job today is to give the law’s terms their ordinary meaning and, in that small way, ensure the federal government does not exceed its statutory license. Interpreting the phrase “a notice to ap-pear” to require a single notice—rather than 2 or 20 docu- ments—does just that.
*
At one level, today’s dispute may seem semantic, focused on a single word, a small one at that. But words are how the law constrains power. In this case, the law’s terms en- sure that, when the federal government seeks a procedural advantage against an individual, it will at least supply him with a single and reasonably comprehensive statement of the nature of the proceedings against him. If men must turn square corners when they deal with the government, it cannot be too much to expect the government to turn square corners when it deals with them.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Cir- cuit is
Reversed.
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
And, here’s some “immediate commentary” by Round Table spokesperson “Sir Jeffrey” Chase:
Victory!This was the case in which our Round Table amicus brief was specifically referenced in oral argument.
Knightess of the Round Table
Congrats to all involves, and Due Process Forever!
