"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals PAUL WICKHAM SCHMIDT and DR. ALICIA TRICHE, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate has confirmed Merrick Garland to be the next U.S. attorney general with a strong bipartisan vote, placing the widely-respected, veteran judge in the post as President Joe Biden has vowed to restore the Justice Department’s reputation for independence.
. . . .
The department’s priorities and messaging are expected to shift drastically in the Biden administration, with a focus more on civil rights issues, criminal justice overhauls and policing policies in the wake of nationwide protests over the death of Black Americans at the hands of law enforcement.
That expected shift prompted some Republicans to oppose Garland’s nomination, including Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton, who said he believed the judge would be too soft on criminals and immigrants and “empower left wing radicals embedded inside the department.”
At his confirmation hearing, Garland emphasized his commitment to combating racial discrimination in policing, telling senators that said America doesn’t “yet have equal justice.” He also said he’d prioritize confronting the rise in extremist violence and domestic terror threats.
At one point in the hearing, he held back tears when speaking about his grandparents, who fled Russia for the U.S. amid antisemitism and persecution.
“The country took us in, and protected us, and I feel an obligation to the country to pay back, and this is the highest, best use of my own set of skills to pay back,” Garland said. “So I very much want to be the kind of attorney general that you’re saying I could become, and I’ll do my best to become that kind of attorney general.”
******************
You can read the full article at the link.
Yeah, how ‘bout all those imaginary “left wing rads” embedded at the DOJ that Cotton has fabricated in the same way he fabricates threats to the U.S. from people of color.
Judge Garland’sreal problem will be returning respect for civil rights, voting rights, immigrants’ rights, women’s rights, First Amendment rights, non-right-wing-Christian religious rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and Due Process to a Department that basically abandoned the Constitution and the rule of law to carry out a scofflaw, racially charged far-right agenda under Trump!
The Wrong Answer to the Right Question: How to Address the Failure of Protection for Gender-Based Claims?
By Professor Karen Musalo, Bank of America Professor of International Law, Director of the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, UC Hastings
In 1996 I was honored to litigate the first case at the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), Matter of Kasinga,[1] that opened the door to protection for women fleeing gender-based harms. To qualify for recognition as a refugee under U.S. law, an individual must establish “persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution” on account of one of five grounds – “race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.”[2] This definition in the 1980 Refugee Act essentially adopts the standard set forth in the 1951 UN Refugee Convention[3] and its 1967 U.N. Refugee Protocol,[4] which the U.S. ratified in 1968.
The woman seeking asylum in the Kasinga case fled female genital cutting and forced marriage. In a ground-breaking decision, the BIA ruled that cutting was persecution, and it was “on account of” her membership in a gender-defined social group. In so ruling, the BIA was following the guidance that UNHCR has issued over a number of years, noting that the absence of gender as a protected ground should not impede protection for women fleeing persecution, because the particular social group ground encompasses gender-defined groups.[5]
The Kasinga decision was a breakthrough for women, and a highwater mark in U.S. adjudicators following international guidance. It also raised expectations that U.S. law would continue to evolve and extend protection to women fleeing the many forms of gender-based violence to which they are subject. However, that has not been the case, and there have been retreats from protection across administrations, although undoubtedly we witnessed the most dramatic attempts to end protection in gender claims during the Trump administration, which issued extremely limiting Attorney General decisions, such as Matter of A-B- I,[6] and Matter of A-B- II –[7] as well as regulations[8] – currently enjoined[9]—that explicitly rule out gender-based claims.
The Biden administration has committed itself to reviewing the issue of protection for those fleeing gender-based violence.[10] As we consider how to remedy the issue, some argue for a legislative amendment to the refugee definition, adding gender as a sixth ground to the statute’s five protected grounds of race, religion, nationality, political opinion and membership in a particular social group. This is the wrong solution. It would not only repeat the errors of the past (amending the refugee definition in 1996, discussed below), but it would also fail to adequately protect survivors of gender-based violence. At the same time, it would lead to the quite foreseeable consequence of leaving many deserving asylum seekers outside the ambit of refugee protection. It is also likely to signal to other Convention State parties that unless they also add a sixth ground, they could deny protection to women and girls without running afoul of the treaty’s obligations.
In order to prescribe a remedy, one first has to diagnose the illness; in order to understand why the sixth ground solution is wrong, we need to examine what occurred after Kasinga that limited protection in subsequent claims involving women fleeing gender-based persecution. . . . .
**********************
Read the rest of Karen’s outstanding analysis at the link.
Here’s a question from last summer’s “Jeopardy style” final exam in Immigration Law & Policy @ Georgetown Law:
A: Judge Schmidt’s favorite case.
Q: What is Matter of Kasinga?
Happy to say that everyone got that one right! Of course, I wrote the decision in Matter of Kasinga!
Karen’s bottom line: “We should be working to bring the U.S. into compliance with UNHCR’s social group interpretation, rather than surrendering to its flawed interpretation, by adding a sixth ground.”
The key is better Federal Judges, from the Immigration Courts all the way up to the Supremes: Judges who are “practical scholars” in human rights and applied due process; judges who have represented asylum seekers, particularly women, and understand their plight.
That’s a nice gesture. But, as I always say, actions are what really counts. So here are actions that Judge Garland can take immediately as Attorney General to finally fulfill the promise of Matter of Kasinga:
Vacate the atrocious, misogynist, perversion of asylum law (not to mention facts of record) by Sessions in Matter of A-B-;
Appoint some female “practical scholars in human rights” to appellate judgeships on the BIA.
That’s how to really honor Women’s History Month!
To understand the human impact of Sessions’s grotesque misconstruction of asylum law and the relevant facts in Matter of A-B-, check out this video short featuring Karen and others along with Ms. A-B-: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRQpXRWlQL0
I generally agree with Karen’s concerns about specific gender-based legislation potentially having an unintended negative effect. That is certainly the fate of past unsuccessful attempts to include gender-based asylum in the regulations.
They essentially were “hijacked” by DOJ litigators and enforcement-oriented policy officials looking for ways to facially appease women’s rights groups, while actually proposing to restrict eligibility and make it easier for OIL and the SG’s Office to defend denials of asylum. They also sought to create hyper-technical requirements that would have effectively made it impossible for any unrepresented individual to properly set forth a “cognizable particular social group.”
These, in and of themselves, are reasons for removing the Immigration Courts from the DOJ and creating an independent Article I structure. The “ultimate insult to injury” was when EOIR enthusiastically participated in Stephen Miller’s currently-enjoined attempt to completely write gender-based asylum out of the law. Absurdly, that came at a time when gender-based persecution has become endemic throughout the world!
Not surprisingly, the DOJ, a prosecutorial agency at heart, is most often interested in “litigation strategies” to make it easier for the Government to successfully defend the burgeoning immigration litigation in Federal Court, rather than guaranteeing justice for asylum seekers and other migrants. Quite ironically, what would really reduce the volume of civil immigration litigation is more practical, expert decision making from better qualified Immigration Judges at the “retail level” of the system.
Gimmicks to “game” the Federal Court system against asylum seekers and other migrants by skirting due process and fundamental fairness have actually contributed to, rather than reduced, the amount of civil immigration litigation the Circuits. It has also generated many avoidable “Circuit conflicts” that require attention on Supremes’ limited docket. The failure of the DOJ, the Immigration Courts, and the Federal Courts to recognize and protect the due process rights of asylum seekers and other migrants has directly carried over into the failure of our justice system to achieve equal justice under law for racial minorities.
“Institutionalized racism” is inextricably linked to “Dred Scottification” of migrants of color in the Immigration Courts! The Biden Administration can’t solve the former without addressing the latter!
Bad judging and skewed policies on the “retail level” create multiple problems that adversely affect the entire Federal Justice system. I guarantee that they will not be solved by more restrictionist gimmicks and and unduly narrow and tone-deaf interpretations by judges and policy officials who lack the necessary expertise in immigration and human rights laws and the real-life understanding and perspective of the human consequences of the choices that judges make on a daily basis.
But, I also think that in addition to better judges, it is important to revise the statutory language to make it more explicitly inclusive and clarify that gender-based asylum, family based asylum, and other protected groups are examples, but not limits, of those covered by “particular social group.” Also, the statute should reverse the BIA’s stilted restrictionist interpretations (all too often incorrectly given “deference” by Circuit Courts shirking their duty) of “nexus” as a vehicle to deny asylum rather than an expansive concept that can and should be used to extend life-saving protections where necessary.
Otherwise, as Trump, Sessions, Barr, and Miller demonstrated, needed protection becomes largely a matter of who is appointing the judges at any particular point in time. Protection must and should be more durable — for all refugees including, but not limited, to those seeking gender-based protection!
Better Federal Judges are the beginning, but by no means the end, of what is needed to make due process, fundamental fairness, and genuine refugee protections the hallmarks of American law. They are also required to turn institutionalized racism into equal justice for all persons in America, regardless of race, religion, gender, or other defining personal characteristics.
🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever! Asylum Laws Must Protect, Not Reject!🧑🏽⚖️🛡
Elizabeth Gibson Attorney, NY Legal Assistance Group Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
COVID-19 & Closures
Note: Policies are rapidly changing, so please verify information with the government and colleagues.
EOIR Status Overview & EOIR Court Status Map/List: Hearings in non-detained cases at courts without an announced date are postponed through, and including, April 16, 2021 (The timing of postponement notices has been inconsistent and it is unclear when the next announcement will be. EOIR announced 4/16 on Fri. 3/5, 3/19 on Wed. 2/10, 2/19 on Mon. 1/25, 2/5 on Mon. 1/11, and 1/22 on Mon. 12/28). There is no announced date for reopening NYC non-detained at this time.
WaPo: The Biden administration is preparing to convert its immigrant family detention centers in South Texas into Ellis Island-style rapid-processing hubs that will screen migrant parents and children with a goal of releasing them into the United States within 72 hours, according to Department of Homeland Security draft plans obtained by The Washington Post.
WaPo: The Biden administration on Monday declared an estimated 320,000 Venezuelan migrants in the United States eligible for temporary protected status, a category of legal residence that would open a path to U.S. citizenship for them under the immigration bill President Biden sent to Congress last week.
BuzzFeed: The new program, which establishes the ICE Case Review Process led by a senior reviewing officer based in Washington, DC, is part of President Joe Biden’s efforts to overhaul the agency and reform not only how it works but which immigrants are arrested and detained.
NBC: The allegations were detailed in 13 complaints the ACLU filed against Customs and Border Protection, or CBP, during the Trump administration. The lawyers said in a letter that so far they have no indication that any action has been taken either to punish the officers or to reform the agency to prevent abuse and respond to such allegations.
Politico: The issue of what to do with Biden’s comprehensive immigration plan has bedeviled Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her leadership team, particularly after a disappointing whip count came back this week showing they don’t yet have the votes to pass the bill on the floor, according to people familiar with the talks.
CMS: The undocumented population continued to decline in 2019, falling by 215,000 compared to 2018; this population has declined by 1.4 million, or 12 percent, since 2010.
Reuters: The administration filled two-thirds of the immigration courts’ 520 lifetime positions with judges who, as a whole, have disproportionately ordered deportation, according to a Reuters analysis of more than 800,000 immigration cases decided over the past 20 years.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Eighth Circuit decision, and found that under the INA, certain nonpermanent individuals seeking to cancel a lawful removal order must prove that they have not been convicted of a disqualifying crime. (Pereida v. Wilkinson, 3/4/21) AILA Doc. No. 21030435
Law360: The U.S. Supreme Court dropped a trio of lawsuits concerning state and local cooperation with federal immigration authorities, winding down a yearslong battle during the Trump administration over so-called sanctuary cities.
The court held that determining whether a labor certification application (LCA) is approvable when filed requires a holistic inquiry, and found that the BIA had failed to keep its focus on that inquiry in the course of its evaluation of the petitioner’s LCA. (Oliveira v. Wilkinson, 2/22/21) AILA Doc. No. 21030336
Law360: The First Circuit denied a Rwandan woman’s habeas corpus petition on Wednesday, finding that a faulty jury instruction that had led to her criminal conviction would not have yielded a different outcome if corrected.
The court held that the petitioner’s negative view of gangs did not amount to a political opinion for asylum purposes, and that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s decision that he did not establish a likelihood of future torture in El Salvador. (Zelaya-Moreno v. Wilkinson, 2/26/21) AILA Doc. No. 21030834
The court found that the BIA correctly determined that the petitioner’s Pennsylvania conviction for strangulation was a particularly serious crime, and concluded that the agency’s adverse credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence. (Sunuwar v. Att’y Gen., 2/25/21) AILA Doc. No. 21030835
Where petitioner asserted that she and her husband had been subjected to death threats by a gang in Honduras, the court held that the BIA had improperly discounted her corroborating evidence, including affidavits, burial permits, and other documentation. (Arita-Deras v. Wilkinson, 3/4/21) AILA Doc. No. 21030837
The court upheld the BIA’s decision denying petitioner’s motion to reopen, finding she did not have a constitutionally protected interest in receiving a second try at a cancellation of removal proceeding because a grant of relief would be discretionary. (Baker White v. Wilkinson, 3/4/21) AILA Doc. No. 21030838
The court held that the petitioner’s conviction for importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms without a license was categorically an “illicit trafficking in firearms” aggravated felony under INA §101(a)(43)(C) that rendered him ineligible for asylum. (Chacon v. Wilkinson, 2/18/21) AILA Doc. No. 21030337
The court held that the BIA erred in finding that the petitioner did not qualify for an exception to the firm resettlement bar, and that the evidence compelled the conclusion that he had suffered past persecution in Somalia on account of a protected ground. (Aden v. Wilkinson, 3/4/21) AILA Doc. No. 21030844
Withdrawing its 8/13/20 opinion, the court granted the respondent’s unopposed motion to remand to the BIA for reconsideration of whether the petitioner’s California conviction for attempting to dissuade a witness constitutes a crime of moral turpitude. (Enriquez v. Wilkinson, 3/1/21) AILA Doc. No. 21030843
The court upheld the BIA’s finding that petitioner’s 1999 conviction for simple possession of cocaine in violation of California Health and Safety Code §11350 qualified as a “controlled substance offense” rendering him removable under INA §237(a)(2)(B)(i). (Lazo v. Wilkinson, 2/26/21) AILA Doc. No. 21030842
The court held that an amendment to §18.5 of the California Penal Code (CPC), which retroactively reduces the maximum misdemeanor sentence to 364 days, cannot be applied retroactively for purposes of removability under INA §237(a)(2)(A)(i). (Velasquez-Rios v. Barr, 10/28/20, amended 2/24/21) AILA Doc. No. 20110236
Granting in part the petition for review, the court concluded that substantial evidence did not support the BIA’s determination that petitioner was not persecuted on account of her membership in her proposed social groups—her family and property owners. (Naranjo Garcia v. Wilkinson, 2/18/21) AILA Doc. No. 21030335
The BIA ruled that a conviction for conspiracy to commit visa fraud in violation of 18 USC §§371 and 1546(a) is a conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude under the modified categorical approach. Matter of Nemis, 28 I&N Dec. 250 (BIA 2021) AILA Doc. No. 21030839
The court held that because the plaintiff had been paroled into the United States within the meaning of the INA based on her Temporary Protected Status (TPS), she was an “arriving alien,” and ordered USCIS to reopen her adjustment application and adjudicate it. (Michel v. Mayorkas, 3/2/21) AILA Doc. No. 21030833
Law360: A New York federal judge says he would consider ordering U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to release vulnerable individuals from its Batavia detention center if that is the only way they can get access to the COVID-19 vaccine.
Law360: The U.S. Department of Justice won’t agree to hold off on enforcing an overhaul of the immigration court appeals process that was crafted in the last months of the Trump administration, and the D.C. federal judge overseeing a challenge to the new rule can’t see why.
ICE announced the creation of the ICE Case Review process for individuals who believe their case does not align with ICE’s enforcement, detention, and removal priorities. AILA Doc. No. 21030590
Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials have created a new appeals process that will allow immigrants and their advocates to challenge arrests, detentions, and deportations as the Biden administration continues to focus enforcement actions on certain populations, officials said Friday.
The new program, which establishes the ICE Case Review Process led by a senior reviewing officer based in Washington, DC, is part of President Joe Biden’s efforts to overhaul the agency and reform not only how it works but which immigrants are arrested and detained.
. . . .
****************************
Read Hamed’s complete article at the link.
Shows that somebody in charge in the Biden Administration understands the scope of the problems they face in bringing ICE under control.
Compliance with agency policies has always been an issue at ICE, going all the way back to the days of the “Legacy INS.” Both on and off the bench, I observed that most policies applied only to the extent that local directors and agentschose to follow them.
I can remember essentially being told “We don’t follow that policy here,” or words to that effect. Or the time that an ICE Assistant Chief Counsel cheerfully told me in court: “Judge, you can enter any order you want. But, our deportation officer will decide whether this respondent actually gets released from custody.”
No wonder that ACC didn’t feel it necessary to appeal my custody decision after I had ruled against him. Of course, DOJ regulations (actually enacted by the Clinton Administration) give ICE Counsel unilateral authority (“The Clamper”) to stay compliance with IJ release and bond orders pending appeal. So, ICE always holds the “trump card” in bond proceedings.
Fortunately, represented respondents can threaten to go to U.S. District Court to force ICE compliance with an administrative order, if necessary. (The respondent in my case was represented.) But, for unrepresented individuals facing ICE intransigence, not so much.
That’s probably why a culture of disdain for immigrants’ rights and dislike of lawyers has grown up in so many ICE operations.
I also recollect that even in the Obama Administration, under pressure from ICE Enforcement, EOIR Management pushed Immigration Judges to “keep out of” the manner in which ICE complied with things like the “Morton Memo” or “PD” that should have been keeping certain cases out of court. And the BIA has traditionally stayed away from commenting on or reviewing prosecutorial policies, even when they directly affect court workloads or individual outcomes.
There were creative ways of skirting many of these bureaucratically-imposed blinders and pushing ICE, at least in court, to act in accordance with their own policies. But, it had to be done subtilely. EOIR was usually eager officially to announce its own fecklessness when it came to getting compliance from ICE.
I often marveled at the BIA’s ability to explain why it didn’t have authority to solve problems or do justice. In some instances, the Article III Courts actually had to instruct the BIA that they had authority to do things that they had claimed to be powerless to do.
In addition to the ICE policy described in Hamed’s article, there are other obvious ways in which compliance could be strengthened. Judge Garland could create a “New EOIR” dedicated to the original vision of due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices. He could also empower Immigration Judges to hold ICE accountable for following its own policies. As part of this, he could confer the long-existing but never implemented authority of EOIR judges to hold attorneys on both sides in contempt of court.
An independent Immigration Judiciary could be an important part of enforcing the rule of law and holding DHS accountable for its actions. But, that’s not possible with the current structural, personnel, and cultural defects that have corrupted EOIR and prevented it from being a progressive force for due process, equal justice under law, and best practices.
Indeed, under the departed regime, lack of accountability, irrationality, open bias, scofflaw behavior, and “worst practices” were institutionalized and celebrated from top to bottom! This was in a “system” already heavily weighted in favor of ICE Enforcement and against individual rights.
It will require “radical due process reforms @ EOIR” from Judge Garland and his team. We’ll soon see whether or not that will be forthcoming.
Folks who have been happily assisting in abusing and dehumanizing asylum seekers, other migrants, and their lawyers for the past four years are not lightly going to be able to “switch over” to insuring due process and fundamentally fair adjudications under the best interpretations and practices — which actually favor the granting of relief in a timely and efficient manner in many cases. Indeed, in some cases, those serving as “judges” at EOIR appear to lack the capacity, expertise, and will to treat those coming before them fairly, impartially, and humanely, even these requirements are at the heart of constitutionally required due process!
BIA Asylum Panel In Action Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons“Oh Boy! Three material mistakes in one asylum case! Do you think our superiors in the enforcement bureaucracy will give us extra credit on our ‘move ‘em out without due process quotas?’ Being a Deportation Judge sure is fun!” https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
Arita-Deras v. Wilkinson, 4th Cir., 03-05-21, Published
PANEL:GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges
OPINION BY: Judge Barbara Milano Keenan
KEY QUOTE:
Maria Del Refugio Arita-Deras, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of a final order of removal entered by the Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board).1 The Board affirmed an immigration judge’s (IJ) conclusion that Arita-Deras was not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Board: (1) agreed with the IJ that Arita-Deras failed to support her claims with sufficient corroborating evidence; (2) found that Arita-Deras failed to prove that she suffered from past persecution because she had not been harmed physically; and (3) concluded that Arita-Deras failed to establish a nexus between the alleged persecution and a protected ground.
Upon our review, we conclude that the Board improperly discounted Arita-Deras’ corroborating evidence, applied an incorrect legal standard for determining past persecution, and erred in its nexus determination. Accordingly, we grant Arita-Deras’ petition and remand her case to the Board for further proceedings.
***************************
After eight years of bouncing around the system at various levels THIS “NotQuite Good Enough For Government Work” error-fest is what we get from EOIR! As I keep saying, no wonder they are running a 1.3 million case backlog, clogging the Circuit Courts with incredibly shoddy work, and in many cases sending vulnerable refugees back to death or torture under incorrect fact findings and blatantly wrong legal interpretations!
Again, nothing profound about this claim; just basic legal and analytical errors that often flow from the “think of any reason to deny” culture. EOIR just keeps repeating the same basic mistakes again and again even after being “outed” by the Circuits!
This case illustrates why the unrealistically high asylum denial numbers generated by the biased EOIR system and parroted by DHS should never be trusted. This respondent, appearing initially without a lawyer, was actually coerced by an Immigration Judge into accepting a “final order” of removal with a totally incorrect, inane, mis-statement of the law. “Haste makes waste,” shoddy, corner cutting procedures, judges deficient in asylum legal knowledge, and a stunning lack of commitment to due process and fundamental fairness are a burden to our justice system in addition to being a threat to the lives of individual asylum seekers.
Only when she got a lawyer prior to removal was this respondent able to get her case reopened for a full asylum hearing. Even then, the IJ and the BIA both totally screwed up the analysis and entered incorrect orders. Only because this respondent was fortunate enough to be assisted by one of the premier pro bono groups in America, the CAIR Coalition, was she able to get some semblance of justice on appeal to the Circuit Court!
I’m very proud to say that a member of the “CAIR Team,” Adina Appelbaum, program Director, Immigration Impact Lab, is my former Georgetown ILP student, former Arlington Intern, and a “charter member” of the NDPA! If my memory serves me correctly, she is also a star alum of the CALS Asylum Clinic @ Georgetown Law. No wonder Adina made the Forbes “30 Under 30” list of young Americans leaders! She and others like her in the NDPA are ready to go in and start cleaning up and improving EOIR right now! Judge Garland take note!
Adina Appelbaum Director, Immigration Impact Lab CAIR Coalition PHOTO: “30 Under 30” from Forbes
Despite CAIR’s outstanding efforts, Ms. Arita-Deras still is nowhere near getting the relief to which she should be entitled under a proper application of the law by expert judges committed to due process. Instead, after eight years, she plunges back into EOIR’s 1.3 million case “never never land” where she might once again end up with Immigration Judges at both the trial and appellate level who are not qualified to be hearing asylum cases because they don’t know the law and they are “programmed to deny” to meet their “deportation quotas” in support of ICE Enforcement.
Focus on it folks! This is America; yet individuals on trial for their lives face a prosecutor and a “judge” who are on the same side! And, they are often forced to do it without a lawyer and without even understanding the complex proceedings going on around them! How is this justice? It isn’t! So why is it allowed to continue?
Also, let’s not forget that under the recently departed regime, EOIR falsely claimed that having an attorney didn’t make a difference in success rates for respondents. That’s poppycock! Actually, as the Vera Institute recently documented the success rate for represented respondents is an astounding 10X that of unrepresented individuals. In any functional system, that differential would be more than sufficient to establish a “prima facie” denial of due process any time an asylum seeker (particularly one in detention) is forced to proceed without representation.
Yet, this miscarriage of justice occurs every day in Immigration Courts throughout America! Worse yet, EOIR and DHS have purposely “rigged” the system in various ways to impede and discourage effective representation.
To date, while flagging EOIR for numerous life-threatening errors, the Article IIIs have failed to come to grips with the obvious: The current EOIR system provides neither due process nor fundamental fairness to the individuals coming before these “courts” (that aren’t “courts” at all)!
Acting AG Wilkinson has piled up an impressive string of legal defeats in immigration matters in just a short time on the job. It’s going to be up to Judge Garland to finally make it right. It’s urgent for both our nation and the individuals whose rights are being stomped upon by a broken system on a daily basis!
Elections truly do have consequences. The Biden administration in its early days has removed some high profile immigration cases from the Supreme Court docket, moving in a different direction than the Trump administration. NBC News reports (see also CNN and Bloomberg) that, yesterday, the Justice Department asked the Court to dismiss three lawsuits over the lawfulness of the Trump administration’s efforts to de-fund “sanctuary’ cities.
In brief letters to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department said the cases should be dismissed, indicating that the government will no longer seek to enforce that policy.
Lower courts were divided on the legality of the Trump de-funding policy. The Supreme Court had been deferring action on the appeals while the new administration decided how to handle the cases. The cases are Wilkinson v. San Francisco, 20-666; New York v. Department of Justice, 20-795; and City of New York v. Department of Justice, 20-796.
KJ
***********************
Thanks for the nice summary and links, Kevin!
The Trump regime waged a four-year unsuccessful war against American local governments who were seeking to protect their ethnic communities from ICE abuses and to encourage community cooperation with police in addressing violent crime in those communities. How did they go about it: By threatening to cut off certain Federal funding for local law enforcement.
If it sounds stupid and wasteful, that’s because it was. It also helped make ICE probably “the most despised law enforcement agency in America.” Again, not an effective strategy for real cooperative law enforcement.
But, despite all his bluster and false claims, Trump never, ever was about “law enforcement.” That was clear even before he sent his “magamorons” out to attack our Capitol. No, it always was about stoking fear, hate, and throwing “red meat” to his base for political purposes.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is reportedly drafting plans to transform family migrant detention centers in South Texas into screening hubs as the Biden administration faces a growing number of migrants at the southern border.
The Washington Post, which obtained internal DHS draft documents outlining the plans, reported Thursday that senior ICE official Russell Hott informed staff in an email this week that the number of unaccompanied minors and families arriving in the U.S. in 2021 is “expected to be the highest” recorded “in over 20 years.”
According to the Post, Hott added that with more than 500 family members arriving per day, the shift from detention to Ellis Island-style processing centers “may not be sufficient to keep pace with apprehensions,” with the potential for some migrants to be housed in hotels.
DHS officials, who spoke to the Post on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly, said the transition to rapid processing and release centers has already begun.
The reported change comes as the latest move in President Biden’s efforts to reform the U.S. immigration system and keep up with the rising number of migrants crossing into the country amid shortages of bed space and personnel at detention centers.
The reported plans also mark a shift from policies under the Obama and Trump administrations, when most migrant families were quickly released or deported upon arriving in the U.S., with some being held in dormitory-style centers for extended periods of time as they awaited immigration proceedings.
The Biden administration has publicly said it is reviewing how family detention facilities are used, though the Post noted that the administration last week told a federal judge that the policies had not yet changed.
. . . .
**********************
Read the full article at the link.
The three keys are: 1) screening for COVID, background, and credible fear of persecution; 2) matching asylum applicants with representation, which promotes nearly “perfect attendance,” at hearings; 3) radically and rapidly reforming the Immigration Court system so that the Immigration Judges are “practical experts” on asylum law and eliminating the huge number of “deadwood” cases clogging dockets so Immigration Judges can conduct asylum hearings for recent arrivals on a timely, consistent, predictable basis, with an emphasis on due process and getting the result correct at the initial merits hearing.
PANEL: Before: Richard A. Paez and Johnnie B. Rawlinson,
Circuit Judges, and George H. Wu,** District Judge. Opinion by Judge Paez;
Concurrence by Judge Rawlinson
* The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
** The Honorable George H. Wu, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
SUMMARY BY COURT STAFF:
Immigration
Granting Abdi Ali Asis Aden’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ dismissal of his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal from Somalia, and remanding, the panel held that the Board erred in concluding that Aden did not qualify for an exception to the firm resettlement bar, and that the evidence compelled the conclusion that he suffered past persecution in Somalia on account of a protected ground.
Aden asserted that he suffered persecution in Somalia by members of Al-Shabaab, a militant terrorist organization affiliated with Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, after his brother refused their orders to shut down his theater showing American and Hindi movies and sports, which Al-Shabaab viewed as “Satanic” movies. The Board concluded that Aden was ineligible for asylum because he was firmly resettled in South Africa, and that he failed to establish that he suffered past persecution in Somalia on account of a protected ground.
The Board noted that Aden presented “ample evidence” of persecution in South Africa, but nonetheless determined that he failed to qualify for the restricted-residence exception to the firm resettlement bar because the persecution he faced was at the hands of private individuals, rather than the South
*** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
ADEN V. WILKINSON 3
African government. The panel concluded that the Board erred in doing do, holding that the restricted-residence exception applies when the country’s authorities are unable or unwilling to protect the applicant from persecution by nongovernment actors.
The panel held that the evidence compelled the conclusion that Aden suffered past persecution in Somalia, where in addition to physically beating Aden, members of Al-Shabaab kept tabs on him by contacting his brother and warned they would kill Aden and his brother if they continued to disobey Al-Shabaab’s command to close their theater. The panel wrote that the chain of events revealed that Al-Shabaab intended to coerce Aden to submit to its new political and religious order, and used offensive strategies— beatings, destruction of property, and death threats—to achieve this goal. Further, the panel explained that continuing political and social turmoil caused by Al- Shabaab provided context for the harm and death threats that Aden experienced, which together with the past harm, compelled the conclusion that he suffered past persecution in Somalia.
The panel held that substantial evidence did not support the Board’s determination that Aden failed to establish that he was targeted on account of a protected ground because Al Shabaab was motived by their own political and religious beliefs, rather than Aden’s. The panel explained that Al- Shabaab’s accusation that the brothers were featuring Islamically forbidden, “Satanic” films provided direct evidence of their political and religious motive, and that even if the brothers did not feature the films out of their own political or religious convictions, Al-Shabaab at the very least imputed those beliefs to them. The panel wrote that the only logical explanation for Al-Shabaab’s treatment of Aden
4 ADEN V. WILKINSON
and his brother was that their actions were subversive to Al- Shabaab’s political and religious doctrine.
The panel remanded for the Board to consider, under the appropriate framework, whether Aden was firmly resettled in South Africa, and to give the government an opportunity to rebut the presumption of future persecution triggered by Aden’s showing of past persecution on account of a protected ground.
Concurring, Judge Rawlinson agreed that the case should be remanded for reconsideration of the firm resettlement issue. Judge Rawlinson noted that despite the fact that the IJ never addressed the issue of whether persecution by private actors may prevent application of the firm resettlement bar, the Board concluded that the firm resettlement bar applied to Aden because he did not introduce any evidence that the South African government imposed any restrictions on his residency such that the restricted-residence exception applied. Judge Rawlinson wrote that the Board’s conclusion was not supported by substantial evidence in the record, as reflected in the IJ’s factual findings. Judge Rawlinson also agreed that the Board erred in concluding that Aden failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground because, based on binding precedent, an applicant such as Aden, who disagrees with Al Shabaab’s view of the proper interpretation of Islam, can establish persecution on account of a protected ground by showing that others in his group persecuted him because they found him insufficiently loyal or authentic to the religious ideal they espouse.
ADEN V. WILKINSON 5
COUNSEL
Emery El Habiby, El Habiby Law Firm, Sun City, Arizona, for Petitioner.
Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director; Lynda A. Do, Attorney; Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Respondent.
*********************
This case has been pending six years! Should have been granted by the IJ. No wonder EOIR is running a 1.3 million backlog! Attempts to turn “easy grants” into bogus denials is killing this system, not to mention the asylum seekers suffering the “triple whammy” of EOIR’S lack of expertise, lousy training, and a “denial culture.”
My good friend, colleague, and former NAIJ President Judge Dana Leigh Marks, who actually is an asylum expert, once told The NY Timesthat asylum cases are like the death penalty in traffic court. But, I suspect that many folks appearing in traffic court get significantly MORE due process than those on trial for their lives in our broken, biased, and dysfunctional Immigration Courts.
Judge Garland needs to fix this! Sooner, rather than later!
Here’s the section relating to the Immigration Courts:
Title IV: Immigration Courts, Family Values, and Vulnerable Individuals
We are facing a due process crisis in the immigration courts. Nearly 1.3 million cases are currently pending in a structurally flawed system housed within a
prosecutorial agency, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).4 While this bill
4 https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/637/.
10
falls short of creating an independent Article I immigration court,5 provisions in the bill would improve court operations and enhance due process protections for individuals facing highly complex immigration court proceedings that
often raise issues of life and death.6 Even though representation is often
the single greatest factor in determining whether an individual will obtain relief in removal proceedings,7 low-income immigrants and people in immigration detention face significant barriers to obtaining counsel. This bill calls for expanding alternatives to detention and authorizes funding for the appointment of counsel for children and vulnerable noncitizens. Provisions in this bill also provide for an expansion of DOJ’s Legal Orientation Program and greater access to legal information for immigrants who are not
detained. These are important steps in the right direction, but the bill falls short of ending civil immigration detention and establishing a much-needed universal representation program.8
Judicial diversity encourages fair decision-making, but DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) has a long history of politicized
hiring,9 resulting in a supermajority of judges on the bench who have prosecutorial backgrounds. This bill calls for the hiring of additional immigration judges (IJs) and Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) members who are experts in immigration law, and it encourages the hiring of IJs who have diverse experience, including people from the private sector. The bill also requires EOIR to conduct mandatory continuing legal and diversity training for IJs and BIA members. Additional steps must be taken to ensure critical oversight into the hiring process, promote diversity, and eliminate harassment in the immigration courts.10
Also included in this bill are provisions to protect vulnerable individuals. The bill eliminates the one-year filing deadline for asylum claims and increases access to employment authorization for people seeking asylum and for U and T visa applicants, ensuring that vulnerable populations seeking refuge in the U.S. will be able to work and support their families while their immigration cases are pending.
The bill calls for expanding alternatives to detention and authorizes funding for the appointment of counsel for children and vulnerable noncitizens.
X Provides for appointing counsel for children and vulnerable noncitizens. Authorizes funding for and requires DOJ to appoint or provide counsel
for children, vulnerable individuals, and other people where necessary. Requires DHS to provide copies of their immigration files to individuals who are in immigration court proceedings.
X Requires access to legal orientation programs and access to counsel. Requires legal orientation programs to be available for all noncitizens in immigration detention. DHS must provide access to counsel inside all immigration detention facilities and border facilities.
X Increases access to legal information. Expands the help desk program
to all immigration courts, providing non-detained individuals who have pending asylum claims access to information related to immigration status. Requires DHS to provide copies of their immigration files to people who are in immigration court proceedings.
X Expands alternatives to detention. Expands the family case management program and requires DHS to develop additional community-based programs. People enrolled in these programs will receive legal orientations.
X Increases immigration court hiring. Requires DOJ to increase the number of IJs on the bench, hire additional BIA staff attorneys, and provide sufficient support staff. In hiring the new IJs and BIA members, DOJ is instructed to select people from diverse backgrounds, including from the nonprofit sector and the private bar and people with academic experience.
X Expands training for IJs and members of the BIA. Requires the EOIR
to conduct mandatory training for IJs and members of the BIA, including continuing legal training and training on age, gender, and trauma sensitivity.
X Directs EOIR to modernize technology. Requires the EOIR director to modernize electronic systems, including by allowing electronic filing, to improve court proceedings.
X Eliminates barriers to asylum and protects vulnerable populations. Removes the one-year time limit for filing an asylum claim. Increases protections for U visa, T visa, and VAWA applicants by providing them with a rebuttable presumption of release from detention and prohibiting the removal of these applicants from the U.S. while an application is pending. Increases the number of U visas, which are available to some crime victims, from the current cap of 10,000 to 30,000 per year.
FEBRUARY 2021
12
In hiring new IJs and BIA members, DOJ is instructed to select people from diverse backgrounds, including from the nonprofit sector and the private bar and people with academic experience.
X Increases access to employment authorization for people seeking U and T visas and protection under VAWA. People seeking U and T visas shall and must be granted employment authorization on the date their application is approved or a date to be determined by the DHS secretary within 180 days of submitting their petition, whichever is earlier. Employment authorization is issued for two years, with the possibility of renewal.
X Increases access to employment authorization for people seeking asylum. Provides that DHS shall grant employment authorization to bona fide and non-detained asylum-seekers within 180 days after they file their asylum application with DHS or DOJ.
***************************
The improvements to the Immigration Courts are all helpful. But, as the NILC points out, they fall short of what’s really needed: An independent Article I Immigration Court. One thing the bill does address, lack of diversity and immigration/human rights expertise among EOIR judicial hires (over the past three Administrations) is a glaring problem and hinderance to achieving due process and fundamental fairness.
Thanks to my friend and NDPA superstar Laura Lynch, Senior Immigration Policy Attorney at the NILC for passing this along.
I am extremely proud to let you know that Michelle Brané, long-time director of the Women’s Refugee Commission’s Migrant Rights and Justice program, is headed to the Biden administration—effective immediately—to serve as executive director of the newly formed Interagency Task Force on the Reunification of Families. The task force is charged with identifying and reuniting families that were cruelly separated under the Trump administration.
In Michelle’s 14 years at WRC, she built our Migrant Rights and Justice program from the ground up. She and her team have been trailblazers in the work to protect the rights of women and girls seeking asylum in the United States.
An truly inspired and very encouraging choice by the the Biden Administration! The only “downside” — I had Michelle on my “shortlist” for key judicial or executive positions at the “New EOIR,” as well as for an Article III judicial appointment! But, that still could and should happen when her a work at the Interagency Task Force is done!
Michelle is a prime example of the “new generation” of due-process-oriented leaders that the NDPA produces! Brilliant, tough-minded, battle-hardened, “practical scholars,” experts, and innovative managers who will see the battle for social justice through to success, no matter how long it takes. Her background, starting at the BIA, also demonstrates how Judge Garland could and must remake EOIR into a “model judiciary” that attracts, trains, and exports the “best and the brightest” for high level judicial and policy positions.
But, it’s not going to happen unless the current awful mess at EOIR is replaced with “Michelle caliber experts” from the NDPA.
Before the inauguration, President Biden pledged a $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill. Then, hours after he entered the Oval Office, he introduced an immigration bill, The U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021, which aims to put millions of undocumented immigrants on a pathway to citizenship. At first glance, these initiatives seem unrelated; in fact, they are deeply connected. Combining them is the best way to help us battle the COVID-19 pandemic and recover from the recession. Here’s why.
In the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States and the world over learned a lesson about who was truly essential to the economy: the home health aides and nurses who care for the sick, the grocery and delivery workers who keep our stores and kitchens stocked, and the workers at our farms and food processing plants who keep our food supply chain from collapsing. These and so many other overlooked jobs — classified as “essential and critical” by the Department of Homeland Security — hold our society together, protect us, and make our economy work.
Large numbers of these essential workers are also undocumented immigrants. Over 78 percent of immigrants without legal status work in these fields, according to a report by UCLA’s Latino Policy and Politics Initiative. They’re not just risking their lives to keep American citizens safe and help rebuild our economy, but they do so without legal protections and under the constant fear of deportation. That’s inhumane. But it’s also dangerous for Americans. With hospitalizations of COVID-19 patients surpassing 52,000, Congress must follow the lead of countries like France and give these essential workers a fast track to the citizenship they deserve.
It’s no secret that immigrants are helping to keep us all afloat. Despite being just 13 percent of the population, immigrants make up 37 percent of all home health aides and almost one third of all physicians and psychiatrists. With a very real threat of meat and poultry shortages at the beginning of the pandemic, immigrants filled more than a third of the tough food processing jobs and nearly half of all farm jobs picking our fruits and vegetables. And as parents across the country are placed in the impossible situation of balancing full-time work and parenting during a pandemic, once again immigrants help shoulder the burden, making up more than 20 percent of all childcare workers in day care centers.
And yet, despite all of this, our federal government acted as though we didn’t need these workers. As the pandemic raged, millions of immigrants were explicitly left out of the CARES Act relief efforts, as were millions of their U.S. born children and spouses who were penalized for having an unauthorized immigrant in the family. Meanwhile, the Trump Administration sought to shut the border to immigrant workers and students, all but stopped processing citizenship applications and ended asylum for people fleeing horrific violence. It also fought unsuccessfully all the way to the Supreme Court for the right to end protections for Dreamers, tens of thousands of whom are essential health care workers.
So what would an effective federal response look like?
. . . .
***************
Read the rest of Jeremy’s article at the link for his ideas on how to join immigration reform with economic expansion.
Thanks for speaking out Andrea!Andrea is a former Arlington Immigration Court intern and one of the “charter members” of the NDPA. As captured on this video, she was assaulted by ICE while trying to assist her child client in reuniting with his mother! A civil suit against the agent involved is pending.
Judge Tipton in the Southern District of Texas enjoined the 100-day removal pause. The 105-page order has something for everyone. For the history fans, there are references or citations to John Marshall, Joseph Story, and James Madison. For the federalism aficionados, there’s a description of the three branches of government and an explanation about the relationship between the federal government and the states. For the administrative law scholars and Bluebook fans, the proposition that “ICE is an agency within DHS” is supported by a footnote, a citation, and a parenthetical explanation. And for anyone interested in bilingual education, you’ll note that “regular” students cost Texas one amount and students enrolled in the state’s bilingual program cost another amount.
César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández
Professor of Law
University of Denver crimmigration.com
(he/him/his/el)
*******************
The case name says it all, particularly in light of the past two weeks. Indeed, “Texas v. The People” would be equally fitting. GOP misrule and the vile shenanigans of GOP politicos, like Texas AG Ken Paxton (who also fled the state during the crisis he and his party helped cause) has real life consequences. It kills and harms U.S. citizens of all political persuasions in addition to foreign nationals in our country.
Note that the order does not purport to stop DHS or EOIR from granting stays of removal on a case by case basis.
Notwithstanding the flaws in Judge Tipton’s reasoning, cogently pointed out by Cesar, I wouldn’t put much stock in the chances that the right-wing dominated Fifth Circuit or the Supremes will rein in Tipton and other righty jurists. I predict that GOP jurists oft-expressed grave concerns about the effect of nationwide injunctions will dissipate now that they are being used as a tool to undermine the Biden Administration’s attempts to return rationality and humanity to our justice system.
The deep problems in the Article III Judiciary, aggravated by four years of bad appointments by Trump & Mitch, reinforce the pressing need for immediate Immigration Court reform, starting with replacing the BIA. That is the most pressing task facing the Administration on the judicial front. The EOIR judiciary is one that the Biden Administration has complete authority to fix with better judges. Now, not later!
And, with better judges at EOIR, there will be fewer bad legal decisions thrown into the Article III “lottery.” Moreover, as I continue to point out, it will give the Administration a much-needed pool of diverse, readily identifiable, talented, experienced, progressive, due-process/human rights committed jurists to draw on for Article III appointments. Additionally, it sets the stage for legislation to create an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court.
Can advocates for racial justice, human rights, and immigrants’ rights finally get the message across to Judge Garland about the urgent need to act decisively? Or, like the Obama Administration, will this turn out to be another golden opportunity for justice squandered?
Unfortunately, I could find little in this week’s confirmation hearings to visibly show that Judge Garland “got” the connection between the refuge that he and his family were so grateful for and the continuing unconscionable mess at EOIR.
Indeed, if Judge Garland and his family showed up at our borders today seeking refuge from persecution, they would unceremoniously have been loaded onto a plane and “orbited” back to the persecution from which they fled without any process at all, let alone “due process of law.” Even if they had gotten a hearing, an EOIR “judge” somewhere along the line would undoubtedly have found a “reason to deny” regardless of the need for protection.
For a good measure, they probably would have been mocked as “criminals, line jumpers, and job stealers” by GOP politicos and their toadies still stashed throughout our broken and compromised immigration bureaucracy. Their lives would have been treated as worthless; their removal to persecution, harm and possible death, just another “statistic” to tout in connection with false claims to having achieved “border security!”
Use the “overseas refugee program?” Probably not. Although Biden has pledged to restart refugee admissions, as a practical matter our once proud and highly efficient refugee processing system is currently in tatters after four years of intentional abuse inflicted by the defeated regime.
Every day that the ongoing problems at EOIR remain unresolved is another day of injustice for refugees and other migrants, as well as another day of frustration and abuse heaped on those attempting to help them achieve justice.
CNN Digital Expansion 2019, Priscilla Alvarez Politics Reporter, CNN
Immigration
Lawyers are slowly making progress in locating and reuniting children and families separated at the southern US border as part of the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” immigration policy. A month ago, the parents of 611 children had yet to be located. Now, that number is down to 506. President Biden this month signed an executive order establishing a new task force designed to identify and reunify these separated families. Meanwhile, the Biden administration has lifted an order that temporarily banned certain immigrant visas during the pandemic and will begin admitting some of the hundreds of migrants held in deplorable conditions in tent camps as part of a policy requiring them to stay in Mexico until their US court dates. Both these decisions are reversals of controversial Trump-era policies.
*********************
Progress on restoring the rule of law at the border and in our legal immigration system, although many advocates yearn for much faster remedial action. Links to more detailed analysis, much of it by CNN All-Star 🌟 Immigration Reporter Priscilla Alvarez, are embedded in the above CNN summary.
1. Family and children detention protocols: The bill does not incorporate the Flores settlement governing the detention of immigrant minors. The Trump administration tried but failed to abrogate the settlement.
2. Border wall infrastructure: No surprise. The U.S./Mexico border wall, which President Trump championed, is not part of the bill’s enforcement plans. The Biden administration already had made it clear that construction of the wall was not a priority of his administration.
As I have previously mentioned, I expect a “stand alone” Article I Bill 🧑🏽⚖️ to be introduced in the House shortly.It could be combined with the Immigration Court improvements in the Biden Bill.
We need to keep the pressure on until Article I happens!
*********************
