"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.
Is this REALLY the “look” that Dems want at the “retail level” of the U.S. justice system. What if Garland and his lieutenants had to face this every day of their professional careers?
Received in the “Courtside mailbox:”
Hello. I just came across your page. What great work you are doing. This is awesome. I have a few topics that it would be nice to see a discussion about regarding IJ demeanor and how immigration lawyers are treated by IJs:
1. IJs are unchecked in many instances. When a lawyer is sick and unable to appear, there is no established method for informing the court.You just hope that the IJ has a responsible and reliable legal assistant [note: high turnover and understaffing of legal assistants is a chronic problem at EOIR] who will inform the IJ of your illness. Oftentimes, IJs become enraged that you do something human like “become too sick to appear.” They take it out on the respondent who has courageously appeared, without a lawyer, to avoid an in–absentia order. They oftentimes display bullying and rude behavior towards the client and the office staff of the lawyer when they learn that the lawyer cannot appear, even in instances where the lawyer or lawyer’s staff members have taken measures to inform the court of said illness. This bullying behavior may cause the client to lose faith in the attorney’s representation.
In years past, I can probably count upwards of several dozen occasions when I have traveled over 2 hours for a PreCovidafternoon individual hearing only to find out that the IJ was out sick. [“Aimless Docket Reshuffling (“ADR”) in action.] No one called to inform my office, and there was no recourse or reimbursement of travel funds. It would have been inappropriate to express any anger at the time I was informed at the pre-COVID hearing. Yet some IJs take it out on lawyers, the respondent, and the lawyers’ staff for the being too ill to appear. There is no human response. This behavior pressures some lawyers to perform even in instances where they may not be competent to perform. Yet IJs cancel court hearings, from the privacy of their homes, by calling out of work, providing lawyers and respondents with absolutely no notice or explanation.
2. Some IJs are unreasonably denying Webex hearings. How can the private bar join the DHS to make a statement regarding their newest fight to challengeIJs seeking to force them to travel from other states and far-away locations for hearings?
3. IJs need to stop yelling, rolling eyes, bullying, and mistreating lawyers and respondents.
4. One time I appeared in court with high fever and a bad cough, and asked for a continuance. Instead, the judge forced me to conduct the 3-hour individual hearing anyway. I was surely not competent to represent the respondent that day.
5. OPLA apparently is now being forced by EOIR to appear in person at the court. OPLA’s position is that its attorneys shouldn’t be forced to travel hours each way to and from to conduct hearings, and that it is essentially a waste of resources when WebEx is available. I believe that the private bar should join OPLA in its battle to preserve the ability to appear by WebEx, since it concerns us too.
6. We should not be arbitrarily and capriciously dragged in to court for in person appearances when technology affords otherwise. We have been using virtual technology for almost four years now, with the lesson of efficiency at the forefront. Traveling numerous hours each way is costly and ultimately unproductive for both the government and private bar members not living in close proximity to courts. With the advent of WebEx, attorneys get more work done by cutting down the number of hours sitting in traffic, leaving more time for case management and preparation. Most importantly, the benefit of WebEx hearings is an improvement of mental health of attorneys on both sides. It is important to mention that the pressure associated with dealing with temperamental adjudicators, a lack of productivity from daily travel, and overwhelming pressure to perform one’s duties for fear of being found ineffective ultimately leads to depression and anxiety.
7. One can also imagine the overall benefits for IJs and EOIR personnel. Having an efficient process for disposal of cases also gives IJs more time for case review and case management. One might also surmise that IJs may find relief in having fewer people in their courtrooms.
****************************
This unduly harsh treatment of the legitimate needs of private attorneys by some IJs contrasts sharply with the recent “policy position” of OPLA that, essentially, ICE attorneys only have to appear in cases where “they feel like it.” https://www.ice.gov/about-ice/opla/prosecutorial-discretion.
I can testify from years on the bench that there are many occasions when as an IJ, I needed information and positions that only the Assistant Chief Counsel could furnish. This basically contemptuous approach to Immigration Court by DHS effectively converts IJs into Asylum Officers, perhaps less than that because IJs don’t have ready access to key information in the DHS databases. Moreover, I actually learned useful things about the strengths or weaknesses of a case by having an opportunity for a face-to-face dialogue with bothcounsel.
I wonder if OPLA would dare conduct business in this highly insulting and unprofessional manner if the DOJ had actually implemented the statutory contempt authority granted to IJs by Congress decades ago but improperly withheld by DOJ over Administrations of both parties.
This isn’t to minimize the observations of the anonymous attorney who related their experiences above that both counsel, and the cause of justice, suffer from lack of minimum professional judicial standards at EOIR.
I wonder how AG Merrick Garland and his political lieutenants would like it if, rather than moving on to cushy jobs after their DOJ tenure, they were required to spend the rest of their careers making a living representing individuals before the dysfunctional and irrationally “user-unfriendly” courts that they thus far have failed to materially reform? Until the Immigration Courts are finally removed from DOJ into an independent Article I structure, the appointment of AGs who lack significant “hands on” experience representing individuals before EOIR will remain problematic for justice in America. In the interim, Garland could and should make reforms administratively! Why hasn’t he?
“Petitioner Christian Alberto Santos Garcia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, has twice travelled unlawfully into the United States — first in 2012, and again in 2016. In both instances, Garcia fled threats to his life and attacks carried out against him by the 18th Street Gang and the Salvadoran police. After seeking protection from removal before an immigration judge (the “IJ”) in 2016, Garcia was afforded relief — in the form of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (the “CAT”) — by three separate IJ rulings. On each occasion, the Board of Immigration Appeals (the “BIA”) reversed the IJ rulings. Garcia, for his part, was removed to El Salvador in May 2022, and has awaited further developments in these proceedings from his home country. In this appeal, Garcia challenges and seeks reversal of three rulings made by the BIA — those being: (1) that the “particular social group” relied upon in connection with Garcia’s application for withholding of removal is not legally cognizable; (2) that Garcia was not persecuted in El Salvador on account of his political opinions; and (3) that Garcia failed to establish eligibility for CAT protection. As explained herein, we grant Garcia’s petition for review and reverse the BIA rulings in part, affirm them in part, and vacate them in part. We otherwise remand to the BIA for such further proceedings as may be appropriate.”
“Petitioner Juan Pablo Paucar petitions for review of a January 22, 2021 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision (1) affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal and (2) denying his motion to remand. The BIA rejected Paucar’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, declined to remand for consideration of additional hardship relating to his cancellation application, and declined to remand to await adjudication of his U visa application. Paucar argues that the BIA (1) applied an incorrect standard when reviewing his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, (2) overlooked and mischaracterized his new hardship evidence, and (3) failed to follow precedent when denying his request for remand while awaiting the adjudication of his U visa application. We are persuaded by Paucar’s arguments. Accordingly, we GRANT Paucar’s petition for review, VACATE the BIA’s decision, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
In Santos-Garcia v. Garland, the BIA’s 6-year quest to wrongfully deny protection to Santos has been thwarted, for now. But, the matter remains far from finally resolved, even though an IJ has now properly granted Santos relief three separate times, only to be wrongly reversed by the BIA on each occasion!
Rather than insuring that individual justice is done, the BIA has acted to promote injustice, create needless delay, and demoralize IJ’s who are getting it right! In the meantime, the respondent has been removed to the country where he has a well-founded fear of persecution to await his fate. This is because the 4th Circuit denied a stay they should routinely have granted in an exercise of truly horrendous judicial misjudgment.
Now, the court majority fecklessly pontificates about the need for timely resolution (you’ve got to be kidding) while hinting, but not requiring, that the “Gang That Can’t Shoot Straight” should return the respondent now. Don’t hold your breath!
Here are three of my favorite quotes from Judge King’s majority opinion in Santos Garcia v. Garland.
Put simply, the BIA declined to “interact seriously” with the record before it in reviewing Garcia’s claim for CAT protection, and its failure in that regard requires a remand.
Should we not expect a supposed “expert tribunal” like the BIA should be to “seriously interact” with the record in life-or-death cases?Why aren’t Dems in Congress and everywhere else “all over Garland like a cheap suit” to stop this kind of judicial misbehavior in his “wholly owned courts?”
In closing, we recognize that Garcia’s removal proceedings have languished before the IJ and the BIA — and now this Court — for more than six years, leaving him in limbo and presently in harm’s way in El Salvador. We are also mindful that Garcia was only 15 years old when he sought to protect his cousin from the 18th Street Gang’s advances, setting off more than a decade of hardship and uncertainty. With that, we emphasize the “strong public interest in bringing [this] litigation to a close . . . promptly.” See Hussain v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 153, 158 (4th Cir. 2007). And although we do not direct the affirmative award of any relief, we acknowledge the compelling case for protection that Garcia has made. If, on remand, the BIA affirms either the IJ’s award of withholding of removal or the award of CAT relief, the DHS and the Attorney General should swiftly “facilitate [Garcia’s] return to the United States” from El Salvador. See Ramirez v. Sessions, 887 F.3d 693, 706 (4th Cir. 2018) (directing the government to facilitate previously removed petitioner’s return to the United States pursuant to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement Policy Directive). Moreover, if the BIA determines that Garcia’s “presence 24 is necessary for continued administrative removal proceedings” on remand, the authorities should see to his prompt return. Id.
So, after six years bouncing around the system and three separate grants of asylum by an Immigration Judge, the 4th Circuit essentially “begs” the BIA to get it right this time! This is after the court itself curiously denied the respondent’s application for stay notwithstanding the rather obvious risk of irreparable harm (e.g., death, torture) and the equally obvious substance of his timely filed appeal.
What a way to run a “justice system” (or, in this case, not)! Both the Executive and the Judiciary should be totally embarrassed by their gross mishandling of this case! But, I see resolve from neither Branch (nor the ever-absent Legislature) to put an end to this systemic mockery of due process, fundamental fairness, and simple common sense!
Here, discovering the BIA’s error in rejecting Garcia’s proposed social group of “young male family members of his cousin Emily” is no herculean task. Social groups based on family ties have been consistently approved by this Court as providing a sound basis for asylum or withholding of removal applications. See, e.g., Salgado-Sosa, 882 F.3d at 457; Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 944, 949 (4th Cir. 2015); Cedillos-Cedillos v. Barr, 962 F.3d 817, 824 (4th Cir. 2020). Indeed, our pivotal 2011 decision on the matter — Crespin-Valladares v. Holder — recognized in no uncertain terms that “the family provides a prototypical example of a particular social group.” See 632 F.3d at 125. In tossing out Garcia’s proposed social group in March 2021, however, the BIA largely disregarded our precedent, providing no citation to or discussion of Crespin-Valladares. The BIA instead relied chiefly on its own then-existing precedent, set forth in the Attorney General’s 2019 L-E-A- II decision. As described above, L-E-A- II — which was vacated by the Attorney General in June 2021 and thus “lacks legal force” — “conflicted with [this Court’s] well-established precedent” recognizing families as cognizable social groups. See Perez Vasquez v. Garland, 4 F.4th 213, 227 n.11 (4th Cir. 2021). Surprisingly, the BIA paid little mind to L-E-A- II’s vacatur in its Reconsideration Order of 2022, doubling down on its earlier “particular social group” ruling and again inexplicably declining to apply Crespin-Valladares and its progeny.7
Notably, the “rule of Crespin-Valledares” — my case where the BIA erroneously reversed me — continues to have an impact! A dozen years post-Crespin and the BIA is still getting it wrong! Why are these guys still on the appellate bench, setting negative precedents and ignoring favorable precedents? In a Dem Administration? Seriously!
Michelle N. Mendez, ESQ Director of Legal Resources and Training National Immigration Project, National Lawyers Guild PHOTO: NIPNLG
My friend Michelle Mendez, Director of Legal Resources and Training over at National Immigration Project offered some commentary on the Second Circuit’s decision in Paucar v. Garland.
Congratulations and thank you for your superb work, Lindsay! This case offers so much and seems like the CA2 delivered.
Here are a couple of excerpts from the decision that stood out to me:
“In a January 14, 2020 written decision, the BIA dismissed Paucar’s appeal and denied his motion to reopen and remand. Three months later—after Paucar filed a petition to review the BIA’s decision in this Court—the BIA sua sponte reinstated Paucar’s appeal and motion, noting that it had not “consider[ed] all of the evidence submitted by [Paucar].” Id. at 124.” [Do we know why the BIA sua sponte reinstated the appeal and motion?] LINDSAY NASH RESPONDS: “The BIA only sua sponte reopened the appeal and motion because Paige Austin (co-counsel extraordinaire, copied here) filed a PFR and identified the missing evidence early on, prompting OIL to agree to a remand.”
“Finally, the BIA concluded that remand to await the adjudication of Paucar’s U visa petition was unnecessary because Paucar could request a stay of removal from USCIS.” [Does anyone know what the BIA was referencing here? Later on the decision says DHS and not USCIS so perhaps it is a typo.] LINDSAY NASH RESPONDS: “I think that the reference to USCIS that you flag was a typo and that it should have said DHS.”
“We conclude that the BIA should have applied the Sanchez Sosa factors in considering Paucar’s motion to remand as it pertains to his U visa or explained its reasoning for not doing so. [This is the first time that the CA2 answers the question of whether Sanchez Sosa applies to motions to remand or reopen filed during the pendency of an appeal where the noncitizen did not previously request such a continuance before the IJ].”
There is a great discussion on the BIA improperly applying Coelho (which they love to throw around in correctly) to the prejudice assessment and a paragraph discussing how the CA2 and other courts of appeals view unpublished BIA decisions.
Again, really great work and outcome! Thanks for sharing with all of us, Dan!
For a case distinguishing Coelho and applying a “reasonable likelihood of success” standard to a MTR, see Matter of L-O-G-, 21 I&N Dec. 436 (BIA 1996), written by me! The BIA ignores it or misapplies it in many cases. But, it’s still “good law!” Just another instance in which the BIA evades “older” precedents that could produce favorable outcomes for respondents!
In this case the IJ denied the respondent’s applications and ordered removal in May 2018, five years ago. Nobody contests that the respondent was ineffectively represented at that time.
Through new pro bono counsel, respondent Paucar filed a timely appeal with the BIA. Less than two months following the IJ’s decision, new counsel filed a copiously documented motion to the BIA to remand for a new hearing because of the ineffective representation.
Rather than promptly granting that motion for a new hearing, the BIA set in motion five years of dilatory effort on their part to avoid providing a hearing. Obviously, several new merits hearings could have been completed during the time occupied by the BIA’s anti-immigrant antics!
Along the way, according to the Second Circuit, the BIA “improperly imposed a heightened standard,” “erred by discounting the impact of counsel’s ineffectiveness,” “improperly relied] on the IJ’s tainted findings,” “overlooked and mischaracterized the record evidence,” “erred by overlooking or mischaracterizing evidence,” “overlooked and mischaracterized material evidence,” and failed, without explanation, “to follow its own precedent.” What else could they have screwed up? The file number?
This would be highly unacceptable performance by ANY tribunal, let alone one entrusted with making life or death decisions about human lives and whose decisions in some instances have been unwisely insulated from effective judicial review by Congress. Individuals appearing before EOIR deserve better! American justice deserves better! How long will AG Garland continue to get away with failing to “clean house” at America’s most dysfunctional court system and bring order, due process, fundamental fairness, legal expertise, and judicial professionalism to this long-overlooked, yet absolutely essential, foundation of our entire U.S. justice system!
Wasting time and resources looking for bogus ways to deny that which better, more expert, fairer judges could easily grant his had a huge negative impact on the EOIR backlog and is a driver of legal dysfunction throughout the immigration bureaucracy, and indeed throughout our entire legal system, all the way up to and including the Supremes!
Start by fixing “that within your control!” That’s a simple message that Dems, unfortunately, don’t seem to get when it comes to immigration, human rights, and racial justice in America!
“Deny, deny, deny, deter, deter, deter! ‘Fake efficiency’ over justice! Expediency over due process! Gee, it’s fun to be a ‘Deportation Judge’ @ EOIR! Much better than having to practice before this awful mess we’ve created! “ https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
KEY QUOTE FROM CIRCUIT JUDGE RONALD LEE GILMAN’S MAJORITY OPINION:
. . . .
Third, the IJ was hardly inconvenienced at all. Arizmendi-Medina’s counsel offered to submit the application while the IJ was still on the bench. Although this might have required the IJ to recall Arizmendi-Medina’s case at the end of the IJ’s docket, this inconvenience was truly minimal. Cf. Jerezano, 169 F.3d at 615 (“While an IJ need not linger in the courtroom awaiting tardy litigants, so long as he is there on other business and the delay is short[,] …it is an abuse of discretion to treat a slightly late appearance as a nonappearance.”). Further, as discussed above, the December 18, 2018 hearing was a Master Calendar hearing, not a merits hearing. This means that the proceedings were ultimately not delayed at all.
And fourth, we consider the total number of continuances previously granted to Arizmendi-Medina. He received two very short continuances (only two weeks each) to find an attorney at the beginning of his immigration proceedings on July 31, 2018 and August 15, 2018. See Cruz Rendon, 603 F.3d at 1106–07, 1110 (finding that two one- month continuances were both “exceedingly short”). The proceedings were then reset at the hearing on August 29, 2018 because Arizmendi-Medina requested, and the IJ granted, a change of venue. The next hearing was scheduled for October 24, 2018 before a new IJ. Although this certainly gave Arizmendi-Medina more time to find an attorney, this delay was primarily due to the change of venue and getting the case calendared in a new court.
Finally, after Arizmendi-Medina was required to proceed pro se and was found removable at the hearing on October 24, 2018, the IJ granted another continuance so that Arizmendi-Medina could continue to look for an attorney and work on his relief application (which was presented to him for the first time at the October 24, 2018 hearing).
20 ARIZMENDI-MEDINA V. GARLAND
Arizmendi-Medina thus received only one continuance after he was found removable and presented with a relief application, and he received zero continuances after he finally secured an attorney. From start to finish, the proceedings against Arizmendi-Medina were delayed for less than five months, with nearly two months of that delay due to the change of venue.
Ultimately, all of the Ahmed factors weigh in favor of finding that the IJ abused his discretion in not granting a continuance so that Arizmendi-Medina’s recently-retained counsel could complete and submit the relief application on December 18, 2018. The abuse is especially apparent given the offer of Arizmendi-Medina’s counsel to submit the application later that same day. Such an abuse by the IJ counsels in favor of finding that Arizmendi-Medina was denied fundamental fairness. See id. at 1110 (finding that the IJ abused her discretion in part because the merits hearing was “less than one month after Cruz Rendon first appeared with counsel,” which contributed to the noncitizen’s difficulty in marshalling evidence in such a short time frame (emphasis in original)). This “prevented [Arizmendi-Medina] from reasonably presenting his case.” See Zetino, 622 F.3d at 1013 (quoting Ibarra-Flores, 439 F.3d 620-21).
. . . .
*******************************
This faux “court” system has lost sight of its sole function: To provide due process hearings to individuals whose lives and futures are on the line!
In this case, the DOJ was obviously willing to spend more time and resources on denying the respondent his day in court than it would have taken to hold a merits asylum hearing! No wonder they have built an astounding, ever-growing 2 million case backlog! Don’t let Garland & company get away with blaming the private bar or respondents (that is, “the victims”) for DOJ’s continuing screw-ups at EOIR!
No real inconvenience or delay to the IJ! Life or death for the respondent! Attorney kept on a treadmill by EOIR’s unreasonable conduct! Who would take cases, particularly pro bono, under this type of tone-deaf “double standard.” (Would Trump-appointed dissenting Judge Danielle J. Forrest, who probably never has represented an individual in Immigration Court, REALLY practice law under these abusive circumstances?)
How many of you out there in “Courtside Land” have arrived on time for a scheduled merits hearing, with respondent and witnesses in tow, only to find out that your case had been “orbited” further out on the docket, with no or inadequate notice?How many have had long-prepared cases arbitrarily shuffled to a future year while having other cases where you were recently retained mindlessly “moved up” on the docket to satisfy EOIR’s latest “priority of the day?” Pretending like “every minute counts” in this hopelessly inefficient and bolloxed system is EOIR’s and DOJ’s way of deflecting attention and shifting the blame for their own, largely self-created failures!
In the “topsy turvy” fantasy world of EOIR, the dockets are overwhelming and totally screwed up! So much, that DHS recently took the unprecedented step of unilaterally declaring that (except for a small subset of “mandatory appearances”) THEY would decide which EOIR cases to staff with an Assistant Chief Counsel. See, https://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/05/31/🤯-wacko-world-of-eoir-dhs-prosecutors-deliver-the-big-middle-finger-bmf-🖕to-garlands-feckless-immigration-courts-unilate/. Implicit in this “in your face” action is the assumption that Immigration Judges will also act as prosecutors in these cases (even though Immigration Judges clearly lack some of the authority of prosecutors, including the exercise of prosecutorial discretion and stipulation to issues or relief).
On the other hand, private attorneys are systemically jerked around by EOIR and subjected to the threat of discipline for even relatively minor transgressions. Talk about an “uneven playing field!” In a system where lack of representation and under-representation are daily threats to due process and fundamental fairness, how does EOIR’s one-sided, anti-attorney, anti-immigrant conduct encourage new generations to chip in their time pro bono or low bono to bridge the ever-present “representation gap?”
In short, it does just the opposite! Some experienced practitioners have “had enough” and reduced or eliminated their Immigration Court presence while others have changed to other areas of practice because of EOIR’s continuing dysfunction under Garland. This should be a “solvable” problem — particularly in a Dem Administration! Why isn’t it?
Why is Garland getting away with this nonsense? How can we “change the playing field” and demand that Garland finally bring the due process reforms and expert judicial and professional, common-sense administrative personnel to America’s worst and most life-threatening courts?
Thanks to attorney Shannon Englert of San Diego for taking on Garland’s dysfunctional DOJ immigration bureaucracy!
Shannon Englert, ESQ Founder DYADlaw Vista, CA PHOTO: Linkedin
Melody Busey ESQUIRE Associate Attorney Devine & Beard Law Office Charleston, SC PHOTO: Devineandbeard.comIt should have been a 2-minute “no brainer” administrative closing @ EOIR. Instead, it took two years of tough, smart, dedicated litigation by their firm to get justice in Garland’s broken and dysfunctional “Clown Court” system. But, in the end, Melody Busey, Mark Devine, & Ashley Beard got long-overdue justice for their client by pummeling “Garland’s DOJ Clown-ocracy” in the Fourth Circuit! Should justice in America really be this difficult and uncertain? Garland seems to think so! — Mark J. Devine & Ashley R. Beard Principal Partners Devine & Beard Law Office Charleston, SC PHOTO: Devineandbeard.com
Garcia Cabrera v. Garland, 4th Cir., 01-06-21, published
PANEL: MOTZ, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
OPINION: Judge Motz
CONCURRING OPINION; Judge Rushing
KEY QUOTE:
In sum, we hold that the BIA and IJ abused their discretion in denying Garcia
Cabrera’s motion for a continuance. Both the BIA and IJ departed from the established policies set forth in precedential opinions in holding that Garcia Cabrera failed to show good cause. Under Matter of L-A-B-R-, the BIA and IJs must consider two factors above all others: (1) the likelihood that USCIS will grant the movant’s U visa application, and (2) whether a U visa would materially affect the outcome of the movant’s deportation proceedings. 27 I. & N. Dec. at 406. Both of these factors weigh in Garcia Cabrera’s favor. The BIA recognized the existence of these factors but failed to consider whether or how they applied, focusing solely on less significant secondary factors. And although the IJ did address the primary factors, he nonetheless abused his discretion by failing to recognize that a U visa would materially affect the outcome of the deportation proceedings.
******************
Many, many congrats to NDPA stars Melody Busey, Mark J. Devine, and Devine & Beard Law Office in Charleston, SC, for their perseverance and outstanding advocacy in this case! As I’ve said before, it’s painfully obvious (to anyone but Garland and his team) that the wrong folks are on the bench and in key policy positions at EOIR!
Notably, this decision comes from an ideologically diverse 4th Circuit panel with two Trump appointees. Clearly, this panel took more time to understand the record and carefully and correctly analyze the applicable law and policy considerations than did the “faux experts” at EOIR, at either the trial or appellate levels!
Although I don’t always agree with Judge Rushing, her concurring opinion here shows that she took the time to carefully read the record, understand the applicable law, and clearly explain her position in straightforward, understandable terms. In other words, she treated this case like the important life or death matter it is, rather than “just another immigration case on the assembly line.” And, that led her to get the “bottom line” right. That’s a degree of judicial professionalism that we seldom, if ever, see from Garland’s EOIR these days.
That we get better performance on immigration cases from some Trump appointees on the Article IIIs than from Garland’s “wholly-owned EOIR” shows the total disconnect in theBiden Administration’s approach to the ongoing, unmitigated disaster unfolding every day in our broken and dysfunctional Immigration Courts. Unlike the Article IIIs, the Immigration Courts, now sporting an astounding, largely self-created 1.5+ million and growing case backlog, are a “wholly owned subsidiary” of the Administration and Garland’s DOJ!
When you’re in an EOIR “programmed to deny” by White Nationalist nativist overlords like Sessions, Barr, and Miller, you do dumb things and churn out sloppy work.
Indeed, “virtual discussion” of this case spurred some “PTSD” recollections by NDPAattorneys of other horrible, lawless decisions by this particular Immigration Judge, who never should have been on the bench in the first place. Incredibly, this judge, a member of the disgraceful “90% Denial Club” that has helped create disgusting “Asylum Free Zones” at EOIR throughout America, was appointed by the tone-deaf Obama Administration!
The idea that there weren’t better-qualified candidates out there at the time in private practice, the NGOs, clinical education, or even the government is simply preposterous! Failure of Dems to realize the progressive potential of the Immigration Courts has a long and disreputable history! Indeed, EOIR under Garland looks and performs disturbingly similar to EOIR under Miller, Sessions, and Barr!
While this particular IJ has retired, too many other unqualified judges appointed in the past under selection systems stacked against outside advocates and experts remain on the bench, at both the trial and appellate levels, under Garland.
Here’s part of the “Garland Tragedy/Missed Opportunity.” He actually has at least a few folks among his judiciary ranks who have experience and actually understand U visas and how to deal properly, justly, and efficiently with them. I guarantee that none of them would have come up with this inane and wasteful performance of judicial ineptitude and, frankly, anti-immigrant bias!
Why aren’t those folks “running the show” on the BIA, rather than the “deny anything for any reason” holdover gang that (save for Judge Saenz) Garland has “adopted as his.” Excluding Judge Saenz, I doubt that collectively the appellate judges on the BIA have ever handled a U visa case for an applicant. They are blissfully clueless as to both the practical stupidity and traumatic human consequences of the horrible decision-making exhibited at both the trial and appellate levels in this debacle! What’s a wrong with this bizarre picture of Dem incompetence and malfeasance?
Interesting that White Nationalist xenophobes like Sessions, Barr, and Miller had no problem whatsoever using their positions to further lies and myths about asylum seekers and other migrants and acting to weaponize the Immigration Courts (including “packing”them with unqualified and questionably qualified judges, unfairly selected) against individuals and their lawyers seeking justice (following eight years of indolent mismanagement of EOIR by politicos in the Obama DOJ which “teed EOIR up” for Trump and Miller).
By contrast, Dems appear afraid to speak out and act with resolve and purpose on due process, fundamental fairness, human rights, impartial professional expert judging, and human dignity — at our borders and in our Immigration Courts. Why?
Is is because deep down they don’t really believe in racial justice and equal justice for all? Because they can’t accept the humanity of migrants? Why is Garland still carrying out many of Stephen Miller’s White Nationalist policies and using a “court system” unfairly “packed” with those selected because they were perceived to be willing to carry out the Trump/Miller White Nationalist, anti-immigrant agenda?
More than nine months after taking over at “Justice,” why is Garland still defending clearly wrong, counterproductive, and frivolous EOIR decisions like this? Why should simple justice for migrants require a two-year battle by members of the NDPA to be realized?
And, I daresay that there are other panels, in other Circuits, that would have “rubber-stamped” EOIR’s errors. Lack of professionalism and judicial expertise at EOIR, promoted and defended by Garland, breeds wildly inconsistent results and turns justice in life or death cases into a “crap shoot.” That undermines and builds contempt for the entire Federal Justice System and exposes deep flaws at the DOJ that Garland has ignored!
In a functioning system, this case involving someone who is prima facie qualified to remain in the US: 1) should never have been brought by DHS, and 2) if brought, should have been promptly administratively closed or terminated without prejudice by EOIR. A competent judge might also have considered sanctioning DHS counsel for pushing ahead with this case with no justification whatsoever. In other words, conducting frivolous litigation!
That’s how you: 1) cut cases that don’t involve legitimate enforcement issues from the intentionally bloated EOIR docket; 2) reduce incredible, largely self-created backlogs; 3) hold DHS accountable for wasting court time; 4) deliver a long overdue “shape up or ship out” message to poorly performing Immigration Judges (like those in this case) at both the trial and appellate levels; 5) promote consistency and equal justice for all; 6) end the reprehensible practice of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” at EOIR; and 7) stop wasting the time of the Article IIIs by defending garbage like that churned out at both the IJ and BIA level here!
Garland has demonstrated cluelessness, timidity, and intransigence in all of the foregoing essential areas of long overdue radical, yet common-sense and basically “no brainer,” progressive reforms at EOIR! You can’t get there with the current, holdover BIA! That’s as clear today as it was the day Garland was sworn in as AG.
The Biden Administration’s gross failure to bring progressive leadership, scholarship, competency, quality, and professionalism to a poorly performing, dysfunctional EOIR is corroding our justice system! Seems like an incredibly bad stance for an Administration claiming to be the “last best hope” for preserving American democracy, heading into midterms with a significant portion of its reliable progressive base angry and turned off by its contemptuous mal-performance on immigration, human rights, racial justice, and EOIR reforms!
Sometimes, just asking for financial support and votes isn’t enough! You have to earn it with bold actions!
“Kevelin Danery Espinal-Lagos and her two minor sons were ordered removed to Honduras by an Immigration Judge. While their appeal was pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals, the petitioners filed derivative U visa applications with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services that, if granted, would allow them to move to reopen their removal proceedings. Accordingly, the petitioners filed a motion requesting that the Board remand their case so that they could seek a continuance from the Immigration Judge pending the resolution of their derivative U visa applications. The Board dismissed their appeal and denied their motion to remand, reasoning that their “U-visa eligibility and the steps being taken in pursuit of a U-visa could have been discussed at the hearing before the Immigration Judge entered a decision.” For the narrow ground articulated herein, we hold that the Board abused its discretion in its reason for denying the petitioners’ motion to remand. … Espinal-Lagos did not become prima facie “eligible” for a derivative U visa until her husband filed his U visa application with USCIS on July 6, 2018—several months after her hearing before the IJ on February 7, 2018. Indeed, during oral argument when asked, “When was Ms. Espinal-Lagos eligible for a U visa?”, the Government responded that she was “eligible when it’s filed”—“it” being Bethanco’s U visa application.1 The position the Government urges—that Espinal-Lagos should have disclosed to the IJ her potential future eligibility given the district attorney signature on her husband’s U visa certification— has no basis in the regulations. Therefore, the Board’s denial of Espinal-Lagos’s motion to remand was based on a legally erroneous interpretation of the governing regulations. Navarrete-Lopez, 919 F.3d at 953. The Board’s decision was also irrational because it required Espinal-Lagos to have presented information to the IJ that could not have been discovered or presented at that time. … Because the Board abused its discretion in its single reason for denying Espinal-Lagos’s motion to remand, we grant the petition for review and REMAND to the Board for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Although this case is unpublished, it’s significant for these reasons:
The “super-conservative” 5th Circuit seldom reverses removal orders;
Granting the legally-required remand in this case would have been about a 30-second “adjudication” (tops) by a competent BIA appellate judge;
Instead of confessing error and asking for a remand, OIL defended this clearly wrong garbage, a likely violation of ethics, an abuse of the Circuit Court’s time, and dilatory action that took the Fifth Circuit two years to correct;
Why would a rational, ethical system even want to remove a family eligible for derivative U status, let along violate the law and make extra work to achieve an irrational, inhumane, and counterproductive result;
For Pete’s sake, this was an UNOPPOSED MOTION TO REMAND at the BIA, but incompetent judges, bad lawyering, and a vile anti-immigrant culture at DOJ created an unnecessary disaster;
As those of us who are actually familiar with the EOIR system know, mistakes like this are a daily, if not hourly, occurrence at today’s thoroughly dysfunctional EOIR! It’s just that relatively few individuals are fortunate to have the time, knowledge, and competent legal assistance to obtain justice at the Court of Appeals level.
NO, Judge Garland, as all outside experts have been telling you, the answer to largely unnecessary, self-created, out of control EOIR backlogs is NOT “dedicated dockets,” idiotic quotas, more mindless gimmicks, or even throwing more judges into an already out of control and dysfunctional system.
It starts, but does not end, with replacing the BIA and incompetent judges at EOIR with qualified progressive experts, bringing in dynamic progressive judicial leadership that solves problems rather than creates them, ending the anti-immigrant “culture of denial” at EOIR and DOJ generally, installing real, due-process-focused training and giving new progressive expert judges independence to establish and enforce quality decision-making, due process, and best practices!
Also, OIL needs a remake and some leadership from skilled, progressive immigration litigators committed to “speaking for justice,” using judicial time wisely, and making the system work rather than mindlessly assisting in the building of backlog.
Due process is a team effort! Sadly, after four years of enabling and defending the indefensible actions of the Trump fascist kakistocracy, there aren’t many folks out there at EOIR and DOJ generally who can “play this game.”
“Can’t anyone here play this game?” So far, the answer at Garland’s EOIR is a resounding “No!” PHOTO: Rudi Reit Creative Commons
🇺🇸Due Process Forever!
PWS
08-27-21
ADDENDUM:
Even as I was writing this, Dan Kowalski sent me yet another 5th Circuit BIA remand. This one was on “divisibility” and was the result of three years of litigation to correct the BIA’s unprofessional work. THAT’S what generates unnecessary backlogs! Efficiency comes from getting thing right in the first instance, particularly when proceedings should be terminated or relief granted.
“Sajid Momin Wali, a native and citizen of Pakistan, became a lawful permanent resident in 2012. In 2017, he pleaded guilty in Texas state court to possession with intent to deliver a synthetic cannabinoid. As a result, he was charged as removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) for having been convicted of a state-law crime relating to a controlled substance defined in the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 802. Both the Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals sustained that removability determination, concluding that although the Texas statute that formed the basis of Wali’s conviction was broader than the Controlled Substances Act, Wali was removable because the Texas statute under which he was convicted was divisible. After the BIA issued its decision, this court decided Alejos-Perez v. Garland, 991 F.3d 642 (5th Cir. 2021). Under Alejos-Perez, the BIA’s determination that Wali’s statute of conviction was divisible was error. Accordingly, we grant Wali’s petition for review, reverse the BIA’s order, and remand for the BIA to reconsider whether Texas Penalty Group 2-A is divisible in light of Alejos-Perez.”
[Hats off to Amber Gracia for fighting this case since 2018!]
Amber García, Esquire Houston, TX PHOTO: AVVO
*******************
Way to go, Amber! Welcome to the NDPA “star circle!” 🌟 Amber knows “crimigration!” Why doesn’t the BIA?
Why hasn’t Garland brought in better progressive judges? Why does he think the human lives and futures at stake in Immigration Court are expendable? ☠️👎🏽🤮
This is NOT, I repeat NOT, how an “expert court” functions! And, you can’t create and operate an expert court without experts. The “expertise” needed to fix this system is primarily on the outside. Garland needs to make long overdue personnel, leadership, structural, and attitude changes at EOIR! Lives are at stake, and they are “chargeable” to Garland!
🇺🇸DPF!
PWS
08-27-21
ADDENDUM #2
BIA screwups on the x’s and o’s of judicial decision-making continue to “burn up the internet.”
Here’s yet another unpublished rebuke from the 2d Cir. on EOIR’s “any reason to deny worst practices” sent in by my colleague “Sir Jeffrey” Chase of Round Table ⚔️🛡fame:
We conclude that the BIA and IJ erred by relying on an alleged inconsistency between Tamrakar’s testimony before the IJ that the Maoists threatened him and tried to grab him before he escaped and Tamrakar’s statement during his credible fear interview that the Maoists left after threatening him to support its adverse credibility determination without first raising that discrepancy to Tamrakar. That inconsistency was not “self-evident,” Ming Shi Xue, 439 F.3d at 114, because, during the same credible fear interview, Tamrakar stated that the Maoists “tried to grab [him] but [he] ran away from them.” A.R. at 369. This statement was consistent with his testimony. Because the IJ and BIA “relied on the combined force of [three] inconsistencies,” Singh, 2021 WL 3176764, at *7, and did not provide Tamrakar the opportunity to explain one of them, we “cannot confidently predict whether the agency would adhere to [its] determination absent [its] error[].” Id. at *4. Further lessening our confidence, one of the other inconsistencies that the BIA and IJ relied on (whether Tamrakar’s friend accompanied him during the first incident or not) is closely analogous to one that our Court determined gave “no substantial support” to an adverse credibility finding on its own. Id. at *8 (noting that an inconsistency regarding whether a third party accompanied the petitioner to the police station after a key attack could be explained by differing recollections or another innocent explanation). Because we cannot confidently predict what the agency would do absent error, we vacate its decision.
Unfortunately, chronically sloppy work and wrongful denials have become so “routinized” at EOIR that the Circuits don’t even publish many of them any more! But, there are plenty of them out there!
They are just the “tip of the iceberg” of the systemic unfairness, racially-tinged bias, utter disdain for due process, lack of equal justice, unprofessionalism, glaring lack of expertise, and gross abuse of Government resources taking place in “Garland’s Star Chamber/Clown Courts!” Even one of these these is one too many!
The Human Rights advocacy community needs to organize and demand progressive changes from Garland, starting with long-overdue personnel and leadership changes at EOIR! How many more vulnerable individuals will be wrongfully denied or deported before a “responsible government official” (of which there seems to be as distinct shortage at Garland’s DOJ) pulls the plug 🔌 on this ongoing, intolerable human rights and racial justice farce going on at the DOJ!
“In sum, we conclude that the BIA abused its discretion in two respects: it departed from established policy when it failed either to apply the Sanchez Sosa factors or to remand to allow the IJ do so, and it failed to provide a rational explanation for its decision, including its treatment of this court’s binding precedent in Caballero-Martinez. … We grant the petition for review, vacate the BIA’s May 2020 order, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
[Hats off to David L. Wilson and amici Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota, ASISTA Immigration Assistance Project and National Network To End Domestic Violence!]
*******************************
Folks, all of this nonsense, delay, needless litigation, and remarkable legal/judicial incompetence was for the “purpose” of denying a well-deserved continuance to a U visa applicant — what should have been about a 5-minute positive adjudication, at max. No wonder the Federal Courts are clogged, the EOIR backlog grows, and the system has lost all respect and credibility!
I wish that Lucas Guttentag, Lisa Monaco, Vanita Gupta, and Merrick Garland would explain to all of us what is the purpose of an “expert tribunal” that lacks expertise, fundamental legal skills, judicial independence, moral courage, and common sense, as well as the backbone to have stood up to folks like Sessions and Barr (see, e.g., the Census Bureau career civil servants for stark contrast).
EOIR needs, among other things, changes at the top, real courageous progressive leadership, and a new, well-qualified, progressive, practical, expert BIA that puts due process and fair adjudication above all else. The practical experts are out there! Lucas knows exactly who should be leaders, role models, and appellate judges at the BIA! He knows that EOIR is the one critically important Federal Judiciary that can be transformed in the short run into a progressive, due-process-focused, “model judiciary!” Every day wasted in making the necessary changes in personnel and procedures is a life-changing, life-preserving opportunity wasted!
So, what’s the delay? Why is this nonsense, injustice, and waste of resources continuing nearly seven months into the Biden Administration? What’s with the continuing, due-process-denying, corner-cutting, sophomoric “denial quotas” for EOIR “judges” that produce wasteful, unjust “garbage adjudications” like this litigation exemplifies?
Lucas Guttentag Senior Counselor to the Deputy Attorney General
It shouldn’t be this hard to get long, long overdue, well-documented, common sense, readily achievable changes at EOIR! It shouldn’t be this hard for asylum seekers and other migrants, as well as their long-suffering representatives, to get the due process and fair and impartial adjudication that is their absolute right under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to our Constitution!
“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.
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”“Justice” Star Chamber StyleBIA Asylum Panel In Action Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia CommonsBIA Members Celebrate After Dismissing Appeal Of Arbitrary & Capricious Continuance Denial To Asylum Seeker, Thus Achieving “Death Without Due Process” The “Ultimate White Nationalist Deterrent” To Legitimate Refugees https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
Check out the lies, false claims, bogus “reasoning,” and mis-statements in McHenry’s attempt to “redefine due process by encouraging judges to deny continuances to respondents.” Meanwhile, the real cause of many, perhaps most, “big time” delays and disorder in Immigration Court — “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” to accommodate improper DHS enforcement initiatives and politically motivated DOJ priorities, is swept under the rug and goes unaddressed.
Here’s an example of some amazing nativist, White Nationalist legal gobbledygook put out by the “Tower Toadies:”
The general standard for a continuance is good cause, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29. By statute, however, “[i]n the absence of exceptional circumstances, final administrative adjudication of [an] asylum application, not including administrative appeal, shall be completed within 180 days after the date an application is filed.” INA § 208(d)(5)(A)(iii). “Exceptional circumstances” is a higher standard than “good cause.” PM 19-05, Guidance Regarding the Adjudication of Asylum Applications Consistent with INA § 208(d)(5)(A)(iii) (Nov. 19, 2018) at 2-3 (“A continuance does not automatically justify exceeding the 180-day timeline in INA § 208(d)(5)(A)(iii), however, because the statute’s ‘exceptional circumstances’ standard is higher than the ‘good cause’ standard for continuances.”). Thus, “if granting a continuance would result in missing the 180-day deadline, the Immigration Judge may only grant the continuance if the respondent satisfies both the good-cause standard of 8 C.F.R. §1003.29 and also shows the ‘exceptional circumstances’ required by INA § 208(d)(5)(A)(iii).” Id. at 2.
Translation: “Good cause” which is a constitutionally-based standard, actually means “exceptional circumstances” not “good cause” when dealing with asylum seekers, the most vulnerable among us, whose lives are in your hands. Therefore, the Constitution be damned, go ahead and deny the asylum applicant a legitimate continuance but claim that you had “good cause” for not finding “exceptional circumstances.” Oh, and while you’re at it, don’t bother to factor in the ongoing public health crisis and the lives of the individuals, attorneys, staff, and certainly not your own worthless life in reaching your pre-determined decision to deny a continuance. Denying asylum to refugees, for any reason, no matter how specious or disingenuous, outweighs human life and your meaningless oath to uphold the Constitution.
Sort of reminds me of “Gruppenfuhrer Rudy’s” famous “Truth isn’t truth” declaration to Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press!” Only in the kakistocracy is this type of absurdist “logic” considered normal and acceptable.
What a real judge might say: “Good cause” for a continuance exists where failure to grant one would make the proceedings fundamentally unfair or unduly impinge on a full and fair consideration of the respondent’s case. The need to grant a continuance to avoid a denial of constitutionally required due process is obviously an “exceptional circumstance.” This is especially true in dealing with applicants for asylum and others seeking protections from persecution and torture. Additionally, the ongoing public health crisis and the overriding need to protect the health and safety of those coming before you and your dedicated professional court staff should always be paramount in considering continuance requests.
No legitimate court system in America is mismanaged in this grotesque, nonsensical manner without considering the input, or indeed the health, safety, and lives, of either the parties appearing before the court or the judges themselves!
To be frank, Judge Garland, the EOIR Tower Kakistocracy is delivering you “the big middle finger”🖕 in advance. They are acolytes of the racist, White Nationalist, “myth based” xenophobic immigration agenda set forth by Stephen Miller and Gene Hamilton. As far as they are concerned, you and your “return justice and professionalism to Justice” agenda can “go pound sand.”
While the EOIR kakistocracy might be openly contemptuous of your incoming leadership, your supporters our here in the New Due Process Army(“NDPA”) are also aware of what’s happening. For better or worse, your commitment to and effectiveness in restoring justice will be judged initially on the number of hours, minutes, and seconds it takes you to oust the current Clown Show 🤡🦹🏿♂️☠️in Falls Church, including the failed and compromised BIA; replace them with professional, independent judicial administrators and real judges with expertise in immigration, asylum, and human rights and a nationally-recognized, unswerving commitment to due process, best practices, and practical scholarship in support of social justice.
EOIR might not be the most “sexy” item on your incoming agenda, Your Honor. But, the fate of one of the largest, perhaps most important “Federal Court Systems” is probably the most important and consequential item on which your tenure ultimately will be judged. As all of us who have served the public know, many of our “achievements” that occupied so much of our time and attention in office are forgotten or disappear before the door closes behind us at the end of of our tenure. But, being the “Father of the Independent Immigration Court” 👨🏻⚖️⚖️🗽🇺🇸👍🏼😇— bringing in a group of experts to fix the current ungodly mess and then advocating tirelessly for Article I legislation — is the kind of lasting legacy of which you could be proud!
Judge Garland, you don’t want to “own” this national disgrace and mockery of our Constitution, rational, professional court administration, honest, competent civil service, and simple human decency — the obligations that we owe to our fellow humans. Please get some real judges and professional administrators over to Falls Church immediately, put the EOIR Clown Show 🤡🦹🏿♂️out of its misery, 🧹🪠 and end the crimes against humanity☠️⚰️ they are visiting on the most vulnerable among us and their attorneys! History (as well as the NDPA) is watching!
Best wishes for a due process⚖️ and best practices 👍🏼filled tenure! Be remembered for the justice you have promoted and the evil ☠️🦹🏿♂️⚰️👎🏻you have resisted and eradicated!
On August 16, 2019, the Executive Office for Immigration Review issued a memo limiting the types of cases that an immigration judge may place on a status docket while a noncitizen is waiting for some event to occur that will impact the removal proceedings. The policy may make it more difficult for some respondents to seek immigration relief while in removal proceedings, especially relief before U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. This practice advisory provides background on status dockets, describes the new policy, and provides tips for practitioners with clients whose cases are currently on a status docket or who would otherwise have pursued status docket placement but may now be found ineligible for status docket placement.
action to avoid increasing the Board’s backlog—it is critically important to make certain that all appeals are processed in a timely manner.
The Board Chairman is required to establish a case management system to manage the Board’s caseload. 8 C.F.R. 1003.1(e). The Chairman, under the supervision of the Director, is responsible for the success of the case management system. Id. The Director is further authorized, inter alia, “to ensure the efficient disposition of all pending cases, including the power, in his discretion, to set priorities or time frames for the resolution of cases; to direct that the adjudication of certain cases be deferred; to regulate the assignment of adjudicators to cases; and otherwise to manage the docket of matters to be decided by the Board.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.0(b)(1)(ii).
Although the Board has implemented a case management system pursuant to regulation, that system does not fully provide for clear internal deadlines for all phases of the pre-adjudicatory process.1 Similarly, although the regulations evince a clear directive for prompt processing and disposition by the Board, they do not provide specific deadlines for case processing prior to completion of the appellate record. Moreover, as the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General has previously noted, the regulatory deadlines for the adjudication of appeals exclude a significant amount of pre-adjudicatory processing time, skewing the Board’s reported achievements of its goals for appeals and impeding the effective management of the appeals process. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Management of Immigration Cases and Appeals by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (Oct. 2012), https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2012/e1301.pdf.
To ensure the success of the Board’s case management system and to
Michelle Mendez Defending Vulnerable Populations Director Catholic Legal Immigration Network
better manage the appeals process so that cases are adjudicated promptly, it is appropriate to clearly state EOIR’s expectations regarding the timely processing of appeals. 2 To that end, it is important to have clear deadlines for the movement of cases throughout the entire appellate process, and not just for the adjudication at the end of the process. Accordingly, EOIR now issues the following guidance regarding the case management system for appellate adjudications by the Board.3
Case Processing
All case appeals are referred to the screening panel for review, and appeals subject to summary dismissal “should be promptly dismissed.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(1). To ensure prompt initial
1 The pre-adjudicatory process includes, inter alia, screening of notices of appeal, requesting Records of Proceedings (ROPs), ordering transcripts, serving a briefing schedule, and assigning a case for merits review once the record is complete.
2 Although the importance of timely adjudication applies to all types of appeals at the Board, the specific provisions of this PM do not apply to the processing of appeals of decisions involving administrative fines and penalties, decisions on visa petitions, decisions on the exercise of discretion by the Department of Homeland Security pursuant to INA § 212(d)(3), and decisions in practitioner discipline proceedings.
3 For timeframes that are not currently being met, EOIR understands that Board leadership recently changed and that it may take time to adjust Board practices. Nevertheless, the agency is also cognizant that the Board recently hired six new permanent Board members and is also hiring additional support staff. Consequently, EOIR expects that the Board will address inefficiencies in its appellate processing as soon as possible.
2
screening, all cases should be referred to the screening panel within 14 days of the filing of the notice of appeal to determine whether the appeal is subject to summary dismissal. Appeals subject to summary dismissal, particularly appeals subject to summary dismissal under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(G) for being untimely filed, should be dismissed within 30 days of referral to the screening panel.
In any case that has not been summarily dismissed, the Board “shall arrange for the prompt completion of the record of proceedings and transcript, and the issuance of a briefing schedule.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(3). Thus, to ensure prompt completion of the record for case appeals that have not been summarily dismissed, the Board should order the ROP4 if it was not previously ordered and, if appropriate, request a transcript within 14 days of referral to the screening panel.5 If a case does not require the preparation of a transcript and is not subject to summary dismissal, the Board should set and serve a briefing schedule within 14 days of referral to the screening panel. If a case requires neither the preparation of a transcript nor the service of a briefing schedule—e.g. a motion to reopen filed directly with the Board—the Board should forward the case for merits review within three days of the receipt of the ROP.
Every appeal that requires a transcript should be sent to a vendor for transcription within 14 days of referral to the screening panel. The only exceptions are situations in which there is no vendor with available capacity or if there is no available funding for further transcription.6
Upon receipt of the transcript, the Board should set and serve a briefing schedule within three days if the immigration judge’s decision was rendered in writing. If the immigration judge’s decision was rendered orally, the Board should provide the transcript of the oral decision to the immigration judge within three days of receipt of the transcript. The immigration judge “shall review the transcript and approve the decision within 14 days of receipt, or within seven days after the immigration judge returns to his or her duty station if the immigration judge was on leave or detailed to another location.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.5(a). The Board should then set and serve a briefing schedule within three days of the immigration judge’s review and approval.
4 It is crucial that immigration courts promptly comply with requests for the ROP by the Board, and the Board may remand a case for recovery of the record if an immigration court does not forward the ROP promptly. The Board should decide whether such a remand is appropriate within 21 days of an immigration court’s failure to forward the ROP following the Board’s request. Such a remand will not be counted against an immigration judge for purposes of evaluating that judge’s performance. The Chairman shall promptly notify the Chief Immigration Judge and the Director of any immigration court that has not complied with a request for the ROP within 21 days of that request.
5 Unless the ROP contains cassette tapes requiring transcription, ordering the ROP and requesting transcription should occur concurrently within 14 days of referral to the screening panel. Transcripts are not normally prepared for the following types of appeals: bond determinations; denials of motions to reopen (including motions to reopen in absentia proceedings); denials of motions to reconsider; and interlocutory appeals. Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual, § 4.2(f)(ii).
6 The Chairman is directed to immediately notify the Director and the Assistant Director for the Office of Administration in any situation in which it appears that funding for transcription of all cases relative to vendor capacity is insufficient to meet the goals of this PM. Similarly, the Chairman is directed to notify the Director and the Assistant Director for the Office of Administration of any additional resource needs in order to meet the goals of this PM.
3
“In the interest of fairness and the efficient use of administrative resources, extension requests [of briefing schedules] are not favored.” Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual, § 4.7(c)(i). Because extension requests are not favored, they should not be granted as a matter of course, and there is no automatic entitlement to an extension of the briefing schedule by either party. Extension requests filed the same day as a brief is due are particularly disfavored and should be granted only in the most compelling of circumstances.
The case should be forwarded for merits review within three days after the expiration of the briefing schedule or the filing of briefs by both parties, whichever occurs earlier. A single Board member may summarily dismiss an appeal after completion of the record. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(3). An appeal subject to summary dismissal because a party indicated that it would file a brief and failed to do so, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(E), should be dismissed within 21 days of expiration of the briefing schedule.
The single Board member should determine the appeal on the merits as provided in paragraph 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4) or (e)(5), unless the Board member determines that the case is appropriate for review and decision by a three-member panel under the standards of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(6). The single Board member should determine whether the case should be referred to a three-member panel within 14 days of referral of the case for merits review, and the Board should assign the case to a three-member panel within three days of the single Board member’s determination.7 If a case is assigned to a three-member panel, a decision must be made within 180 days of assignment. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(8)(i). If a case is not assigned to a three-member panel, the single Board member shall adjudicate the appeal within 90 days of completion of the record on appeal. Id.
The Chairman may grant an extension of the 90 and 180-day deadlines of up to 60 days in exigent circumstances. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(8)(ii).8 “In rare circumstances,” the Chairman may hold a case or cases and suspend the 90 and 180-day deadlines to await an impending decision by the Supreme Court, a U.S. Court of Appeals, or an en banc Board decision or to await impending Department regulatory amendments. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(8)(iii).9 The Chairman shall provide a monthly report of all cases in which an extension was granted due to exigent circumstances and all cases being held pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(8)(iii).
Any appeal not adjudicated within the regulatory time frames shall be handled in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(8)(ii). The Chairman shall provide a monthly report of all cases which have exceeded these time frames.
Overall, absent an exception or unique circumstance provided for by regulation or this PM, no appeal assigned to a single Board member should remain pending for longer than 230 days after
7 A single Board member retains the ability to later decide that a case should be assigned to a three-member panel if circumstances arise that were unknown at the time of the initial determination that such assignment was not warranted.
8 Additionally, the 90 and 180-day deadlines do not apply to cases in which the Board holds an adjudication of the appeal while awaiting the results of identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(d)(6) and (e)(8)(i).
9 As a matter of policy, the Chairman may also defer adjudication of appeals under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(2)(i)(C) to await an impending decision by the Attorney General.
4
filing of the notice to appeal, and no appeal assigned to a three-member panel should remain pending for longer than 335 days after filing the notice of appeal. The Chairman shall track the progress of appellate adjudications and shall provide a monthly report of all cases which exceed those parameters.
Finally, EOIR does not have a policy restricting or prohibiting the use of summary dismissals of appeals, nor does it have a policy restricting or prohibiting the use of affirmances without opinion. Any appeals amenable to those procedures should be adjudicated consistent with the regulatory requirements for them, 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(d)(2) and (e)(4), and this PM.
III. Interlocutory Appeals
The regulations do not expressly address interlocutory appeals. “The Board does not normally entertain interlocutory appeals and generally limits interlocutory appeals to instances involving either important jurisdictional questions regarding the administration of the immigration laws or recurring questions in the handling of cases by Immigration Judges.” Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual, § 4.14(c).
The Board does not normally issue briefing schedules for interlocutory appeals, nor do most interlocutory appeals require transcription. Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual, §§ 4.2(f)(ii), 4.14(e). Consequently, interlocutory appeals are not subject to the same processes as typical case appeals on the merits. Nevertheless, it is the policy of EOIR to adjudicate interlocutory appeals promptly and efficiently.
To that end, interlocutory appeals should be reviewed by the screening panel within 14 days of filing. The screening panel should then either decide the interlocutory appeal within 30 days of filing or forward it for merits review.
Assignment and Performance
Regulations authorize the Chairman to designate a screening panel and other merits panels as appropriate. It is the policy of EOIR that panel assignments shall occur no less frequently than the beginning of each fiscal year.
Finally, “[t]he Chairman shall notify the Director of EOIR and the Attorney General if a Board member consistently fails to meet the assigned deadlines for the disposition of appeals, or otherwise fails to adhere to the standards of the case management system. The Chairman shall also prepare a report assessing the timeliness of the disposition of cases by each Board member on an annual basis.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(8)(v). Notification pursuant to this regulation should occur no later than 30 days after the Chairman determines that a Board member has failed to meet these standards. The Chairman shall prepare the annual report required by this regulation at the conclusion of each fiscal year.
5
V . Conclusion
In December 2017, Attorney General Sessions provided a list of principles to which EOIR is expected to adhere, including the principle that “[t]he timely and efficient conclusion of cases serves the national interest.” Memorandum to the Executive Office for Immigration Review, Renewing Our Commitment to the Timely and Efficient Adjudication of Immigration Cases to Serve the National Interest (Dec. 6, 2017), https://www.justice.gov/eoir/file/1041196/download. That principle applies to cases at the Board no less than it applies to cases in immigration courts, and EOIR remains committed to ensuring that all immigration cases at both the immigration court and appellate levels are adjudicated efficiently and fairly consistent with due process.
Responsibility for the Board’s case management system and the duty to ensure the efficient disposition of pending cases fall on the Chairman, and Board members themselves are ultimately responsible for the adjudication of individual cases. Accordingly, nothing in this PM is intended to require—or should be construed as requiring—a change in the conditions of employment of any bargaining unit employees at the Board.
The Board maintains a goal developed under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of completing 90% of detained appeals within 150 days of filing. The instant PM does not alter that goal, and in all cases, it remains EOIR policy that the Board “shall issue a decision on the merits as soon as practicable, with a priority for cases or custody appeals involving detained aliens.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(8).
This PM supersedes any prior guidance issued by EOIR regarding the timely processing of cases on appeal.
This PM is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create, any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. Further, nothing in this PM should be construed as mandating a particular outcome in any specific case.
Please contact your supervisor if you have any questions. _____________
WASHINGTON, DC – Today, the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) reviewed and analyzed the recent policy memo impacting the workings of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) which serves as the appellate arm of the immigration courts within the Department of Justice (DOJ).
Jeremy McKinney, Second Vice President of AILA noted, “This memo offers significant areas of concern. An earlier rule issued in August describing the reorganization of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) at DOJ delegates authority from the Attorney General to the EOIR director to adjudicate cases ‘that cannot be completed in a timely fashion.’ As a political appointee and not an immigration judge, the director should not have that power. This memo goes even further and pressures BIA members to speed up adjudications without care for due process. Frankly, this latest memo only underscores the need for an independent immigration court to get these proceedings out from under the thumb of the nation’s prosecutor.”
Benjamin Johnson, AILA Executive Director stated, “The purported reasoning behind this memo is that BIA adjudication rates have stalled. What did they expect the appellate situation would look like when immigration enforcement was ramped up and targeted people with longstanding ties to their communities and potential equities in immigration cases? It was inevitable that the appeals caseload would increase. This memo actually urges BIA adjudicators to dismiss appeals, before a transcript of the original hearing is even reviewed. The result of this policy change will be even more federal court litigation as people seek to get their fair day in court. Everything about this system is incongruent with an independent decision-making body.”
It just keeps getting worse and worse, as Congress and the Article IIIs shirk their duties to intervene and enforce Due Process in our broken and “maliciously incompetently” managed Immigration “Courts.”
As one “Roundtable” member noted, in an amazing public ripoff, the Administration is raising the appeal fees by nearly 1000% so abused immigrants subjected to the EOIR “Kangaroo Court” will now “pay more for less justice!”
But, all is not lost! NDPA Lt. General and Roundtable stalwart Judge Lory D. Rosenberg has put out a timely format (below) for filling out a Notice of Appeal (“NOA”) that will be “McHenryproof” and will also highlight to the Article III Courts of Appeals the stunning denial of Due Process and encouragement of sloppy work, “worst practices,” and corner cutting at EOIR. Let’s see whether being flooded with inferior, biased work product by the BIAwill finally spur the Article IIIs to take some long overdue corrective action (as they did during the due process disaster at EOIR that followed the “Ashcroft Purge” at the BIA).
Retired Immigration Judges and Former Members of the Board of Immigration Appeals Statement in Response to AG’s Decision in Matter of L-A-B-R-
August 17, 2018
As former Immigration Judges and Members of the BIA with many decades of combined experience on thebench, we must expose the Attorney General’s latest blow to judicial independence in his decision in Matter of L-A-B-R-.
There is no question that the Immigration Courts are currently overwhelmed by a backlog of more than 700,000 pending cases. Facing the imposition of unreasonable case completion quotas, many Immigration Judges presently feel forced to double-book hearings. One of our members who recently left the bench states that judges at present may receive ten to fifteen motions for continuance a day. Sessions’s latest decision would force each judge to write lengthy, highly detailed decisions for each of these while still trying to complete three or more full hearings a day. Of course, the implementation of this latest decision is entirely unrealistic. Furthermore, the decision imposes no such requirements in instances where DHS seeks a continuance (often for avoidable reasons such as its inability to locate the file or to have adjudicated a petition in time).
It should be remembered that many of the cases before the Immigration Courts involve individuals whose lives are at risk in their home countries. As the President Emeritus of the group’s union has said,Immigration Judges hear death penalty cases under traffic court conditions. In his decision, Sessions usesthe words “efficient,” “efficiency,” or “inefficient” 12 times. The word “justice” (other than in the name ofthe agency he heads, or as a job title) appears only once.
Immigration Judges should be treated as judges, and should be afforded the independent judgment that their position requires, including the basic power to control and prioritize their own case dockets. While judges share the administration’s concern over the high volume of cases, they should be allowed a say inproposing solutions that will not infringe on their independent judgment or their ability to afford due process.
Sincerely,
Hon. Steven Abrams Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Hon. Bruce J. Einhorn Hon. John F. Gossart, Jr. Hon. Rebecca Jamil Hon. William P. Joyce Hon. Carol King
Hon. Margaret McManus Hon. Charles Pazar Hon. Lory D. Rosenberg Hon. Susan Roy
Hon. Paul W. Schmidt Hon. Polly A. Webber
1
AILA Doc. No. 18081776. (Posted 8/17/18)
List of Retired Immigration Judges and Former BIA Members
The Honorable Jeffrey S. Chase served as an Immigration Judge in New York City from 1995 to 2007 and was an attorney advisor and senior legal advisor at the Board from 2007 to 2017. He is presently in private practice as an independent consultant on immigration law, and is of counsel to the law firm of DiRaimondo & Masi in New York City. Prior to his appointment, he was a sole practitioner and volunteer staff attorney at Human Rights First. He also was the recipient of the American Immigration LawyersAssociation’s annual pro bono award in 1994 and chaired AILA’s Asylum Reform Task Force.
The Honorable Bruce J. Einhorn served as a United States Immigration Judge in Los Angeles from 1990 to 2007. He now serves as an Adjunct Professor of Law at Pepperdine University School of Law in Malibu, California, and a Visiting Professor of International, Immigration, and Refugee Law at the University of Oxford, England. He is also a contributing op-ed columnist at D.C.-based The Hill newspaper. He is a member of the Bars of Washington D.C., New York, Pennsylvania, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
The Honorable John F. Gossart, Jr. served as a U.S. Immigration Judge from 1982 until his retirement in 2013 and is the former president of the National Association of Immigration Judges. At the time of his retirement, he was the third most senior immigration judge in the United States. Judge Gossart was awarded the Attorney General Medal by then Attorney General Eric Holder. From 1975 to 1982, he served in various positions with the former Immigration Naturalization Service, including as general attorney, naturalization attorney, trial attorney, and deputy assistant commissioner for naturalization. He is also the co-author of the National Immigration Court Practice Manual, which is used by all practitioners throughout the United States in immigration court proceedings. From 1997 to 2016, Judge Gossart was an adjunct professor of law at the University of Baltimore School of Law teaching immigration law, and more recently was an adjunct professor of law at the University of Maryland School of Law also teaching immigration law. He has been a faculty member of the National Judicial College, and has guest lectured at numerous law schools, the Judicial Institute of Maryland and the former Maryland Institute for the Continuing Education of Lawyers. He is also a past board member of the Immigration Law Section of the Federal Bar Association. Judge Gossart served in the United States Army from 1967 to 1969 and is a veteran of the Vietnam War.
Honorable Rebecca Jamil
The Honorable William P. Joyce served as an Immigration Judge in Boston, Massachusetts. Subsequent to retiring from the bench, he has been the Managing Partner of Joyce and Associates with 1,500 active immigration cases. Prior to his appointment to the bench, he served as legal counsel to the Chief Immigration Judge. Judge Joyce also served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, and Associate General Counsel for enforcement for INS. He is a graduate of Georgetown School of Foreign Service and Georgetown Law School.
The Honorable Carol King served as an Immigration Judge from 1995 to 2017 in San Francisco and was a temporary Board member for six months between 2010 and 2011. She previously practiced immigration law for ten years, both with the Law Offices of Marc Van Der Hout and in her own private practice. She also taught immigration law for five years at Golden Gate University School of Law and is currently on the faculty of the Stanford University Law School Trial Advocacy Program. Judge King now works as a
2
The Honorable Steven R. Abrams served as an Immigration Judge in New York City from 1997 to 2013 at JFK Airport, Varick Street, and 26 Federal Plaza. From 1979 to 1997, he worked for the former Immigration and Naturalization Service in various capacities, including a general attorney; district counsel; a Special U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of New York and Alaska. Presently lectures on Immigration law in Raleigh, NC.
AILA Doc. No. 18081776. (Posted 8/17/18)
Removal Defense Strategist, advising attorneys and assisting with research and writing related to complex removal defense issues.
Judge Margaret McManus was appointed as an Immigration Judge in 1991 and retired from the bench after twenty-seven years in January 2018. She received a Bachelor of Arts degree from the Catholic University of America in 1973, and a Juris Doctorate from Brooklyn Law School in 1983. Judge McManus was an attorney for Marion Ginsberg, Esquire from 1989 to 1990 in New York. She was in private practice in 1987 and 1990, also in New York. Judge McManus worked as a consultant to various nonprofit organizations on immigration matters including Catholic Charities and Volunteers of Legal Services from 1987 to 1988 in New York. She was an adjunct clinical law professor for City University of New York Law School from 1988 to 1989. Judge McManus served as a staff attorney for the Legal Aid Society, Immigration Unit, in New York, from 1983 to 1987. She is a member of the New York Bar.
Honorable Charles Pazar
The Honorable Lory D. Rosenberg served on the Board from 1995 to 2002. She then served as Director of the Defending Immigrants Partnership of the National Legal Aid & Defender Association from 2002 until 2004. Prior to her appointment, she worked with the American Immigration Law Foundation from 1991 to 1995. She was also an adjunct Immigration Professor at American University Washington College of Law from 1997 to 2004. She is the founder of IDEAS Consulting and Coaching, LLC., a consulting service for immigration lawyers, and is the author of Immigration Law and Crimes. She currently works as Senior Advisor for the Immigrant Defenders Law Group.
The Honorable Susan Roy started her legal career as a Staff Attorney at the Board of Immigration Appeals, a position she received through the Attorney General Honors Program. She served as Assistant Chief Counsel, National Security Attorney, and Senior Attorney for the DHS Office of Chief Counsel in Newark, NJ, and then became an Immigration Judge, also in Newark. Sue has been in private practice for nearly 5 years, and two years ago, opened her own immigration law firm. Sue is the NJ AILA Chapter Liaison to EOIR, is the Vice Chair of the Immigration Law Section of the NJ State Bar Association, and in 2016 was awarded the Outstanding Pro Bono Attorney of the Year by the NJ Chapter of the Federal Bar Association.
The Honorable Paul W. Schmidt served as an Immigration Judge from 2003 to 2016 in Arlington, virginia. He previously served as Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals from 1995 to 2001, and as a Board Member from 2001 to 2003. He authored the landmark decision Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1995) extending asylum protection to victims of female genital mutilation. He served as Deputy General Counsel of the former INS from 1978 to 1987, serving as Acting General Counsel from 1986-87 and 1979-81. He was the managing partner of the Washington, D.C. office of Fragomen, Del Rey & Bernsen from 1993 to 1995, and practiced business immigration law with the Washington, D.C. office of Jones, Day, Reavis and Pogue from 1987 to 1992, where he was a partner from 1990 to 1992. He served as an adjunct professor of law at George Mason University School of Law in 1989, and at Georgetown University Law Center from 2012 to 2014 and 2017 to present. He was a founding member of the International Association of Refugee Law Judges (IARLJ), which he presently serves as Americas Vice President. He also serves on the Advisory Board of AYUDA, and assists the National Immigrant Justice Center/Heartland Alliance on various projects; and speaks, writes and lectures at various forums throughout the country on immigration law topics. He also created the immigration law blogimmigrationcourtside.com.
The Honorable Polly A. Webber served as an Immigration Judge from 1995 to 2016 in San Francisco, with details in Tacoma, Port Isabel, Boise, Houston, Atlanta, Philadelphia, and Orlando Immigration Courts. Previously, she practiced immigration law from 1980 to 1995 in her own private practice in San Jose, California, initially in partnership with the Honorable Member of Congress, Zoe Lofgren. She served
3
AILA Doc. No. 18081776. (Posted 8/17/18)
as National President of AILA from 1989 to 1990 and was a national officer in AILA from 1985 to 1991. She has also taught Immigration and Nationality Law for five years at Santa Clara University School of Law. She has spoken at seminars and has published extensively in this field, and is a graduate of Hastings College of the Law (University of California), J.D., and the University of California, Berkeley, A.B., Abstract Mathematics.
***********************************
It’s an honor to be part of this group of my distinguished colleagues and to stand in opposition to Sessions’s “deconstruction” of Due Process and fundamental fairness in our United States Immigration Courts. Court systems work best when we allow judges to function as judges, without this type of political interference by non-judges. The latter is a responsible for “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” — one of the key causes of the backlog which has developed and increased over the last three Administrations.
(1) An immigration judge may grant a motion for a continuance of removal proceedings only “for good cause shown.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29.
(2) The good-cause standard is a substantive requirement that limits the discretion of immigration judges and prohibits them from granting continuances for any reason or no reason at all.
(3) The good-cause standard requires consideration and balancing of multiple relevant factors when a respondent alien requests a continuance to pursue collateral relief from another authority—for example, a visa from the Department of Homeland Security. See Matter of Hashmi, 24 I&N Dec. 785, 790 (BIA 2009).
(4) When a respondent requests a continuance to pursue collateral relief, the immigration judge must consider primarily the likelihood that the collateral relief will be granted and will materially affect the outcome of the removal proceedings.
(5) The immigration judge should also consider relevant secondary factors, which may include the respondent’s diligence in seeking collateral relief, DHS’s position on the motion for continuance, concerns of administrative efficiency, the length of the continuance requested, the number of hearings held and continuances granted previously, and the timing of the continuance motion.
***************************
TAKEAWAYS:
ETHICS TAKES A HOLIDAY: Sessions is an unapologetic shill for DHS Enforcement, a party to all Immigration Court proceedings. Thus, he is precluded by judicial and legal ethics from acting in a judicial capacity in any individual Immigration Court case. Any other lawyer blatantly disregarding the ethics codes by acting in a matter in which he clearly has a conflict of interest would be removed from all DHS cases and disciplined. How does he get away with it?
BLAMING THE VICTIMS: As usual, Sessions makes up a bogus scenario placing the blame for Immigration Court backlogs on the victims of the Government’s “Aimless Docket Reshuffling:” migrants, their courageous and hard working attorneys, and the Immigration Judges and BIA Judges themselves.
WHITEWASHING “AIMLESS DOCKET RESHUFFLING:” As anyone familiar with the system knows, the real problem generating huge backlogs is politicized “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” (“ADR”) engineered by DOJ, which includes mindless and costly “judicial details,” judicial reassignments, failure to promptly fill judicial vacancies, and perhaps most significantly, ever-changing “priorities” imposed by politicos over the last three Administrations. In fact, individual Immigration Judges have virtually no control over their own dockets. But, Sessions blames the victims of ADR, rather than the “perps” (of which he, of course, is “Perp #1”).
INCREASING THE BACKLOG: Sessions’s decision is an open invitation for DHS to file interlocutory appeals challenging grants of continuances by Immigration Judges. It’s a complete waste of time and grotesque abuse of judicial resources. There’s actually a good reason for the BIA’s “disfavoring” interlocutory appeals of this type. The more time the system spends on “non-dispositive” motions, the less time there is for deciding cases on the merits.
ABUSE OF JUDICIAL RESOURCES: This decision means that Immigration Judges will have to spend more time justifying decisions to grant or deny continuances, which takes time away from making decisions on the merits. And, I’m relatively sure they will receive no “credit” under Sessions’s proposed “quota system” for decisions on motions for continuance.
DUE PROCESS BE DAMNED: Although Sessions appears tone-deaf to the purpose and meaning of the U.S. Constitution, the Due Process Clause is there to protect individuals (and respondents in Immigration Court are particularly vulnerable individuals) from Government overreach, not to protect Government enforcement. By favoring DHS enforcement over private litigants, Sessions basically turns the Constitution on its head (sadly, not for the first time).
A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD?NOT LIKELY: One of the abuses driving the backlog is the unfair practice of EOIR telling counsel who show up as scheduled for merits cases, well prepared, often with witnesses in tow, that their cases have been “rescheduled” to a much later date without any notice or chance to object from them. Does Sessions’s new-found concern about continuances means that the BIA will favorably consider interlocutory appeals from private attorneys and their clients whose cases have been aimlessly rescheduled without notice to make way for the “new DOJ priority of the day?”
A FAIR APPLICATION OF CRITERIA? NOT LIKELY: Given the technical problems and disorder within EOIR, the frequency of missing files, and even missing evidence of removability, at DHS, the delays in DHS Filing Notices To Appear, aimless movement of detainees to “save money,” failure to bring detainees to scheduled hearings, failure to promptly check fingerprints, etc., I suspect that an honest application of the AG’s “revised criteria” actually would favor the respondent in many cases. But, that certainly isn’t the message Sessions is delivering, So I’m skeptical as to whether these criteria will be fairly applied.
ANOTHER CHEAP SHOT AT JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE: While some Immigration Judges undoubtedly do a better job of adjudicating motions than others, unwarranted continuances by Immigration Judges are not a major problem in the Immigration Court system (although “ADR” by the DOJ most definitely is). Any system that doesn’t trust its judges and its appellate authority to deal with continuances is, by definition, dysfunctional. Although Sessions has no expertise in immigration adjudication, his clear message is that Immigration Judges are not to be trusted; hence the need for “Mickey Mouse” unnecessary “guidance” such as this decision.
A BAD JOKE, NOT A COURT SYSTEM: Sessions continually perverts what is supposed to be a fair “Due Process” court system. Congress seems to have punted. Will the Article IIIs stop this travesty or “go along to get along?” Only time will tell.
Ten years ago, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit decided Hashmi v. Att’y Gen. of the U.S.1 The case involved a request to continue a removal proceeding which the Department of Homeland Security did not oppose. The respondent was married to a U.S. citizen; he would become eligible to adjust his status in immigration court once the visa petition she had filed on his behalf was approved by DHS. However, the approval was delayed for reasons beyond the respondent’s control. One of those reasons was that a part of the respondent’s DHS file was needed by both the office in Cherry Hill, NJ adjudicating the visa petition and the DHS attorney in Newark prosecuting the removal case.
The immigration judge decided that he could wait no longer. Noting that the pendency of the case had exceeded the agency’s stated case completion goals, the judge denied the continuance and ordered the respondent deported. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed, holding that “to reach a decision about whether to grant or deny a motion for a continuance based solely on case-completion goals, with no regard for the circumstances of the case itself, is impermissibly arbitrary.”
In response to Hashmi, the BIA issued a precedent decision stating that unopposed motions of that type should generally be granted.2 In subsequent decisions, the BIA provided further guidance in allowing IJs to make reasonable determinations to continue such cases,3 and to administratively close proceedings where it would further justice (as in Hashmi, where the need for the DHS file to be in two places at once was preventing the case from proceeding).4
In subjecting immigration judges to strict, metrics-based reviews last week, EOIR’s director, James McHenry, may pressure immigration judges into taking the types of actions barred by Hashmi. Under the newly-announced metrics, individual judges may run the risk of disciplinary action for granting reasonable requests for continuance, or for other delays necessary for reaching a fair result. The combined actions of McHenry (who prior to being promoted to the position of agency director had worked for EOIR for approximately 6 months as an administrative law judge with OCAHO, the only component of EOIR that doesn’t deal with immigration law or the immigration courts), and Attorney General Jeff Sessions in recently certifying four BIA decisions to himself, could erase the above positive case law developments of the past decade, and replace them with an incentive for rushed decisions that do not afford adequate safeguards to non-citizens facing deportation.
Allowing reasonable continuances for the parties to obtain counsel, present evidence, and formulate legal theories, or to allow other agencies to adjudicate applications impacting eligibility, is an essential part of affording justice. Judges also need to fully understand the legal arguments presented. When an issue arises in the course of a hearing, it is not uncommon for a judge to ask the parties for briefs, and for the judge to then conduct his or her own legal research before deciding the matter. A detailed decision is also necessary to allow for meaningful review on appeal. However, all of this takes time, and the performance of individual judges will be found to be unsatisfactory or in need of improvement if they complete less than 700 cases per year, complete less than 95 percent of cases at their first merits hearing, or have 15 percent of their cases remanded on appeal.
Some recently reported actions by immigration judges in the name of expediency are troubling. Last Sunday’s episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (for which my colleague Carol King and I served as subject-matter sources) featured a credible-fear review hearing by an immigration judge that lasted one minute and 43 seconds in its entirety (and was probably doubled in length by the need for an interpreter). The judge asked the unrepresented respondent a total of two questions before reaching this decision: “Well, the government of the United States doesn’t afford you protection for this type of reason. I affirm the Asylum Officer’s decision.” It’s not clear how the judge could have been confident in such conclusion. The respondent was detained and had not yet had an opportunity to consult with counsel. Her claim was only sketched in the broadest outline; upon further development by an attorney, it may well have fallen into the “type of reason” for which asylum may be granted. Her credibility was never doubted; in fact, the program reported that she was assaulted at gunpoint by the man she fled after she was deported to her country.
In another case arising in the Ninth Circuit, C.J.L.G. v. Sessions,5 an immigration judge told the mother of a child in removal proceedings who was unable to retain counsel that she could represent her son, and proceeded with the child’s asylum hearing. Of course, the mother was not qualified for the task. Although the son had been threatened with death for resisting gang recruitment efforts, he was denied asylum in a hearing in which many critical questions that could have helped develop a nexus between his fear and a legally protected ground for asylum were never asked. This occurred because the judge did not feel that he could grant another continuance to provide the respondent an additional opportunity to retain counsel.
All of the above-described actions by IJs occurred prior to last week’s announcement by the EOIR director. Should judges struggling to meet the benchmarks feel their job security to be at risk, will actions such as those described above become the norm?
As previously mentioned, the Attorney General certified four decisions of the BIA to himself shortly before the director’s announcement of the new metrics. In one of those cases, Matter of E-F-H-L-,6 Sessions vacated a 2014 BIA precedent decision requiring immigration judges to provide asylum applicants a full hearing on their claim. In another, Matter of A-B-,7 Sessions chose a case in which the BIA twice reversed an immigration judge’s denial of asylum to a victim of domestic violence, and on certification has made the case a referendum on whether victims of private criminal activity may constitute a particular social group for asylum purposes.
Should Sessions decide this issue in the negative, the two decisions taken together may allow for the type of quick denials of the “Government…doesn’t afford you protection for this type of reason” variety discussed above. Fair-minded judges who will continue to hold full hearings and consider legal arguments in favor of granting relief may find it more difficult to meet all of the above benchmarks.
Copyright 2018 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
Notes:
531 F.3d 256 (3d Cir. 2008)
Matter of Hashmi, 24 I&N Dec. 785 (BIA 2009).
See Matter of Rajah, 25 I&N Dec. 127 (BIA 2009) (concerning continuances due to pending employment-based visa petitions) ; Matter of C-B-, 25 I&N Dec. 888 (BIA 2012) (requiring reasonable and realistic continuances to obtain counsel); Matter of Montiel, 26 I&N Dec. 555 (BIA 2015) (allowing delaying proceedings for adjudication of criminal appeals).
See Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I&N Dec. 688 (BIA 2012); Matter of W-Y-U-, 27 I&N Dec. 17 (BIA 2017).
No. 16-73801 (9th Cir. Jan. 29, 2018); Pet. for rehearing and rehearing en banc pending.
U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General
The Attorney General referred the decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals to himself for review of issues relating to when there is “good cause” to grant a continuance for a collateral matter to be adjudicated, ordering that the cases be stayed during the pendency of his review.
BEFORE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.l (h)(1)(i) (2017), I direct the Board of Immigration Appeals to refer these cases to me for review of its decisions. The Board’s decisions in these matters are automatically stayed pending my review. See Matter of Haddam, A.G. Order No. 2380-2001 (Jan. 19, 2001). To assist in my review, I invite the parties to these proceedings and interested amici to submit briefs on points relevant to the disposition of these cases, including the following question:
An Immigration Judge is authorized to “grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (2017); see also id. § 1240.6 (2017) (authorizing an Immigration Judge to “grant a reasonable adjournment either at his or her own instance or, for good cause shown, upon application”). In these cases, Immigration Judges granted continuances to provide time for respondents to seek adjudications of collateral matters from other authorities. Under what circumstances does “good cause” exist for an Immigration Judge to grant a continuance for a collateral matter to be adjudicated?
The parties’ briefs shall not exceed 15,000 words and shall be filed on or before April 17, 2018. Interested amici may submit briefs not exceeding 9,000 words on or before April 24, 2018. The parties may submit reply briefs not exceeding 6,000 words on or before May 2, 2018. All filings shall be accompanied by proof of service and shall be submitted electronically to AGCertification@usdoj.gov, and in triplicate to:
United States Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General, Room 5114 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530
“The president and attorney general have vowed to crack down on illegal immigration, and the new directive could help move cases through the system at a faster clip. Most immigration lawyers agree that the overloaded courts are a major issue. But they fear the end result will be more deportations as judges use the wide discretion afforded to them to curtail continuances. The Immigration and Nationality Act doesn’t establish a right to a continuance in immigration proceedings, Keller’s letter notes. They’re largely governed by a federal regulation which says that an “immigration judge may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown.”
Immigration lawyers often rely heavily on continuances for their prep work because immigration law grants limited formal discovery rights. Unlike in criminal cases, in which the prosecution is generally required to turn over evidence to the defense, immigration lawyers often have to file a Freedom of Information Act request to find out what the government has on their client. These can take months to process.
“If their priority is speed, we all know that sounds really good, to be more efficient, but usually due process takes a hit when your focus is efficiency,” says Andrew Nietor, an immigration attorney based in San Diego. “By the time we are able to connect with our clients, that first court appearance might be the day after we meet somebody, so we haven’t had the opportunity to do the investigation and do the research. And up until several months ago, it was standard to give immigration attorneys at least one continuance for what they call attorney preparation. Now it’s not standard anymore.”
The Justice Department’s guidance says that “the appropriate use of continuances serves to protect due process, which Immigration Judges must safeguard above all,” and notes that “it remains general policy that at least one continuance should be granted” for immigrants to obtain legal counsel.
But the memo is more skeptical about continuances for attorney preparation. “Although continuances to allow recently retained counsel to become familiar with a case prior to the scheduling of an individual merits hearing are common,” it says, “subsequent requests for preparation time should be reviewed carefully.”
It remains to be seen if this careful review will streamline the ponderous system or add another difficulty for the harried lawyers and hundreds of thousands of immigrants trying to work their way through it. For Jeronimo, it may have been decisive. In mid-August, the judge found that the defense didn’t adequately prove Jeronimo’s deportation would harm his young daughter and gave him 45 days to voluntarily leave the United States. Now Jeronimo must decide whether to appeal his case. But he’s been held in a detention center in Georgia since March, and his lawyers worry that he has lost hope. He may soon be headed back to Mexico, five months after he was picked up at a traffic stop in North Carolina.”
OK, let’s have a reality check here. The tremendous backlog is NOT caused by giving respondents time to find an attorney in an already overwhelmed system or by giving those overworked and under-compensated private attorneys time to adequately prepare their clients’ cases.
No, it’s caused by two things both within the control of the Government. The first is the abuse of the system, actively encouraged by this Administration, for cases of individuals who are law abiding members of the U.S. community, helping our nation prosper, who either should be granted relief outside the Immigrant Court process, or whose cases should be taken off the docket by the reasonable use of prosecutorial discretion (something that the Trump Administration eliminated while outrageously calling it a “return to the rule of law” — nothing of the sort — it’s a return to docket insanity enhanced by intentional cruelty).
Your tax dollars actually pay for the wasteful and counterproductive abuses being encouraged by the Trump Administration! Eventually, Congress will have to find a solution that allows all or most of these folks to stay. But, mindlessly shoving them onto already overwhelmed Immigration Court dockets is not that solution.
The second major cause is even more invidious: Aimless Docket Reshuffling (“ADR”) by the Government! The problematic continuances being given in this system — those of many months, or even many years — are forced upon Immigration Judges by EOIR and the DOJ, usually without any meaningful input from either the sitting Immigration Judges or the affected public. Immigration Judges are required to accommodate politically-motivated “changes in priorities” and wasteful transfer of Immigration Judges wth full dockets (which then must be reset, usually to the end of the docket, sometimes to another Immigration Judge) to other locations, often in detention centers, to support enforcement goals without any concern whatsoever for due process for the individuals before the court or the proper administration of justice within the U.S. Immigration Court system.
There is only one real cure for this problem: removal of the U.S. Immigration Courts from the highly politicized U.S. Department of Justice to an independent Article I Court structure that will focus on due process foremost, and efficient, but fair, court administration. But, until then, it’s up to the press to expose what’s really happening here and to the Article III Courts to call a halt to this travesty.
The “heroes” of the U.S. Immigration Court system, dedicated NGOs and attorneys, many of them acting without compensation or with minimal compensation, are under attack by this Administration and the DOJ. Their imaginary transgression is to insist on a fair day in court for individuals trying to assert their constitutional right to a fair hearing. They are being scapegoated for problems that the U.S. Government has caused, aggravated, and failed to fix, over several Administrations.
The DOJ is creating a knowingly false narrative to cover up their failure to deliver due process in the U.S. Immigration Courts and to shift the blame to the victims and their representatives. A simple term for that is “fraud.”
If we allow this to happen, everyone will be complicit in an assault not only on American values but also on the U.S. Constitution itself, and the due process it is supposed to guarantee for all. If it disappears for the most vulnerable in our society, don’t expect it to be there in the future when you or those around you might need due process of law. And, when you don’t get due process, you should also expect the Government to blame you for their failure.
“The chief judge’s memo correctly states that “at least one continuance should be granted” in order to allow a respondent to obtain counsel. However, the memo raises concerns about granting additional adjournments, “particularly when all respondents are initially provided a list of pro bono legal services…” However, the memo fails to mention the strain the same backlog has put on the limited resources of the listed pro bono representatives. Therefore, denying additional continuances will require more applicants to proceed without counsel. At present, many cases pending before the courts involve asylum seekers (including minors) fleeing gang violence in Central America and Mexico. Many of these claims are based on the claimants’ membership in a particular social group, a still-evolving area of the law. BIA precedent requires an asylum applicant to “delineate and establish to the Immigration Judge any particular social group he claims.” See Matter of A-T-, 25 I&N Dec. 4, 10 (BIA 2009). “Particular social group” is a term of art that a pro se applicant would not understand. Furthermore, a knowledge of existing case law is essential in crafting a proposed social group to present to the immigration judge. In other words, the denial of additional continuances to allow an asylum applicant to obtain representation in order to move a case along can be fatal to an individual’s chances for obtaining relief, and can further undermine the applicant’s chance of success on appeal.
Hopefully, judges will continue to consider all of the above in their application of the Chief Judge’s memo.”
I agree entirely with Jeffrey that continuances play a critical role in maintaining due process. I also agree that memos such as this OPPM show a total misunderstanding and lack of appreciation for the situation of NGOs — who are basically keeping the system afloat — and the due process need for counsel in asylum cases. See my comments from yesterday on the OPPM:
Contrary to the Chief Judge’s tone, problems caused by DOJ and EOIR management have basically tied the individual Immigration Judges’ hands in granting continuances. Let’s face it, after DOJ and EOIR arbitrarily “orbit” ready for trial non-detained cases for their own political goals, individual Immigration Judges lose both credibility and effective control of their dockets. How can a judge in good conscience deny most motions to continue when cases are intentionally left pending for years: attorneys change, the law changes, country conditions change, witnesses change or become unavailable, and other forms of relief pop up.
Moreover, as pointed out by Jeffrey, rather than simplifying the system so that protection could be quickly granted in more straightforward cases, the BIA has intentionally made the process more complicated — to the extent that it is virtually impossible to imagine that any unrepresented asylum applicant could document a PSG case to the BIA’s hyper-technical specifications.
And, Congress also shares responsibility for the current untenable situation. During several relatively recent “contrived” Government shutdowns, the Immigration Court’s entire non-detained docket and the the vast majority of Immigration Judges who staffed them were determined to be “nonessential” and therefore “furloughed,” leaving active dockets “to rot.” Non-detained cases were cancelled en masse and the court system never really recovered. For all I know, some of those cases are still “off docket.”
Also, these actions sent a strong message that the politicos in both the Legislative and Executive branches neither respected the work of U.S. Immigration Judges nor considered it important. The “non-detained docket” basically became the “who cares docket.”
The Obama Administration then further aggravated the problem by unwisely (and without consulting “line” U.S. Immigration Judges) prioritizing new “Not Quite Ready For Prime Time” Southern Border cases over regularly scheduled non-detained cases, thus sending the non-detained docket further into complete chaos: “Aimless Docket Reshuffling.” Now, the Trump Administration’s “gonzo, anything goes, show no judgement, exercise no prosecutorial discretion” regime is pushing the courts over the brink.
We need bipartisan legislation to get the U.S. Immigration Courts out of the DOJ and into an independent judicial structure where they can focus on providing high quality due process in an efficient, predictable, and systematic manner.
