Cyrus D. Mehta – immigrationcourtside.com

⚖️🗽👩🏽‍⚖️ASSOCIATE DEAN STACY CAPLOW @ BROOKLYN LAW ON CYRUS MEHTA BLOG — Our Immigration Courts Are Sinking — Can Lucas Guttentag Lead The Transformational Practice & Culture Changes Necessary to Save Them? — “[O]ne of the two obvious source of experienced immigration attorneys—immigrant advocates—is barely represented [among the many Immigration Judges selected over the past two decades.]”

http://blog.cyrusmehta.com/2021/08/the-sinking-immigration-court-change-course-save-the-ship.html

Immigration Court, where hundreds of judges daily preside over wrenching decisions, including matters of family separation, detention, and even life and death, is structurally and functionally unsound. Closures during the pandemic, coupled with unprecedented backlogs, low morale, and both procedural and substantive damage inflicted by the Trump Administration, have created a full-fledged crisis. The Court’s critics call for radical reforms. That is unlikely to happen. Instead, the Biden Administration is returning to a go-to, cure-all solution: adding 100 Immigration Court judges and support personnel[1] to help address the backlog that now approaches 1.3 million cases.[2]

No one could oppose effective reform or additional resources. Nor could anyone oppose practical case management changes that do not require legislation and that could expedite and professionalize the practice in Immigration Court. Linked with a more transparent and more inclusive process for selecting Immigration Judges, these changes would make the Immigration Courts more efficient, more accurate and fairer but not at the expense of the compelling humanitarian stakes in the daily work of the Court. Immediate changes that do not require legislation but do require the will to transform the practice and culture of the Court would be a major step forward in improving the experiences and the outcomes in Immigration Court.

. . . .

Is there a life preserver on this sinking ship? Courts reopening following the pandemic are facing an unprecedented backlog with cases already postponed years into the future. The new Administration, in the position to institute real reform to the way business is conducted, has started to steer in a positive direction due to a now shared interest of the Court and ICE to address the burdensome and shameful backlog. This is a potentially defining moment when change may actually happen. Meanwhile, the new administration is articulating goals to ameliorate not only the backlog but to seriously change enforcement priorities. If these two agents of potential change take advantage of the crisis that is affecting everyone involved with the system to work collaboratively with each other and consult sincerely with the immigrant advocates bar and other stakeholders, there may be some hope. To make this happen, a true cultural change must occur at every level. A few small steps have been taken: The EOIR is reacting to the prosecutorial discretion directive but the jury is still out on the buy-in to any kind of genuine reform.[48]

Like a lifeboat, survival depends on a commitment to problem-solving, trust and collaboration until rescue arrives. Someday structural reform may truly reshape the court to enough to eliminate the qualifier quasi. IJs will become full-fledged judges capable of making legally sound decisions in courtrooms where dignity, respect, patience and compassion are the norm without fear of retribution. Give the judges the tools they need to manage their courtrooms and the parties to achieve goals of integrity, efficiency and fairness. Recalibrate the balance between the parties. Recognize the demands of presiding over life-altering matters on their own wellbeing by giving them the resources, the power and the trust to be full-fledged judges.

Until then, directives from the top down are an important start; transformation still depends on change in the field in order to bring this court in conformity with general adjudication norms and practices, as well as to successfully implement the policy instructions that have the potential address the court crisis from the government’s standpoint without sacrificing fairness and humanitarian considerations.

Guest author Professor Stacy Caplow teaches Immigration Law at Brooklyn Law School where she also has co-directed the Safe Harbor Project since 1997.

**************************

Read the complete article at the link.

I just hope that Stacy and Cyrus have sent copies of this article to Lucas, Lisa Monaco, Merrick Garland, Vanita Gupta, Kristen Clarke, and the Chairs of the House and Senate Immigration Subcommittees!

Anti-immigrant, anti-asylum, misogynist culture (actively promoted by Sessions and Barr), biased and clearly defective judicial selection procedures, and the resulting lack of practical scholarship and human rights expertise are festering problems at EOIR. They must be solved now!

The virtual exclusion of progressive practical scholars and advocates — essentially, the best and brightest — from the “21st Century Immigration Judiciary” has been both systematic and intentional. Disturbingly, the Obama Administration produced results only marginally different from Bush II and Trump!

That’s why many of us were so shocked and outraged when Judge Garland continued to “honor” fatally flawed, biased, and exclusionary hiring practices by his predecessors.

Culture also plays a role in creating a biased judiciary. Why would a talented progressive expert, particularly a women of color, want to serve in a “bogus” judiciary that basically furthers racist narratives and myths, demeans women and minimizes their persecution (probably the most significant persecuted group in the world right now), and where the AG publicly slanders courageous private advocates while treating his “personally owned judges” like enforcement stooges.

The BIA has been “inflated” back to its “Schmidt-era” 23 Appellate Judges, after Ashcroft’s transparent “purge” cut the number to an unworkable 12 to remove the liberal judges (who were in the minority anyway). Yet, for Pete’s sake, there hasn’t been an outside appointment to the BIA since the Clinton Administration — more than two decades ago! Totally inexcusable.

And, this lack of outside expertise is a primary reason why EOIR is in deep trouble that threatens the stability of our entire justice system and democracy itself. A number of the existing BIA Members were selected NOT because of their demonstrated reputations for fairness, scholarship, respect, and timeliness, but because of their notoriety for denying almost every asylum case that came before them.

Here’s an excerpt from a letter that SPLC court observers sent to then Director Juan Osuna in 2017 describing the in-court bias of two Immigration Judges sitting in Atlanta:

In one hearing, an attorney for a detained respondent argued that his client was neither a threat to society nor a flight risk. 19 In this hearing, IJ Cassidy rejected the respondent’s request for bond, stating broadly that “an open border is a danger to the community.” He then analogized an immigrant to “a person coming to your home in a Halloween mask, waving a knife dripping with blood” and asked the attorney if he would let that person in. The attorney disagreed with IJ Cassidy, who then responded that the “individuals before [him] were economic migrants and that they do not pay taxes.” The attorney again disagreed with both claims. IJ Cassidy concluded the hearing by stating that the credible fear standard is not a proper test for review of asylum seekers, wholly disregarding the established legal standard for such cases.20 In a private conversation after this case, IJ Cassidy told the observer that the cases that come before him involve individuals “trying to scam the system” and that none of them want to be citizens. He also remarked that he thought the U.S. should be more like Putin’s Russia, where “if you come to America, you must speak English.”21 In another hearing, IJ Wilson told a respondent that “this case is like every case . . . came in from Mexico for medical treatment then try to claim asylum.”22 [text of footnotes omitted].

Director Osuna resigned a short time later, apparently in response to his concerns about the legitimacy of policies that the Trump immigration kakistocracy at DOJ intended to pursue. (Tragically, he died a short time later.) I am unaware that James McHenry, Osuna’s successor, hand-picked by AG Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions to “deconstruct due process @ EOIR” ever undertook a thorough investigation or that any sanctions were imposed upon these judges. But, stunningly, both were later appointed to the BIA by former AG Barr and continue to serve today under Garland.

These are the types of life-threatening, humanity-degrading, anti-due-process actions that became routine at EOIR over the past four years, and caused my friend and expert Professor Karen Musalo of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at Hastings Law to ask in a recent press report: “How can you have a fair game when the referee is unfair?” https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/08/03/😎👍🏼good-news-justice-even-as-latest-report-shows-massisive-failure-👎🏽🤮-eoir-poor-judging-politicized-practices-unhel/

Obviously, you can’t have a “fair game” under these circumstances. That was the whole point of the Trump DOJ, along with some gratuitous cruelty, malicious incompetence, and outright scofflaw behavior thrown in!

As Dean Caplow points out, the solutions aren’t “rocket science.” 🚀 But, so far, the problems EOIR continue to fester and undermine American justice!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-04-21

SOPHIA GENOVESE: Advocates Must Keep Pushing Back Against DOJ’s Bias & Unduly Restrictive Interpretations Of Asylum Law!

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/outsidenews/posts/acting-ag-whitaker-takes-aim-at-asylum-seekers-fleeing-family-based-persecution—sophia-genovese

Sophia writes in an article that was published at LexisNexis:

Acting AG Whitaker Takes Aim at Asylum Seekers Fleeing Family-Based Persecution – Sophia Genovese

Sophia Genovese, Dec. 10, 2018 – “Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker has followed in his predecessor’s footsteps by referring yet another immigration case to himself, Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 494 (A.G. 2018). The Acting AG asks parties to brief “whether, and under what circumstances, an alien may establish persecution on account of membership in a particular social group under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42)(A) based on the alien’s membership in a family unit.”

As background, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) in Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2017) recognized that membership in a family unit constitutes a particular social group. However, it held that to establish eligibility for asylum on such a basis, “an applicant must not only demonstrate that he or she is a member of the family but also that the family relationship is at least one central reason for the claimed harm.” The BIA denied asylum to the respondent, L-E-A-, for failing to meet this nexus requirement. The respondent was a native and citizen of Mexico whose father owned a general store in Mexico City. Members of a drug cartel approached the respondent’s father to ask if they could sell drugs in the store as they viewed it as a favorable distribution location. The respondent’s father refused. The members of the drug cartel approached respondent to see whether he would sell drugs for them at his father’s store. Upon respondent also refusing, the members of the cartel tried to abduct him, but he was able to get away. The respondent fled to the United States and sought asylum. The IJ and BIA reasoned that the respondent was not entitled to relief because even if the persecutor had harmed the respondent, it was done so as a means to an end, i.e. to sell drugs. In other words, they argued, the persecution was not due to the respondent’s membership in a particular social group and animus towards the family, but rather because he was interfering in their drug trade.

The BIA in Matter of L-E-A- recognized the long history of family units constituting particular social groups. See, e.g., Crespin-Valladares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117, 128 (4th Cir. 2011); Al-Ghorbani v. Holder, 585 F.3d 980 (6th Cir. 2009); Torres v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 616, 629 (7th Cir. 2008). The BIA has previously “explained that ‘persecution on account of membership in a particular social group’ refers to ‘persecution that is directed toward an individual who is a member of a group of persons all of whom share a common, immutable characteristic…such as…kinship ties.” Matter of C-A-, 23 I&N Dec. 951, 955 (BIA 2006) (quoting Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211, 233-34 (BIA 1985)). “It has been said that a group of family members constitutes the ‘prototypical example’ of a particular social group.” INS, Asylum Officer Basic Training Course: Eligibility Part III: Nexus 21 (Nov. 30, 2001) (quoting Sanchez-Trujillo v. INS, 801 F.2d 1571, 1576 (9th Cir. 1986)). “There can, in fact, be no plainer example of a social group based on common, identifiable and immutable characteristics than that of the nuclear family.” Gebremichael v. INS, 10 F.3d 28, 36 (1st Cir. 1993). Indeed, the BIA found that L-E-A-’s membership in his family constituted a particular social group. Instead, the key issue was whether the harm he experienced or feared was on account of his membership in that particular social group. The BIA in L-E-A- upheld the IJ’s decision below, opining that “any motive to harm the respondent because he was a member of his family was, at most, incidental…[Rather,] the cartel’s motive to increase its profits by selling contraband in the store was one central reason for its actions against the respondent and his family.” 27 I&N Dec. at 46.

As we and others have previously discussed, the BIA missed the mark in L-E-A-. The BIA in L-E-A- critically notes that “[i]f the persecutor would have treated the applicant the same if the protected characteristic of the family did not exist, then the applicant has not established a claim on this ground.” 27 I&N Dec. at 44. Under this reasoning, L-E-A- should have been granted asylum. But for L-E-A-’s familial relationship with his father, he would not have been targeted by the cartel. In other words, despite their motivation of wanting to sell drugs at his father’s store, the cartel’s motivation in targeting L-E-A- was to get to his father, thus satisfying the nexus criteria. There is a reason why the cartel did not target the father’s neighbor – because the neighbor does not have a close, i.e. family, relationship to him. That the cartel ultimately had monetary motivations is irrelevant in the analysis of why they persecuted L-E-A-.

It is unclear how the Acting AG, or the incoming AG (anticipated to be William Barr), will rule in a case that has already made the obstacles more onerous for asylum-seekers. Given the administration’s animus towards asylum-seekers, it is unlikely that they seek to redress the problems with the BIA’s holding. Rather, it is likely that the Acting AG seeks to build upon the BIA’s flawed reasoning and make it even more difficult for those to flee persecution and obtain asylum. The BIA in Matter of L-E-A- affirmed, without question, that kinship ties are inherently a particular social group. Given the wording of the Acting AG’s question Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 494 (A.G. 2018), he will likely attack the case on this front.

As outlined by the BIA in Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2017), and reiterated above, there is no clearer definition of particular social group than kinship ties. To be granted asylum based on one’s membership in a particular social group, the applicant must show that the group is “(1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question.” Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I. & N. at 392. As set forth in Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211, 212 (BIA 1985), a “common immutable characteristic” is defined as “a characteristic that either is beyond the power of the individual members of the group to change or is so fundamental to their identities or consciences that it ought not be required to be changed.” Under Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I&N Dec. 208 (BIA 2014) and clarified in Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 227 (BIA 2014), the social group must be defined with “particularity,” or be defined by boundaries of who is actually a member of the group. Finally, as explained in Matter of W-G-R-, “social distinction” is defined as the ‘recognition’ or ‘perception’ of the particular social group in society. 26 I&N Dec. at 216. Family units very clearly satisfy each of these requirements, where you cannot change who your family is, where who members of your family are can be defined with particularity, and where others in society can recognize you as a member of your family. A challenge to the family unit particular social group would undermine the construction of nearly all particular social groups thereafter.

Once formulating one’s social group, the applicant must also show that their persecution was on account of their membership in the social group (the “nexus requirement”), and that the government in the country of origin is unable or unwilling to afford them protection from such persecution. As we’ve previously argued, the Courts need to clarify the nexus requirement. In Matter of L-E-A-, for example, the nexus analysis needed to have focused specifically on why L-E-A- was targeted and persecuted – not what the cartel’s ultimate aim was after targeting him. Clarification on this issue is imperative for uniform adjudication of particular social group asylum cases. Additionally, given AG Sessions’ holding in Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018), future courts and advocates will need to clarify the state protection analysis, especially when the persecution is carried out by private actors. In particular, advocates will need to demonstrate through country conditions reports and expert testimony that the country of origin is unable or unwilling to provide protection from these private actors. In Matter of L-E-A- in particular, one can demonstrate that the cartel acts as a quasi-government in the respondent’s town, and that the police do not have control (or choose not to have control) over them.

Although the legitimacy of Acting AG Whitaker’s appointment, and thus his self-referral of cases, has been called into question, advocates must instead focus their efforts on litigating the asylum requirements. The constant self-referral of cases and unilateral, sweeping changes to the law have been tiresome for immigration advocates; however, we should use these opportunities to litigate existing, flawed case law to create a more robust asylum framework so that we can actually protect those fleeing violent persecution.”

*****************************************

Sophia is absolutely correct!

Like Sessions, Whitaker combines a White Nationalist agenda with some poor intellectual and lawyering skills. Not surprising, because lawyers advancing a racially biased restrictionist agenda are obviously driven by something outside, and usually not even very closely related to, the law and conventional human values.

Their arrogant and outrageous disregard of the law and facts provides a good opportunity for asking Article III Courts and Congress to finally adopt and enforce a legally appropriate, generous, humanitarian approach to asylum law as was directed by the Supremes back in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca. Notwithstanding some meaningful advances over the three decades since that decision, the “promise of Cardoza” for U.S. asylum law has never been fully recognized.

And this Administration is hell-bent on rolling back even the modest advances that had been painstakingly made. Now is the time to make asylum law work as it was supposed to! Human lives and our integrity as a nation of laws and values depend upon it!

Join the New Due Process Army and fight to hold the “Department of Injustice” and its biased and deviant officials accountable to the law and to history for their naked racism, extreme intellectual dishonesty, failure to uphold the rule of law, and cowardly contempt for human life! Yes, it’s annoying. Yes, it’s hard work! But, in the end it will be worth it to know that you did something worthwhile in your life. And there are few things more worthwhile than protecting the rights and saving the lives of the most helpless, exploited, and vulnerable among us.

For those of you new to “Courtside,” both Judge Jeffrey Chase and I have previously written about how the BIA stood the law of causation on its head to deny a very grantable asylum claim in Matter of L-E-A-. https://wp.me/p8eeJm-UI

https://wp.me/p8eeJm-UI;

Indeed, the Fourth Circuit later absolutely trashed the BIA’s L-E-A- rationale on nexus in Salgado-Sosa v. Sessions, without mentioning L-E-A- by name. https://wp.me/p8eeJm-2aS.

The Fourth and other Circuits have also been very strong in recognizing “family” as a PSG. Indeed, one of the seminal “family-based” cases was Crespin-Valadares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117, 128 (4th Cir. 2011). That was a case where the Fourth Circuit reversed and slammed the BIA while affirming my finding as an Immigration Judge that a family-based PSG was cognizable. In other words, I was right and the BIA was wrong. But, hey, who’s keeping track?

Now, Whitaker seeks to make things even worse. We should all be totally outraged that the Immigration Courts are under the control of the DOJ and political officials who are completely unqualified to sit in a quasi-judicial capacity. It’s “Clown Court;” but, in this case, the “clowns” are threatening innocent people’s lives!🤡

PWS

12-13-18

SOPHIA GENOVESE: “INJUSTICE AT JUSTICE” – The Immigration Court system should not be used as a political tool of the executive branch to effectuate anti-immigrant policies. Rather, it should be an independent system that is committed to the fair adjudication and implementation of our immigration laws.”

http://blog.cyrusmehta.com/2018/05/assembly-line-injustice-how-the-implementation-of-immigration-case-completion-quotas-will-eviscerate-due-process.html

Assembly Line Injustice: How the Implementation of Immigration Case Completion Quotas will Eviscerate Due Process

May 7, 2018/0 Comments/in Blog /by Sophia Genovese

The Executive Office for Immigration Review, under the direction of the Department of Justice, announced last year that it had reopened the Collective Bargaining Agreement with the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) to include case completion quotas in the performance evaluations of Immigration Judges. On March 30, 2018, James McHenry, the Director of the EOIR, formally announced these metrics, which require IJs to complete at least 700 cases per year, have a remand rate of less than fifteen percent, and meet half of the additional benchmarks listed in the evaluation plan, which can be found here. As pointed out by the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, “this quota translates into each judge hearing testimony and rendering decisions almost three cases per day, five days per week, 52 weeks per year.” According to several retired IJs and Former Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) Members, such quotas raise serious due process concerns and will result in a system that is less focused on justice and appearing “more like an assembly line.”

There are a number of issues with the EOIR case completion quotas. First, these quotas may force IJs to breach their ethical obligations. Specifically, the new completion quotas are tied to the financial incentives of IJs, where the performance evaluations affect IJs’ job security and eligibility for raises. IJs are not given life appointments and can be easily removed from the bench by the Attorney General if he finds them to not be meeting these performance thresholds. Thus, IJs may be encouraged to render hasty decisions in order to satisfy these case completion quotas and receive a good review (and thus a raise) instead of making decisions based on what is proper for the cases in front of them. Having such a financial incentive in the completion of a case arguably forces an IJ to violate 5 C.F.R. §§ 2635.401 to 2635.403,[i] which prohibits IJs from participating in proceedings where he or she has a financial interest. Additionally, IJs must be impartial in their decision-making under 5 C.F.R. § 2635.101(b)(8). It is hard for an IJ to remain impartial when pressured with impossible case completion standards especially when a case is meritorious but an IJ may not grant a continuance for legitimate reasons.

The case completion quotas also violate 8 C.F.R. § 1003.10(b), which provides: “In deciding the individual cases before them, and subject to the applicable governing standards, immigration judges shall exercise their independent judgement and discretion and may take any action consistent with their authorities under the Act and regulations that is appropriate and necessary for the disposition of such cases.” For example, an attorney may have been only recently retained by an asylum-seeker, and may request a continuance in order to gather and assemble evidence that is vital for the asylum-seeker’s claim. Under ordinary circumstances, an IJ would likely grant such a continuance as it would be considered proper under INA § 240(b)(4)(B) which affords a “reasonable opportunity…to present evidence” on one’s behalf. However, under the quota system, an IJ may feel pressure to deny the motion for continuance and may ultimately deny the asylum claim because the asylum-seeker was not afforded sufficient time to present their case. Such an outcome clearly violates 8 C.F.R. § 1003.10(b) and INA § 240(b)(4)(B) where the IJ is stripped of their independent decision-making authority where they feel pressured to quickly close out a case despite compelling reasons to grant a continuance, and where the asylum-seeker is not afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

Another example is an individual placed in removal proceedings who is the intending beneficiary of a pending I-130 with USCIS. Typically, USCIS takes several months to adjudicate an I-130, and thus, attorneys for respondents file motions for continuance with the IJ until the USCIS has rendered a decision which will determine the respondent’s eligibility for relief from removal. Under the new case quota system, IJs will be less inclined to grant such continuances. This hypothetical similarly implicates 8 C.F.R. § 1003.10(b) and INA § 240(b)(4)(B), as described above. Moreover, the IJ’s denial of the continuance here would violate Matter of Hashmi, 24 I&N Dec. 785, 793-94 (BIA 2009) where the Board held that compliance with a IJ’s case completion goals “is not a proper factor in deciding a continuance request” where there is an meritorious pending I-130. We’ve previously blogged about AG Sessions’ stripping of judicial independence through his self-referral of Matter of L-A-B-R- et al, 27 I&N Dec. 245 (AG 2018), which can be found here.

The case completion quotas will also lead to an unprecedented number of BIA and federal court appeals. This would needlessly increase the BIA’s backlog and indeed affect the dockets of the federal court systems, resulting in the tremendous waste of taxpayer’s dollars where a proper decision could have been rendered at the IJ level. In addition, the number of remanded cases may exceed fifteen percent, and thus, the IJ would again fail to meet the performance metrics in their performance evaluation.

There is no denying that the Immigration Courts face tremendous pressure to address the ballooning backlog of cases. As of this writing, there are 692,298 pending cases in Immigration Courts across the country, with only approximately 330 judges to hear them. Advocates during the Obama-era consistently advocated for the appointment of more IJs to address the backlog. However, in the Trump-era, advocate are now skeptical of such a move where it is clear that this Administration seeks to deport as many people as possible. Indeed, the Department of Justice, headed by Jeff Sessions, has celebrated deportations under the Trump Administration. Such an emphasis on deportation, as opposed to fair adjudication of claims, undermines the independence and impartiality of IJs. The implementation of the DOJ/EOIR case completion quotas will undoubtedly lead to a rise in unfair hearings and erroneous deportations, which is exactly what this Administration wants. The appointment of Trump-supporting IJs will only exacerbate the problem.

For many years, the NAIJ has advocated for the creation of an Article I Immigration Court that is independent of the political whims of the Department of Justice. Under the current Administration, and in light of the newly imposed DOJ/EOIR performance quota metrics, these calls have never been more relevant. The Immigration Court system should not be used as a political tool of the executive branch to effectuate anti-immigrant policies. Rather, it should be an independent system that is committed to the fair adjudication and implementation of our immigration laws. The case completion quotas will undoubtedly undermine the integrity of our immigration system and should be vigorously challenged by IJs and practitioners.

[i] The author acknowledges that 5 CFR § 2635.402 directly implicates 18 U.S.C. 208(a), a criminal statute. This author suggests that the EOIR case completion quotas may jeopardize an IJ’s ethical obligations where their financial interests are directly and predictably impacted by blind adherence to such arbitrary quotas. Criminal liability for these actions, however, goes beyond the scope of this article.

Tags: 5 C.F.R. § 2635.402, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.10(b), Case completion quotas, Immigration court backlog, INA § 240(b)(4)(B), James McHenry, Matter of Hashmi, Motion for continuance

MORE LAW THAT YOU CAN USE FROM COURTSIDE: DON’T JUST WRING YOUR HANDS AND SPUTTER ABOUT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S MINDLESS CRUELTY TO HARD WORKING “TPS’ERS!” – Go On Over To LexisNexis & Let Atty Cyrus D. Mehta Tell You Some Ways To Help “TPSers” Achieve Legal Status!

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/immigration-law-blog/archive/2018/01/22/cyrus-d-mehta-potential-adjustment-of-status-options-after-the-termination-of-tps.aspx?Redirected=true

Here’s a “preview” of what Cyrus has to say:

“Cyrus D. Mehta, Jan. 22, 2018 – “As President Trump restricts immigration, it is incumbent upon immigration lawyers to assist their clients with creative solutions available under law. The most recent example of Trump’s attack on immigration is the cancellation of Temporary Protected Status for more than 200,000 Salvadorans. David Isaacson’s What Comes Next: Potential Relief Options After the Termination of TPS comprehensively provides tips on how to represent TPS recipients whose authorization will soon expire with respect to asylum, cancellation or removal and adjustment of status.

I focus specifically on how TPS recipients can potentially adjust their status within the United States through either a family-based I-130 petition or an I-140 employment-based petition for permanent residency. A September 2017 practice advisory from the American Immigration Council points to two decisions from the Ninth and Sixth Circuit, Ramirez v. Brown, 852 F.3d 954 (9^th Cir. 2017) and Flores v. USCIS, 718 F.3d 548 (6^th Cir. 2013), holding that TPS constitutes an admission for purpose of establishing eligibility for adjustment of status under INA 245(a).”

****************************************

Go on over to Dan Kowalski’s fabulous LexisNexis Immigration
Community at the above link to get the rest.

Given the sad saga of the “Dreamers” — whose legalization should have been a “no brainer” for any group other than Trump and the GOP restrictionists — we can’t count on Congress coming to the Haitian and El Salvadoran TPSers “rescue” before their “final extension” expires. So, it’s critical for lawyers to help as many as possible of these great, hard-working folks achieve legal status under existing law before the window closes!

Sadly, one of the key cases cited by Cyrus in his full article, the BIA’s very helpful precedent decision in Matter of Arrabelly and Yerrabelly, 25 I&N Dec. 771 (BIA 2012) is rumored to be on AG Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions’s restrictionist “chopping block.” So, there’s no time to lose!

PWS

01-25-18

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Acting AG Whitaker Takes Aim at Asylum Seekers Fleeing Family-Based Persecution – Sophia Genovese

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: