"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.
Associate Provost/Co-Director of the Immigration Clinic/Professor of the Practice Laila L. Hlass Tulane Law
Laila, my friend, everywhere I look you’re making news! Here’s Dan Kowalski @ LexisNexis on Layla’s well-deserved Lisa Brodyaga Award from the National Immigration Project:
Laila was a “guest lecturer” in my Refugee Law and Policy class during her time as a Fellow at the CALS Asylum Clinic at Georgetown Law. Since then, I have “returned the favor” by traveling to Tulane Law, both virtually and in person, to speak to Laila’s class and other immigration events. Laila has been recognized for “putting Tulane Law on the map” for innovative practical scholarship in immigration and international human rights and excellence in clinical teaching. No wonder she carries a “string of titles” at Tulane Law!
Laila is also one of many exciting examples of how clinical immigration and human rights professors have not only moved into the “academic mainstream” at major American law schools, but have been recognized as leaders and innovators by the larger academic communities in which they serve. Immigration law teaching has come a long way since the late INS General Counsel Charlie Gordon’s Immigration Law Class at Georgetown was the “only game in town.” (Historical trivia note: My good friend the late BIA Judge Lauri Filppu and I “aced” Charlie’s class in 1974, thus “besting” our then-supervisor at the BIA. That could have been a “career limiting” move. But, we both ended up on the “Schmidt Board” in the 1990s.)
Many congrats, Laila, on an already amazing career with even more achievements and recognition in your future. Thanks for being such a brilliant, inspiring, and dynamic role model for the New Due Process Army!
“Kelly Gonzalez Aguilar is a transgender woman from Honduras. She came to the United States and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and deferral of removal. In support, Kelly claimed • past persecution in Honduras from her uncle’s abuse, • fear of future persecution from pervasive discrimination and violence against transgender women in Honduras, and • likely torture upon return to Honduras. The immigration judge denied the applications and ordered removal to Honduras. In denying asylum, the immigration judge found no pattern or practice of persecution. Kelly appealed the denial of each application, and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed the appeal. The dismissal led Kelly to petition for judicial review. We grant the petition. On the asylum claim, any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to find a pattern or practice of persecution against transgender women in Honduras.”
Imagine what it would be like if we had an AG with the guts and decency to appoint a BIA of real judges — asylum experts who would adhere to due process and fairly, properly, and consistently interpret asylum laws rather than spewing out specious, life-destroying, bogus denials? Backlogs might even start decreasing!
Remarkably, even the Trump-appointed dissenting Circuit Judge Joel M. Carson concedes that EOIR easily could have decided this case in favor for the respondent and perhaps should have.
No doubt a person could view the record before us differently—the majority does so today—and I might on de novo review.
He then willingly gets lost in a forest of bogus reasons for abusing “standards of review” as an excuse for Article III Judges to avoid responsibility for life-threatening miscarriages of justice.
In stark terms, a reasonable judge could have saved this respondent and probably should have. But, this IJ and the BIA chose not to. So, who cares because it’s only a brown-skinned asylum seeker whose life is so insignificant that we should relegate it to the realm of chance and happenstance. Next case, please!
Asylum law, according to the Supremes in Cardoza-Fonseca is supposed to be interpreted generously in favor of protection. If legal protection from persecution or death is one possible outcome, it should be the the only acceptable outcome! Saying that some humans should potentially die while others be protected basically depending on a Federal Judge’s personal philosophy and mood on a particular day isn’t just legally wrong and a denial of due process and equal protection — it’s immoral!
The point is obvious. Better qualified judges at the BIA would put an end to this treatment of life or death decisions as a “crap shoot” — dependent on which IJ is drawn, the composition of the BIA “panel,” the Federal Circuit in which the case arises, the “luck of the draw” on the Circuit panel, and probably the “day of the week.” This is no way to run a justice system. And, Garland and his complicit lieutenants know that!
A better AG would long ago have installed a better BIA. It’s classic “Refugee Roulette” ☠️⚰️ being promoted by a Dem Administration! Instead of putting an end to this disgraceful “intellectual game of chance with human lives” being played by ivory tower bureaucrats and judges who have “immunized” themselves from the traumatic real life consequences of their bad decisions, Garland has chosen to “play along”
When he’s not carrying out Stephen Miller’s anti-asylum policies @ EOIR with Miller’s holdover acolytesas “judges” and “senior executives,” Garland is busy helping Trump and his fellow GOP insurrectionists “run out the clock” on the House Jan. 6 Panel!
“After an immigration judge ordered him removed from the United States, Olawole Oluwajana appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals and retained counsel to represent him. But the government was slow in providing a copy of Oluwajana’s immigration file, without which his attorney could not prepare a brief. The Board granted one extension but denied a second, suggesting that Oluwajana instead submit his brief with a motion seeking leave to file it late. When he did so, less than two weeks after the submission deadline, the Board denied the motion in a cursory—and factually erroneous—footnote. And having rejected the brief, the Board upheld the removal order without considering Oluwajana’s allegations of error by the immigration judge. Based on the undisputed circumstances of this case, we conclude that the Board abused its discretion by unreasonably rejecting Oluwajana’s brief. We therefore grant the petition for review, vacate the Board’s order, and remand for further proceedings.”
Here, the BIA took 7 months to set a briefing schedule, didn’t get the file to counsel in a timely manner, then “dinged” the R’s counsel for being 12 days late in filing a brief on a complex issue where input from legal counsel would likely be “outcome determinative!”
But, along the way, “Garland’s Clown Show” 🤡 fabricated a 33 day “late period.” And, to add insult to injury, they ignored their own regulations and instructions to counsel.
Even OIL couldn’t defend this one! But, Garland nevertheless retains the “Miller Lite” Clowns from his predecessors’ “whatever it takes to deny and deport assembly line!” No quality, no fairness, no accountability! Just “anything goes” when it’s “only immigrants of color!”
Briefing schedules aren’t “rocket science.” But Garland’s “Miller Lite” holdover gang can’t even get the simple stuff right!
How is this “expert judging” entitled to “deference?”
How is having the Circuit spend time cleaning up Garland’s messes an acceptable use of Article III resources?
What happens to the many human victims of Garland’s unjust and unprofessional system who don’t have Scott Pollock & Co. to take Garland to the Court of Appeals?
What happens to Garland’s victims when the CA is on “autopilot,” which often happens?
Is it any wonder that “judges” who would rather fight with attorneys than read their briefs are running an astounding 1.6 million case backlog and an appellate backlog of 82,000, up approximately 7 times from just four years ago?
Wonder why an AG running a “second (or perhaps third or fourth) class justice system” for people of color isn’t a very effective leader or force for racial justice in America?
I’ve never understood crimes involving moral turpitude. I confess this after reading a recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit that caused me to realize that I am not alone.
In Zarate v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,1 the court was confronted with the question of whether a federal conviction for “falsely representing a social security number” constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude under our immigration laws. Not surprisingly, the Board of Immigration Appeals held that it was. And yet, one of the most conservative circuit courts in the country chose not to defer to the Board’s judgment.
Reading the decision, it became clear that no one knows what a CIMT is. As the court pointed out, the term was first included in our immigration laws in the late 19th century. That fact immediately brought to mind the character of Lady Bracknell from The Importance of Being Earnest (first performed in 1895), who, upon learning that a character had been found as a baby in a satchel at a train station, responded: “To be born, or at any rate bred, in a handbag, whether it has handles or not, seems to me to display a contempt for the ordinary decencies of family life that reminds one of the worst excesses of the French Revolution. And I presume you know what that unfortunate movement led to?” If that snippet is any indicator, it seems to have been quite the era for the passing of moral judgment.
The Eleventh Circuit went on to explain that by 1914, a legal dictionary defined the term to mean “an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which one owes to society, and as applied to offenses includes only such crimes as manifest personal depravity or baseness.” This standard becomes all the more elusive when one asks the obvious follow-up question “In whose view?” Lady Bracknell’s? Vladimir Putin’s? Or someone occupying an indeterminate middle point between those extremes?
It seems pretty obvious in reading the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion that the term “crime involving moral turpitude” is unconstitutionally vague. It’s nearly impossible to argue that the term provides sufficient clarity up front of the consequences of committing certain crimes when, as the Eleventh Circuit emphasized, no less an authority than former circuit judge Richard Posner remarked “to the extent that definitions of the term exist, ‘[i]t’s difficult to make sense of . . . [them].’”2
However, there is one huge obstacle preventing courts from simply brushing the term aside: in 1951, the Supreme Court nixed that idea in a case called Jordan v. De George.3 In its decision, the majority of the Court’s justices held that the term “conveys sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practices.” Of course, the Court provided no workable definition (if it had, courts today wouldn’t still be exhibiting so much confusion). But the majority did make one highly consequential pronouncement to support its shaky conclusion, claiming “The phrase ‘crime involving moral turpitude’ has without exception been construed to embrace fraudulent conduct.”
Jordan v. De George also contains a remarkable dissenting opinion written by Justice Robert H. Jackson, and joined by two of his colleagues (Justices Black and Frankfurter).
Interestingly, prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court, Justice Jackson briefly served as Attorney General under Franklin D. Roosevelt. And readers of Prof. Alison Peck’s excellent book on the history of the U.S. Immigration Court will know that as Attorney General, Jackson tried to dissuade Roosevelt from moving the INS to the Department of Justice due to the harsh consequences it would impose on immigrants, a move that Roosevelt nevertheless undertook in May 1940.4
Sitting on the high court 11 years later, Justice Jackson expressed his frustration with a majority opinion that would punish the petitioner (who had resided in the U.S. for 30 years) “with a life sentence of banishment” because he was a noncitizen. Justice Jackson pointed out that Congress had been forewarned by one of its own at a House hearing on the Immigration Act of 1917 that the term would cause great confusion, yet provided no additional clarifying language in enacting the statute.5
In the record of the same House hearing, Jackson found reason to believe that Congress meant the term to apply to “only crimes of violence,” quoting language to that effect from a witness, NYC Police Commissioner Arthur H. Woods, whose testimony (according to Jackson) “appears to have been most influential” on the subject.6
After further demonstrating the futility of finding any clear meaning for the term, Jackson stated in his dissent that the majority “seems no more convinced than are we by the Government’s attempts to reduce these nebulous abstractions to a concrete working rule, but to sustain this particular deportation it improvises another which fails to convince us…”7
In Jackson’s view, the elusiveness of the term left whether a conviction was for a CIMT or not to the view of the particular judge deciding the matter. He added “How many [noncitizens] have been deported who would not have been had some other judge heard their cases, and vice versa, we may only guess. That is not government by law.”8
Turning to the specific crime before him, which involved the failure to pay federal tax on bootlegged liquor, Jackson noted that those who deplore trafficking in liquor “regard it as much an exhibition of moral turpitude for the Government to share its revenues as for respondents to withhold them.” On the flip side, Jackson wryly observed that “Those others who enjoy the traffic are not notable for scruples as to whether liquor has a law-abiding pedigree.”9 Just for good measure, the justice added: “I have never discovered that disregard of the Nation’s liquor taxes excluded a citizen from our best society…”10
Given the term’s requirement of passing moral judgment on criminal acts, Jackson emphasized (perhaps most importantly) that “We should not forget that criminality is one thing— a matter of law—and that morality, ethics and religious teachings are another.”11
In spite of the wisdom (and wit) of Jackson’s dissent, here we are over 70 years later, with the 11th Circuit left to deal with De George in reviewing the case of someone who falsely used a Social Security number. In Zarate, counsel explained at oral argument that the reasons for his client’s action was to work and support his family, and to have medical coverage to pay for his son’s surgery.12 Counsel also argued that the crime lacked the level of immorality required for a CIMT finding, explaining that those using a false number still pay the required amount of Social Security withholding to the government, and yet are not eligible to receive Social Security benefits themselves in return unless they first obtain lawful immigration status.
The Eleventh Circuit issued a thoughtful opinion. The court understood that it was bound by De George’s view that fraud always involves moral turpitude, a stance repeatedly reinforced by courts since. But the court noted that “under the categorical approach the crime Mr. Zarate committed does not include fraud as an element or ingredient.”
Surveying BIA decisions on the topic all the way back to 1943, it found that over the years, the Board has concluded that not all false statements or deception constitute fraud. The court cited a Second Circuit unpublished opinion distinguishing between deception and fraud, as the latter generally requires “an intent to obtain some benefit or cause a detriment.”13 And the court referenced the Seventh Circuit’s observation that the statute in question covers false use of a Social Security number not only to obtain a benefit, but also “for any other purpose.” That court added “It is not difficult to imagine some purposes for which falsely using a social security number would not be “inherently base, vile, or depraved.”14
In the end, the Eleventh Circuit sent the matter back to the BIA to consider whether under the categorical approach, any and all conduct covered by the statute would involve behavior that is “inherently base, vile, or depraved, and contrary to the accepted rules of morality and the duties owed between persons or to society in general.” The court’s decision certainly provided the Board a path to conclude otherwise.
I of course have no insight into how the Board will rule on remand. However, it seems worth adding some observations on the BIA’s problematic approach to CIMT determinations in recent years.
First, the Eleventh Circuit focused on the importance of the categorical approach in reaching the proper outcome.15 However, Kansas attorney Matthew Hoppock obtained through FOIA the PowerPoint of a presentation from the 2018 EOIR Immigration Judges training conference titled “Avoiding the Use or Mitigating the Effect of the Categorical Approach,” which was presented by a (since retired) Board Member, Roger Pauley.16 By virtue of binding Supreme Court case law, judges are required to apply the categorical approach. So why is the BIA, a supposedly neutral tribunal, training EOIR’s judges to find ways around employing this approach, or to try to reduce its impact?
This concern was further confirmed in an excellent 2019 article by Prof. Jennifer Lee Koh detailing how the BIA has repeatedly fudged its application of the categorical approach in CIMT cases.17 Prof. Koh concluded that the BIA’s approach has involved “The Board’s designation of itself as an arbiter of moral standards in the U.S., its unwritten imposition of a “maximum conduct” test that is at odds with the categorical approach’s “minimum conduct” requirement, and its treatment of criminalization as evidence of moral turpitude” which, not surprisingly, has resulted in BIA precedents expanding the number of offenses judged to be CIMTs.18
Even where the rule is applied correctly, another major problem remains. As Justice Jackson correctly stated, criminality is one thing, moral judgment quite another. And while immigration judges are expected to be experts in the law, they are not the standard bearers for what society views as base or vile.
This returns us to a question asked earlier: if not the judge, then who should be arbiter of moral standards? At the conclusion of its opinion, the Eleventh Circuit cited to a law review article by Prof. Julia Simon-Kerr which criticized how courts have “ ignored community moral sentiments when applying the standard.”19 The article’s author observed that instead of keeping the standard “up to date with the ever-evolving and often-contested morals of a pluralistic society,” courts have to the contrary “preserved, but not transformed, the set of morally framed norms of the early nineteenth century that first shaped its application.”20 In other words, it seems present-day judges too often continue to channel Lady Bracknell, rather than trying to gauge the moral sensibilities of their particular time and place.
If courts were to truly adapt to evolving societal standards, should decisions such as De George remain binding? Or should they be deemed to have provided guidance based on the morals of their time, subject to current reassessment?
Copyright 2022 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
Alison Peck, The Accidental History of the U.S. Immigration Courts: War, Fear, and the Roots of Dysfunction (University of California Press, 2021) at p. 97.
The warning was provided by Adolph J. Sabath, who served in the House from 1907 to 1952, was an immigrant himself, and is described in his Wikipedia page as “a leading opponent of immigration restrictions and prohibition.”
Jordan v. De George, supra at 235.
Id. at 238.
Id. at 239-40.
Id. at 241.
Id.
Id.
Petitioner was represented by Fairfax, VA attorney Arnedo Silvano Valera.
Ahmed v. Holder, 324 F.App’x 82, 84 (2d Cir. 2009).
Arias v. Lynch, supra at 826.
Judge Gerald Tjoflat even authored a concurring opinion tutoring the BIA to properly conclude that the statute is not divisible, ensuring the application of the categorical approach on remand.
The materials can be found at: https://www.aila.org/infonet/eoir-crimes-bond.
Jennifer Lee Koh, “Crimmigration Beyond the Headlines,” 71 Stan. L. Rev. Online 267, 272 (2019).
Id. at 273.
Julia Simon-Kerr, “Moral Turpitude,” 2012 Utah L. Rev. 1001, 1007-08 (2012).
Id.
MARCH 4, 2022
Reprinted by permission.
******************
“Brilliant,” as our friend and colleague Dan Kowalski says!
There is another way in which the Supremes’ prior constitutional abdication continues to pervert the constitutional guarantee of due process today.
As Jeffrey cogently points out NOBODY — Congress, the Article IIIs, the BIA, Immigration Judges, certainly not respondents — REALLY understands what “moral turpitude” means. Consequently, the only way to properly adjudicate cases involving that issue is through an exhaustive search and parsing of Circuit law, BIA precedents, and often state court decisions.
The problem: No unrepresented immigrant — particularly one in detention where a disproportionate share of these cases are heard — has any realistic chance of performing such intricate, arcane research into all too often conflicting and confusing sources.
Therefore, in addition to the problem that originated in DeGeorge when the Supremes’ majority failed to strike down a clearly unconstitutional statute, the failure to provide a right to appointed counsel in such cases — many involving long-time lawful permanent residents of the U.S. — is a gross violation of due process. It basically adds insult to injury!
As long as migrants continue to be intentionally wrongly treated as “lesser persons” or “not persons at all” by the Supremes and other authorities under the Due Process Clause — a process known as “Dred Scottification” — there will be no equal justice under law in America!
Better, more courageous, practical, and scholarly, Federal Judges — from the Supremes down to the Immigration Courts — won’t solve all of America’s problems. But, it certainly would be an essential start!
“Every day is ‘Kangaroo Field Day’ @ Garland’s DOJ!” When it comes to immigrant justice, “good enough for government work” is the mantra! https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
“The BIA “affirm[ed] the Immigration Judge’s decision to deny reopening because the respondent has not sufficiently demonstrated that his brother’s murder represents a material change in country conditions that would affect his eligibility for asylum.” A.R. 4. As we noted above, while (b)(4) requires “changed country conditions,” (b)(3)does not. Thus, the BIA’s reference to a “material change in country conditions” and the analysis that followed shows that the BIA applied § 1003.23(b)(4). See A.R. 4. In applying the standard of § 1003.23(b)(4) to a timely filed motion, the BIA acted contrary to law. … The question for the BIA to consider in evaluating Garcia Hernandez’s motion to reopen was whether Garcia Hernandez offered, in the proper from and with the appropriate contents, evidence that was material and not previously available at the initial hearing. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(3). Because the BIA did not analyze that question, and instead evaluated the issue under § 1003.23(b)(4), the BIA abused its discretion. … The BIA held that Zambrano did not apply because the changed circumstances there took place before the petitioner filed a time-barred petition even though here, the purported changed circumstances took place after the time-barred petition was filed and adjudicated. But nothing in Zambrano suggests its holding or reasoning was limited in the way the BIA suggests. Thus, Zambrano’s framework in examining changed circumstances should have been applied to Garcia Hernandez’s asylum application. … [W]e grant Garcia Hernandez’s petition for review. We vacate and remand with instructions to the BIA to consider Garcia Hernandez’s motion to reopen under the appropriate standard. The BIA should also address Garcia Hernandez’s asylum application under the framework of Zambrano and conduct any further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Many congrats to Ben and Alex, who were both “regulars” at the Arlington Immigration Court! Alex is also a former Arlington Intern and a “charter member” of the NDPA!😎
The 4th Circuit decision was written by Judge Marvin Quattlebaum, a Trump appointee, for a unanimous panel thatincluded Judge Motz and Judge Thacker. While Judge Q doesn’t always “get it right,” his cogent analysis of the BIA’s lawless behavior in this case is “spot on.”
How does a supposedly “expert” tribunal like the BIA blow the “easy stuff” — like following their own regulations? Clearly it has something to do with an unduly permissive “haste makes waste/rush to deny” anti-immigrant culture at EOIR that Garland has not effectively addressed!
Another obvious problem: Why were Garland’s lawyers at OIL defending this obviously wrong decision?You don’t have to be an “immigration guru” to read the regulations!
Sadly, it’s not the first time under Garland that OIL has chosen to waste judicial resources and undermine our justice system by “defending the indefensible.” It’s what happens when leaders promote an “anything goes/no accountability/good enough for government work” atmosphere!
There are deep substantive, structural, personnel, attitude, and “cultural” problems at EOIR and DOJ. That, over his first year in office, Garland has chosen to ignore these glaring malfunctions of justice @ Justice is an ongoing national disgrace!🤮
It doesn’t have to be this way! But, unfortunately, it is! And, even more disturbingly, no meaningful improvements appear to be on the horizon! That’s a deadly ☠️⚰️ outlook for American justice and for those poor souls caught up in Garland’s unfair, broken, dysfunctional “court” system that bears little resemblance to any commonly understood notion of what a fair, impartial, subject matter expert court should be in America!🤯
“The question presented in this appeal—one which has led to a circuit split—is whether a conviction for falsely representing a social security number, see 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B), is a CIMT. … The BIA explained that § 408(a)(7)(B) requires intent to deceive, and as a result Mr. Zarate’s conviction was for a CIMT. Noting that the circuits were divided on the issue, it quoted our decision in Walker v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 783 F.3d 1226, 1229 (11th Cir. 2015), for the proposition that, “[g]enerally, a crime involving dishonesty or false statement is considered to be one involving moral turpitude.” The BIA did not, however, address whether a violation of § 407(a)(7)(B) is inherently base, vile, or depraved. And that, as we will later explain, is a significant omission. … Our holding today does not foreclose the possibility that a conviction for a violation of § 408(a)(7)(B) may be a CIMT. But if the BIA is going to hold that it is, it will need to do what it has so far failed to do in Mr. Zarate’s case—it will have to apply its two-pronged moral turpitude standard in toto and decide whether the statute, under the categorical approach, involves conduct that is “reprehensible,” i.e., conduct that is “inherently base, vile, or depraved, and contrary to the accepted rules of morality and the duties owed between persons or to society in general.” Silva-Trevino, 26 I. & N. Dec. at 833–34 (internal quotation marks omitted). See also Simon-Kerr, Moral Turpitude, 2012 Utah L. Rev. at 1007–08 (criticizing courts for “ignor[ing] community moral sentiments when applying the [moral turpitude] standard”). We remand to the BIA for that purpose.”
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
My colleague Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase of the Round Table 🛡⚔️ offers the following cogent “instant analysis:”
Besides from what this says about the BIA being too lazy and hellbent on affirming removal orders for even the 11th Circuit’s liking, this is really interesting in its addressing the issue of applying “community moral sentiments”.What community are we talking about, and at what period of time?
There’s also a concurring opinion that does a very deep dive into the process for determining whether a statute is divisible.Could you even imagine the BIA engaging in the necessary analysis?
“Deep analysis” isn’t exactly in the “BIA playbook” under Garland. No, Garland’s “good enough for government work culture” at the DOJ tolerates the “whatever it takes to get to ‘no’” standard that was instilled by Sessions and Barr and, remarkably, still permeates much of the BIA’s work that is being rejected by the Article IIIs.
I note that the “deep dive” concurring opinion referenced by “Sir Jeffrey” was written by Senior Circuit Judge Gerald B. Tjoflat, a 92-year-old Gerald Ford appointee whose intellectual engagement and analytical work product puts the Garland BIA to shame!
“After Adan de Jesus Tomas-Ramos, a citizen and native of Guatemala, reentered the United States illegally in 2018, a removal order previously entered against him was reinstated. But because Tomas-Ramos expressed a fear of returning to Guatemala, an asylum officer conducted a screening interview to determine whether he reasonably feared persecution or torture in his home country. The asylum officer determined that Tomas-Ramos failed to establish a reasonable fear of such harm, and so was not entitled to relief from his reinstated removal order. An Immigration Judge (“IJ”) concurred with that determination. Tomas-Ramos now petitions for review of the IJ’s order on two grounds. He first contends that the IJ’s finding that he lacked a reasonable fear of persecution or torture was erroneous. We agree. The primary ground for the IJ’s decision was that there was no “nexus” between the harm Tomas-Ramos faced and a protected ground. But the agency incorrectly applied the statutory nexus requirement. Instead, the record compels the conclusion that Tomas-Ramos was persecuted on account of a protected ground, in the form of his family ties. And in light of that error, we cannot determine that the other reason given by the IJ for her decision – that Tomas-Ramos could avoid harm by relocating – was supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we grant the petition for review, vacate the agency’s decision, and remand for further proceedings.”
[Hats off to Michael D. Lieberman, Simon Y. Sandoval-Moshenberg, Stacy M. Kim, Paul F. Brinkman, and Michael A. Francus!]
—
Daniel M. Kowalski
Editor-in-Chief
Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)
**********************
DOJ’s error-studded performance (or lack thereof) in this case is disgraceful!
I guarantee that there are plenty of other unjust, legally defectivereasonable fear and credible fear decisions where these came from. Just most folks never get any meaningful judicial review.
Both the IJ and the AO got the basics of nexus and the applicable 4th Circuit case law totally wrong here. How are is this acceptable performance from what are supposed to be “expert” courts? Why hasn’t Garland brought in real experts, committed to due process and best practices, to take charge and straighten out this mess?
Disturbingly, the Biden Administration wants to turn this type of clearly inadequate procedure with poorly trained officers and judges and incorrect applications of the law loose on the merits determinations for all asylum seekers at the border!
Rather than being a check on bad judges, Garland’s OIL continues to “defend the indefensible” with arguments that don’t meet “the straight-face test.” Aren’t ethical codes equally applicable to Government lawyers?
Worse yet, Garland continues to unethically defend the scofflaw behavior of the Biden Administration by using a Stephen Miller era “COVID pretext” to deny most asylum seekers at the Southern Border any process, even the pathetic one used here!
The “wheels have come off” @ Garland’s DOJ and he’s driving on the axel hubs! When is someone going to pull him over and make him fix it?
Believe it or not, these are life or death cases! ☠️ Why is Garland allowed to treat the lives and rights of migrants and those associated with them so frivolously?
The IJ’s attempt to bar the R’s attorney from participating in the “credible fear” review is ridiculous! It shows the deep problems in Garland’s broken system which too often is deaf to due process, hostile to attorneys, and immune from common sense and best practices! Why would the “default” for regulatory silence be “no participation” rather than a “strong presumption that attorneys can fully participate?” What kind of “court” bars attorneys from speaking for their clients? Why would any judge not want to listen to attorneys, who are there to help them make correct decisions? The IJ’s conduct here was particularly egregious given that she had already made a clearly wrong decision before cutting off the attorney’s attempt to point out her errors! What a complete farce that Garland has failed to address!
This is another case where Circuit Judge Allison Jones Rushing, a Trump appointee with solid conservative credentials, once thought to be a possible contender for the “ACB seat,” joined her colleagues (Judge Harris and Chief Judge Gregory) to overturn a wrong, anti-immigrant decision by EOIR. Her approach in this and another recent case shows more sensitivity to due process, scholarship, and the rights of individual immigrants than many decisions emanating from Biden’s Immigration Courts under Garland.
I’m not suggesting that Judge R is necessarily going to become a leading defender of due process for immigrants. But, based on these somewhat random “snippets,” she seems more “reachable” and open to sound arguments on the issues than some other Trump appointees, points worth keeping in mind for NDPA advocates!
She’s also young. So, she will be reviewing immigration cases and making law for decades to come.
“Aires Daniel Benros Da Graca petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (the “Board”) affirming his order of removal and denying his requests for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. Because we find that a conviction under Rhode Island General Laws (“RIGL”) § 31-9-1 is not categorically a theft offense, we grant the petition for review, vacate the decision below, and remand for further proceedings.”
“Appellant Imad Jaffal, born in Jordan, seeks a declaration that he is entitled to derivative U.S. citizenship under former 8 U.S.C. § 1432(a). That statute provides that “a child born outside the United States automatically acquires United States citizenship if, while the child is under the age of eighteen, the parent with legal custody of the child is naturalized while that child’s parents are legally separated.” Jaffal’s father was naturalized when Jaffal was seventeen years old, and Jaffal presented evidence to the District Court that he was in the sole legal custody of his father when his father was naturalized and his parents were separated. The District Court, however, declined to accept Jaffal’s evidence of his parents’ divorce. Because we conclude that was error, we will reverse the order of the District Court and remand the matter with instructions to issue a judgment declaring Jaffal to be a national of the United States.”
Here’s my favorite quote from Judge Torresen’s decision inDa Garcia v. Garland:
Despite this apparent disconnect between RIGL § 31-9-1 and the Board’s definition of theft offense, the Board in Da Graca’s case determined that to prove the statute’s overbreadth, the Petitioner was required to identify actual cases in which Rhode Island had enforced the statute against de minimis deprivations of ownership interests. Da Graca contests the Board’s imposition of an actual case requirement and argues that he “need not necessarily proffer specific examples of Rhode Island prosecutions in order to establish a ‘realistic probability’ that the state would apply its statute to conduct that falls outside the generic definition of a crime.” We agree with Da Graca.
Essentially, Garland’s BIA “makes it up as it goes along” to reach a denial, then Prelogar’s DOJ attorneys defend the illegal result. Sounds like a really bad system, lacking accountability, expertise, common sense, and, sometimes, professional responsibility.
Lest you think that the legal nonsense being produced by Garland’s BIA and the USCIS is “below Prelogar’s radar screen” in her exulted position, that’s NOT true! Every adverse decision suffered by the USG must be reported to the SG’s Office with an analysis and recommendations from the agency’s attorneys, the litigators who handled the case, the appellate section of litigating division (here the Civil Division), and the SG’s staff. No appeal, petition for rehearing en banc, or petition for cert. can be filed without the express authorization of the SG’s Office.
So, Prelogar is well aware of the bad positions, unfairness, and poor work product DOJ attorneys are defending (sometimes with a lack of candor or misleading the courts) and their abuses of the time of the Article IIIs.
Even with the “real” (Article III) Federal Courts moving markedly to the right (following four years of Trump-McConnell appointments and eight years of lackadaisical performance by the Obama Administration), and rules that strongly favor the Government on judicial review, DOJ’s haphazard performance under Garland and Prelogar continues to earn a stream of avoidable “kickbacks” from the Article IIIs. The DOJ system is broken in many places — EOIR is just the most obvious, most pressing, and most easily addressed area of failure.
At the same time they acknowledge but downplay the existential crippling effects of Garland’s failure to bring progressive reforms to EOIR, his defense of disgraceful, immoral, and inhumane “Miller Lite” positions in Federal Court, his intentional indifference to human suffering and the complete breakdown of the rule of law at our borders, and his disdain for removing the Trump enablers, deadwood, and poor lawyers from DOJ — at all levels.
I have a radically different perspective on the future of meaningful progressive immigration reforms, based on my nearly 50 years of involvement with the system on both sides and at all levels — more than most folks.
There will be no meaningful, sustainable immigration reforms without a radically reformed, remade, Immigration Court system with a judiciary of due-process-oriented progressive experts who have the courage to “speak truth to power,” stand up for the legal, constitutional, and human right of the most vulnerable, and put integrity, humanity, and the best interests of our nation above career advancement, survival, or “ingratiation with the powers that be.” That’s NOT Garland’s DOJ — which remains largely the out of control, often ethically challenged morass that he inherited from his predecessors.
Let’s not forget that through intentional misuse of precedents, weaponization of EOIR, and White Nationalist litigation strategies, Jeff Sessions was able to largely disable the entire asylum system, including USCIS Asylum Offices, and shift USCIS Adjudications from service to “enforcement only,” in preparation for the “final eradication” of asylum and crippling of our entire legal immigration system by his crony and former subordinate, Stephen Miller. And, the folks who helped him do that and “went along to go along” with abuses are still largely on board and in key positions in Garland’s DOJ — actually operating with his apparent “stamp of approval.” Outrageous!
From a due process, human rights, progressive, good government, equal justice, racial equality standpoint, as well as from any aspect of moral leadership on fundamental values, Garland’s performance at DOJ has been unacceptable. Has Garland visited any of the camps in Mexico or gone to the “New American Gulag” to witness first-hand the human carnage for which he is responsible? Heck no! That’s a job for progressive experts whose input and advice he then shuns, ignores, and “tunes out!”
For progressive advocates to downplay the Biden Administration’s gross failures or “over-cheer” incremental progress that means little without fundamental reforms at EOIR and the DOJ only deepens the fecklessness of their own positions and furthers the disrespect and under-appreciation of their efforts, potential power, and value that has become an endemic feature of the Democratic Party.
The Biden Administration might talk a good game, particularly around election time; but, in reality, they are governing largely in fear of and like nativist Republicans — but getting no “political return” whatsoever for betraying their supposed values and their base (see, Catherine Rampell). Advocates reward and tolerate such disgraceful and intellectually dishonest conduct at their own peril!
Meanwhile, Suzanne Clark, President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, certainly no “progressive shill,” speaks truth about the need for and our ability to accept more immigrants:
Allowing more immigrants into the US would help mitigate both soaring inflation and the current labor shortage, the CEO of the US Chamber of Commerce said.
“We need more workers,” Suzanne Clark told reporters Tuesday, per CNN. “We should welcome people who want to come here, go to school, and stay.”
“That is a place the government could be particularly helpful and we do believe it would be anti-inflationary,” she said, per CNN.
Those immigrants are right in front of us: rotting in camps at the border, being returned to danger or death with no process — both as a result of Garland’s failure to re-establish our legal asylum system at the border — or languishing in Garland’s mushrooming 1.6 million Immigration Court backlog!It doesn’t take a “rocket scientist” to see that instead of wasting time, money, and resources on mindless “enforcement” intended to deter and discourage those who might help us by helping themselves, we should have set up fair and timely processing systems, staffed by experts, that would identify the many individuals at the border and already in the U.S. who can qualify to remain under fair and properly generous interpretations of asylum law, withholding, CAT, U & T visas, “stateside processing waivers,” cancellation of removal” (for those already here), TPS, and other possibilities.
This is just as much”law enforcement” and “maintaining the integrity of our system” as are the efforts to increase deportations, terrorize communities, or close borders to “deter” migrants (primarily those of color) that has been practiced to some degree by every Administration. It also makes sense, economically, practically, and ethically.
It starts with an Attorney General and DOJ with the courage and vision to end the “deterrence only” misconstruction of our laws and stand up for the legal and human rights of migrants, regardless of race, color, creed, or manner of entry. That’s not what Garland has been doing to date! Too bad, because there will be no resolution of immigration issues — nor will there be racial justice in America — without an AG who will stand up for the real rule of law rather than the parody of the law and justice purveyed by Miller and his White Nationalists and still being parroted and too often defended by Garland and his minions.
Yilun Cheng Immigration Reporter, Columbus Dispatch PHOTO: TwitterAttorneys who complain about misbehaving judges in Merrick Garland’s dysfunctional Immigration “Courts” might well find themselves in uncomfortable positions! Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
In the fall of 2020, “Juan” had trouble falling asleep whenever he thought about his upcoming court appearance in Cleveland, where the only immigration court in Ohio is located.
The 43-year-old father of three from Mexico, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation, had already gone through three hours-long hearings for his application to obtain permanent residency. He said he was nervous and exhausted when he stepped into the court on Oct. 16, 2020, for his fourth hearing.
Juan expected from experience that he would once again face a series of aggressive questions from Judge Teresa Riley, whose intimidating style almost made him give up on his case altogether, he said.
But it still astounded him when Riley called Mexican immigrants “illegals” while cross-examining his wife about the subcontractors that Juan employed at his construction business.
Citing the experience of six anonymous immigrants, including Juan, the complaint accuses Riley of biases against Latino immigrants, bullying and hostile questioning, a lack of professional competence and other alleged misconducts.
But complainants like complainants like Juan and their attorneys said they have been disappointed that their efforts did not lead to any lasting changes or that there was little transparency in the investigation process.
Riley stopped hearing cases for a few weeks in July and August, but returned shortly after, according to hearing schedules shared with the Dispatch. It is unclear why the judge was absent.
. . . .
Because these complaints rarely generate substantial disciplinary actions and there is a fear of retaliation from the judges, immigration attorneys and their clients often hesitate to report misconducts, said Austin Kocher, a research associate professor at the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a research institute at Syracuse University.
“Immigration attorneys don’t file these complaints often enough because they still have to practice in front of these judges,” said Kocher, whose research focuses on immigration policies. “You can’t file a complaint one day against a judge and the next day come in with your client and expect the judge to treat them well. There’s just a real lack of systematic accountability.”
. . . .
Emmanuel Olawale, a Westerville-based immigration attorney, said he has faced this dilemma firsthand. In October 2020, when he received a notice from the Cleveland Immigration Court that the asylum case of one of his clients was denied, he was disturbed by the language that Judge Jonathan Owens used in the decision.
In the asylum application, Olawale’s client, a 22-year-old asylum seeker from Cameroon, said armed officers from that country sexually assaulted her when she was a minor while they were searching for English-speaking dissidents like her family.
In an attempt to establish that the abuse did not happen due to the client’s identity, Owen stated that it is likely that officers raped the teenage girl not because she was a member of the English-speaking minority but because “they wanted to do so and thought that the respondent was a pretty virgin,” according to court documents shared with The Dispatch.
“If someone’s a ‘pretty virgin,’ is that a good reason for them to rape her in any context?” Olawale said. “That statement is misogynistic and very shocking to me.”
Instead of submitting a complaint against Owen, however, the immigration attorney opted to voice his concerns in an appeal, which is currently pending.
“Filing a complaint against the judge is something on the table,” Olawale said. “But it won’t really change anything in my client’s case. There’s also an imbalance of power in the courtroom and the fear of retaliation. I’ll have to weigh my options and consider how bad it is before I stick my neck out there.”
. . . .
Judges are not always made aware of the existence of a complaint in a timely fashion, and there is no transparency or consistency when it comes to sanctions imposed in a particular case, according to Dana Marks, president emerita at the National Association of Immigration Judges who spent 35 years on the bench in San Francisco, California, before retiring in December.
“It’s not consistent because a complaint usually starts out with the person’s immediate supervisor being told,” Marks said. “Some of the supervisors discuss the complaint with the judge immediately and others don’t. There’s a wide spectrum of when judges are notified, how much information they are provided, and whether they are allowed to give their side of the story before decisions are made.”
There is a fine line between judges’ taking a harsh stance on immigration and their exhibiting unprofessional behaviors, said Paul Schmidt, a former immigration judge based in Arlington, Virginia, who retired in 2016. While judges should not be punished for making a good-faith legal decision, using terms like “illegals” seems to be a clear violation of professionalism, he said.
“There are complaints that were made because someone is not happy that they lost a case, and those claims need to be taken with a grain of salt,” Schmidt said. “But at the point where judges are using racially charged terms or demeaning people, then that seems to me that it goes beyond what they should be allowed to do.”
. . . .
The Cleveland Immigration Court, much like the rest of the country, saw dramatic personnel changes during Donald Trump’s presidency.
The court used to have only three judges, all of whom have since left their posts. The Trump administration filled the openings and expanded the size of the bench, appointing 10 judges who currently make up the court. Most of them are former government attorneys, and five used to prosecute immigration cases on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security.
The lack of a transparent complaint process is especially concerning given an influx of new judges, who tend to come from enforcement backgrounds and lack experience on the bench, [Attorney Julie] Nemecek said.
“I think about the hundreds of thousands of immigrants across the country who have been wronged by the misconducts of Trump-appointed judges,” she said. “There are still good judges out there. But we have to address these bad judges.”
. . . .
Yilun Cheng is a Report for America corps member and covers immigration issues for the Dispatch. Your donation to match our RFA grant helps keep her writing stories like this one. Please consider making a tax-deductible donation at https://bit.ly/3fNsGaZ.
ycheng@dispatch.com
@ChengYilun
******************
Read Yulin’s full article at the link.
First, congrats to Yulin Cheng! Last time I published her work, she was an aspiring student journalist.
Now, she’s a Report for America member carrying out her dream and commitment to report truth and hold immigration officials, regardless of party affiliation, accountable for their mockery of the rule of law and shunning of best practices!
So, why might a private practitioner hesitate to file a complaint against an Immigration Judge in Garland’s system still “packed” with a majority of judges hand-selected by White Nationalist nativists Sessions and Barr?
The complaint would go not to an independent, objective panel containing public representation. No, it would be treated as a “supervisory matter” in an agency (not a real “court”) where the ranks of supervisors are still stacked with Barr & Sessions appointees that Garland hasn’t replaced.
Stunningly, the “top judge” in this bizarre, abusive, and dysfunctional system is Chief Immigration Judge Tracy Short — a hard line DHS prosecutor with no prior judicial experience elevated by Barr because of his commitment to the Stephen Miller White Nationalist, anti-asylum, anti-attorney agenda! Remarkably, Garland hasn’t replaced Short with a competent, expert, due-process-oriented “real judge,” notwithstanding unanimous urging from immigration experts that he do so!
Pursue as an alternative a legal appeal to Garland’s BIA? Well, amazingly, that body also remains “packed” with 23 of 24 appellate judges who are holdovers from the Trump Administration. Several of these judges were themselves members of the “90% asylum deniers club” and some were renowned for their disrespect for immigrants (particularly asylum seekers) and their lawyers while on the trial bench.
Look for some binding BIA precedents on improper IJ conduct? Won’t find those either, save for a mild, pre-Trump rebuke of an Atlanta IJ (without identifying the judge) for abusing a juvenile in court.
Then, there’s Garland himself. For heaven’s sake, even Bush crony former AG Alberto Gonzales (“Gonzo I”) finally got so embarrassed by the misbehavior of his IJs that he had to publicly “call off the dogs.”But, from Garland, not a peep or decisive action demanding that his “wholly-owned judges” put due process and fundamental fairness first and treat the individuals coming before them and their lawyers with professionalism, dignity, and respect!
Judge Riley, appointed by Barr in May 2019, without any significant immigration or human rights background, has a TRAC asylum denial rate of 87.7%.
Judge Owens, appointed by Sessions in August 2018, also without any significant immigration or human rights background, has a TRAC asylum denial rate of 94.5%. That’s 58th highest out of 558 Immigration Judges!
The TRAC “national average” for asylum denials by IJs during this period was 67.6%.
So, even in the virulent, officially-sanctioned “anti-asylum era” @ EOIR during the late Obama Administration and the entire Trump Administration, these two judges are “outliers.”
As someone familiar with the Ohio Immigration Bar, there are dozens of much better qualified judicial candidates out there in the private sector. Some of them even applied in the past and were rejected in favor of these judges who, whatever else you might think, no expert would find to be among “best and brightest minds in immigration and human rights,” deserving of elevation to the bench.
All Immigration Judges are “DOJ attorneys,” serving “at the pleasure of the Attorney General” and therefore subject to replacement and/or reassignment at his discretion. Judge Riley was “in probation” until May 20121, so Garland could have terminated her, essentially for any reason, or at least “re-competed” her position under a fair process that would have been open, welcoming to immigration experts in the private sector, and involved private sector input.
Owens and the other Trump-era appointees should also have been required to re-compete for their positions under revised procedures. It’s unlikely either Owens or Riley would have been selected in such a merit-based process.
Of course, Garland has not actively recruited from among better-qualified diverse expert immigration practitioners, established transparent merit-based procedures, or re-competed the disgracefully inadequate selections of his White Nationalist, anti-immigrant predecessors!
Additionally, Garland has failed to address, in any manner whatsoever, the quality control, bad attitude, lack of professionalism, and anti-immigrant bias problems in his dysfunctional Immigration Courts. Poor precedents continue to be issued by his BIA, and sloppy work by his judges at all levels continues to be “outed” by the Article IIIs notwithstanding the substantial (undue) deference given to EOIR decisions by the Article IIIs. Backlog building “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and “mindless gimmicks” continue to proliferate under Garland’s disconnected leadership.
The disciplinary system remains opaque and highly ineffective. Illegal retaliation by IJs against those filing complaints remains a realistic possibility that actually deters and improperly discourages reporting of misconduct. An ineffective, “rubber-stamp” appellate review process of removal orders by the BIA almost never holds IJs accountable, even for the most egregious legal errors and the grossest misconduct on the bench.
While Circuit Courts point out the deficient performance of EOIR judges on a remarkably frequent basis, one will search in vain for any recent BIA precedent “calling out” inappropriate and biased treatment of respondents and their lawyers in Immigration Court. Likewise, while Jeff Sessions was outspoken in encouraging anti-asylum and anti-lawyer bias among “his judges,” I’m not aware that Garland, in word or deed, has ever insisted that Immigration Judges at all levels give primacy to due process, fundamental fairness, and treat all coming before them with dignity and respect. In other words, Garland has failed to use his “bully pulpit” to demand an end to bullying of the most vulnerable among us in his Immigration Courts.
He also has failed to repudiate the “DHS Enforcement is our partner” statements by Sessions. (Perhaps not surprisingly, since, as noted earlier, Garland employs a DHS prosecutor, Tracy Short, as his “top judge” notwithstanding Short’s glaring unsuitability for the position. And, Garland continues to defend many “Miller Lite” policies in Federal Court.)
Pro-DHS biases, mistreatment of migrants and their attorneys, lack of basic scholarship, and failure of impartial judging continue to run rampant in Garland’s broken system!
Indeed, a full year the SF Chron’sTal Kopan exposed the misconduct by Immigration Judges throughout the nation, the DOJ has taken no known actions despite Deputy AG Lisa Monaco’s “promise to investigate.”
From top to bottom, this broken, unfair, and out of control system needs reform, redirection, integrity, a focus on due process, and decisional excellence. It certainly isn’t coming from Garland and his senior political team at DOJ. So where IS it going to come from?
Chair Lofgren and her Subcommittee need to find out why Garland has failed to address the ongoing disaster in his courts, and what needs to be done to bring due process, fundamental fairness, equal justice, and respect for humanity to the forefront at EOIR, the DOJ, and the rest of our legal system! And, if anyone in the Administration stubbornly claims that the “primary answer” is to randomly throw more judges into this toxic mess, Lofgren should laugh in their face(s)! We need to replace bad judges and reform the existing system into something fair and functional before seeking to expand it, even assuming that expansion is warranted somewhere “down the line.”
As being run by Garland right now, EOIR is an affront to American democracy! That needs to stop!
Sadly, a couple of correct decisions, no matter how welcome, aren’t going to solve the systemic due process deficiencies in Ohio or elsewhere in Garland’s dysfunctional nationwide “Clown Courts.” 🤡
There are some pressing problems in America that Dems and the Biden Administration can’t solve on their own. Garland’s dysfunctional Immigration Courts are NOT one of those!
The Immigration Courts are the biggest most consequential national problem that is totally within the Administration’s power to fix. That Garland has failed to do so should be of existential concern and a cause for unrelenting outrage from all who believe in the future of American democracy!
“Record, what record? Here at the BIA, we don’t need no stinkin’ record to deny asylum! The assembly line would break down if we took time to look at all the evidence and research the law! It’s about ‘numbers,’ not ‘justice!’” https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
“Tarlishi Emmanuel-Tata, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We GRANT the petition for review and REMAND for further consideration. … Emmanuel-Tata challenges both the BIA’s factual determinations and whether it gave his claims full and fair consideration. We begin by examining Emmanuel-Tata’s argument that the BIA failed to consider all the evidence. This argument relies on a BIA statement that the record “does not contain any country conditions evidence indicating that Anglophones are regularly subject to persecution,” and that “[t]he record does not contain any country conditions evidence indicating the type of punishment the respondent may face as a result of his criminal charges.” There is such evidence, though. … The significance of the overlooked evidence is clear. … Because the BIA erroneously found there was no record evidence about relevant country conditions, Emmanuel-Tata did not receive “meaningful consideration of the relevant substantial evidence supporting” his claims. See Abdel-Masieh, 73 F.3d at 585. We therefore reverse the BIA’s decision. We need not further consider the BIA’s factual determinations. The petition for review is GRANTED and we REMAND to the BIA for further consideration.”
[Hats off to Brian Plotts! Brian, make a motion to publish!]
*********************
As any “immigration pro” knows, the DOJ has to work hard to lose immigration cases in the “ultra-conservative” 5th Circuit. But, even judges not very sympathetic to migrants don’t like being “played for fools” by a DOJ where “quality, integrity, and due process” definitely are “NOT job one.”
Highlighting the constant stream of bogus findings, “canned” decisions, ignored records, and chronic contemptuous sloppiness is a great way to for the NDPA to make inroads with even the most unsympathetic Circuit panels. While some Article III judges are willing to overlook the BIA’s endemic shortcomings, hiding behind the “bogus deference” doctrine, they might be less willing to “do the BIA’s dirty work for them.”
“Jose Ernesto Menjivar Bonilla, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial of his application for withholding of removal under Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) Section 241(b)(3) and relief under Article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We grant the petition in part and remand for further proceedings. … [B]ecause the IJ’s assessments of Bonilla’s credibility and the decision to require corroborating evidence were based in significant part on discrepancies with the 2012 Record, which we have determined to be unreliable, further factfinding is required. See Mboowa v. Lynch, 795 F.3d, 222, 229 (1st Cir. 2015) (finding remand warranted where a central aspect of the agency’s credibility assessment is flawed). Accordingly, we remand to the agency for further factfinding. Guta-Tolossa v. Holder, 674 F.3d 57, 61 (1st Cir. 2011) (“Where a question is best resolved by the agency in the first instance, or is left primarily in the agency’s hands by statute, and the agency has failed to address that question, we generally must remand.”); see also Kho v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 50, 56 (1st Cir. 2007) (“If, in the absence of a credibility finding by the IJ, a reviewing court determines that such a finding is necessary for effective review of the case, it may remand to the agency for further factfinding.”). Accordingly, we vacate the denials of withholding and relief under the CAT and remand for further consideration consistent with this opinion.”
Let’s see, an IJ gets it wrong, a “single member BIA panel” summarily affirms w/o opinion, and a three member panel of the First Circuit unanimously reverses in a published opinion!
“Cristian Josue Diaz Ortiz, a native of El Salvador, seeks review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial of his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) rejection of Diaz Ortiz’s petition for relief rested on an adverse credibility determination that primarily drew its support from a “Gang Assessment Database.” Flaws in that database, including its reliance on an erratic point system built on unsubstantiated inferences, compel us to conclude that the credibility judgment — and, in turn, the rejection of Diaz Ortiz’s request for relief — is not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we grant the petition for review and remand for new immigration proceedings.”
Nkemchap Nelvis Takwi seeks review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from a removal order entered by an Immigration Judge (IJ) and denying his motion to remand. Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, we grant the petition for review. We remand this matter to the BIA because the IJ did not make an explicit adverse credibility determination, and the BIA did not afford Mr. Takwi the required rebuttable presumption of credibility.
Just for a good measure, the 9th Circuit also “busted” Garland’s BIA on an agfel issue:
“Petitioner Longinos Togonon, a native and citizen of the Philippines, was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 2013. In 2015, he was convicted of arson in violation of California Penal Code § 451(b) and sentenced to three years of imprisonment. In 2018, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against Togonon, alleging (as relevant for our purposes) that his arson offense qualifies as an “aggravated felony.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) (“Any alien who is convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after admission is deportable.”). The Immigration and Nationality Act defines the term “aggravated felony” to include “an offense described in” 18 U.S.C. § 844(i). 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(E)(i). The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held that a conviction under California Penal Code § 451(b) is an offense described in 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) and that Togonon is therefore subject to removal from the United States. Reviewing that decision de novo, see Sandoval v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 986, 988 (9th Cir. 2017), we conclude that the BIA erred in so holding. We accordingly grant Togonon’s petition for review.”
[Hats off to pro bono publico appointed counsel Matthew N. Ball (argued), Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Denver, Colorado; Paul J. Collins, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Palo Alto, California; Andrew T. Brown and Matt Aiden Getz, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Los Angeles, California!]
*****************************
The First Circuit decision was 4-3. It appears that the respondent’s lawyers, experts, and the majority did the careful, critical analysis that the BIA failed to perform. Even the dissenters, who got it wrong, appear to have spent more time and thought on this issue than Garland’s BIA.
The Tenth Circuit decision highlights “Basic Asylum 101” failures by both the IJ and the BIA. It’s not that hard to make a specific credibility finding in every case. I did it in every contested asylum case I heard over 13 years on the bench. Nor is applying the presumption of credibility on appeal profound.
I’ll concede that the 9th Circuit agfel issue was more tricky. But, the BIA’s practice of almost always going with the most expansive, pro-DHS interpretations of the agfel definition to maximize deportation and minimize relief doesn’t help.
As asylum applicants, other migrants, and their lawyers, receive grievous mistreatment by the “judges of his EOIR Star Chambers,” “Teflon Merrick” Garland has avoided accountability for the ongoing, systemic degrading of humanity and American justice carried out in his name!” Why? PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
“Bob Lupini Nsimba petitions for review of a December 8, 2020 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of his application for asylum. In affirming that decision, the BIA misapplied and misinterpreted controlling precedent and imposed requirements on those seeking relief that would require petitioners to first endure torture or arrest. Accordingly, for the reasons that follow, we will grant the petition for review, vacate the ruling of the BIA and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
[You MUST read the entire opinion; the panel really goes to town on the IJ and the BIA. Hats off to Valentine Brown!]
*****************
Not news for anyone who (unlike Garland) has even passing familiarity with the daily mockery of justice being carried out by Garland’s “wholly-owned bogus ‘court’ system.” These AREN’T aberrations or isolated incidents! They are “business as usual” in Garland’s totally dysfunctional and out of control Immigration “Courts.”
These aren’t “courts;” they are “adjuncts of DHS enforcement, masquerading as courts,” redesigned as such by Sessions and Barr with Stephen Miller’s influence and enabled to continue their disgraceful degradation of American justice by Garland!
DRC cases, if credible and documented, should be “slam dunk grants of asylum.” They could be put on the “30 minute docket.” Instead, EOIR has been allowed and encouraged to engage in this type of obscene, dilatory nonsense, with obvious racial overtones.
This case is a microcosm of how EOIR and the DOJ have built astounding due process denying backlog! The solution is NOT more Immigration Judges! It’s better Immigration Judges.
Congrats to NDPA Star Valentine Brown!
Obviously Garland has neither standards nor any shame!
Dishonest, biased, and incompetent decisions like this should long ago have resulted in the removal from the BIA and reassignment of the BIA “judge(s)” involved.
When are the Circuits going to catch on that this entire charade is a grotesque denial of due process, pull the plug, and hold Garland accountable for this unconstitutional (not to mention unethical) degradation of American justice?
BIA judges and EOIR judges AREN’T Article IIIs, and they DON’T have life tenure in their particular jobs.
When are Dems in both Houses going to start demanding accountability and competence from Garland? How long are the Article IIIs going to allow this mind-boggling misfeasance that materially affects millions of lives in America, and squanders an unconscionable amount of legal resources, to continue before finally “pulling the plug” on Garland’s “quasi-judicial farce?”
For “respondents” (non-citizens in removal proceedings) and their lawyers, Individual Hearings in Immigration Court are a big deal. Evidence must be gathered. Affidavits have to be prepared, checked, and re-checked. Witnesses must be identified, convinced to attend the hearing, and prepared for trial. Respondents practice their testimony. In most cases, the noncitizen has been waiting for many months or years for the trial date. The result of the trial determines whether the applicant can remain in the United States or must leave. When a respondent receives asylum, he is permitted to stay in the U.S. If he loses, he may be deported to a country where he faces danger. In many cases, respondents have family members here or overseas who are counting on them, and the outcome of the case affects the family members as well as the respondent. All of this provokes anxiety and anticipation. In short, Individual Hearings are life-changing events that profoundly effect respondents and their families.
So what happens when the Individual Hearing is canceled?
“Sorry boys and girls, the ‘nice’ list is too long. We’ll reschedule Christmas for next year… or maybe the year after that.”
The first thing to know is that cancellations are common. Cases are canceled weeks, days or even minutes before the scheduled time. Indeed, we often cannot be sure that a case will actually go forward until the hearing begins.
Why does this happen?
There are many reasons, some more legitimate than others. The most common reason these days is the pandemic. Sometimes, courts close due to potential exposures. That is understandable, but as far as I can tell, these represent a small minority of Covid cancellations. I have had 50% or more of my Individual Hearings canceled over the last year and a half, and none of those was caused by a Covid exposure. I suspect that the large majority of these cancellations are due to reduced capacity to hear cases–since judges and staff are often working from home. Indeed, most pandemic cancellations seem to occur a week or two before the Individual Hearing. By that time, we’ve already completed and submitted the evidence, witness list, and legal brief, and have usually started prepping the client for trial. The client is also psychologically gearing up for the big event.
And then we check the online system and find that the case is off the docket.
What’s so frustrating about these cancellations is that we’ve been living with the pandemic since early 2020. The Immigration Courts should have adjusted by now. If cases need to be canceled, why not do that several months in advance? At least that way, applicants would not build up hope, only to have that dashed when the case is cancelled at the last minute. Also, it wastes attorney time–since we will have to submit updated country condition evidence (and perhaps other evidence) later, re-prep witnesses, and potentially prepare new legal briefs, if the law changes (which is more common than you’d like to think). For attorneys who charge hourly, this additional work will involve additional costs to the applicants. So all around, last minute cancellations are harmful, and it’s hard to understand why they are still so frequent.
“I’m double booked today, so let’s put off your heart surgery until 2023.”
Besides the pandemic, court cases are cancelled for a host of other reasons: Immigration Judges (“IJs”) are out sick, hearings get bumped to accommodate “priority” cases or sometimes cases are “double booked,” meaning that they are scheduled for the same time slot with the same IJ, and so only one can go forward. To me, all these are weak excuses for canceling individual hearings. Most courts have several judges, and so if one judge is out sick, or if a priority case must be scheduled at the last minute, another judge should be able to help out (in all but the most complicated cases, judges need little time to prepare for a hearing, and so should be able to adjudicate a case on short notice). Also, there is no excuse for double-booking cases. IJs should have a sense of their schedules and simply not overbook. In addition, all courts are overseen by Assistant Chief Immigration Judges (“ACIJs”), who should be available to hear cases if need be. Finally, given the ubiquity of video conferencing equipment and electronic records, judges can adjudicate cases remotely, and so there should almost always be a judge available to fill in where needed.
Of course, there are times when case cancellations are unavoidable, due to inclement weather, for example. But in an ideal world, these should be rare.
“Oy vey! I have to give priority to a better-looking couple. Let’s reschedule this wedding for later. Are you free in 2024?”
If the delay caused by case cancellations was measured in weeks or even months, the problem would not be so severe. But in many cases, hearings are postponed for one or two years–or even longer! This is obviously distressing for the applicant, as the long-anticipated end date is pushed back to who-knows-when. It is particularly devastating for applicants who are separated from family members. The long postponements are also a problem for the case itself, as evidence becomes stale and must be replaced with more up-to-date information, and laws change, which can require a new legal brief. In short, these delays often force the applicant (and the applicant’s lawyer) to do significant extra work on the case, and this can add additional costs in terms of legal fees.
It seems obvious to me that courts do not fully appreciate the damage caused by last minute cancellations. If judges and staff (and management) knew more about the harm these cancellations cause, perhaps they would make a greater effort to ensure that hearings go forward, and that any delayed hearings are rescheduled as quickly as possible.
*************
Readers of “Courtside” are familiar with the “toxic culture” of EOIR — actively encouraged by some Attorneys General, enabled and abetted by others.
The real problem here is that Immigration Courts are “led” by “managers” beholden to political agendas rather than the public they should serve. Also, since far too many EOIR “managers” and Immigration Judges have never represented individuals in Immigration Court, they are basically clueless as to the human and practical effects of their actions on individuals as well as on the dedicated, often pro bono or “low bono” lawyers who must guide their desperate and often re-traumatized clients through this morass.
At a time when the need for pro bono assistance has never been greater, the disgraceful dysfunction, mismanagement, and “studied user unfriendliness” of EOIR under Garland is actually discouraging attorneys from donating their time and endangering their emotional well-being! Could there be any worse public policy?
With so many extraordinarily talented, creative, courageous, independent legal minds out there in the private/NGO/academic sector of human rights/immigration/racial justice/due process this “intentional mediocrity (or worse)” is inexcusable. Yet, this massive failure of the U.S. justice system at the most basic level gets scant attention outside of Courtside, LexisNexis, ImmigrationProf Blog, Jeffrey S. Chase Blog, The Asylumist, and a few other specialized websites.
This “leading disintegrator of American justice and cosmic threat to our entire democracy” is largely “shoved under the carpet” by “mainstream media,” leaders of the legal profession (outside of immigration/human rights), politicians, policy makers, and the general public. Will they only “wake up” when it is too late and their own rights and futures have been diminished, dehumanized, and de-personified as if they were “mere migrants, not humans?”
In other words, who in America will always be immune from the “Dred Scottification of the other” now practiced, tolerated, and often even encouraged at the highest levels of our government? Don’t think it couldn’t happen to you! If immigrants, asylum seekers, and migrants in the U.S. are not “persons” under the Fifth Amendment, what makes YOU think that YOUR “personhood” will be honored by the powers that be!
In defense of today’s IJs, they actually have remarkably little control over their own dockets which are incompetently “micromanaged” from on high or by non-judicial “administrators.” Sound like a formula for an incredible, largely self-created, 1.5 million case backlog?
Cutting to the chase, the Immigration Courts are controlled by the Attorney General, a political official and a chief prosecutor to boot. Beyond that, no Attorney General has actually had to experience practice before the totally dysfunctional and intentionally user unfriendly “courts” he or she runs.
Foreign Service Officers must initially serve as consuls — the basic operating level of an embassy. Hotel managers usually start by working the front desk, where the “rubber meets the road” in the industry.
But, we enthrone those who are supposed to be the best, wisest, and fairest in the legal profession as Attorneys General and Article III Judges without requiring that they have had experience representing individuals at the “retail level” of our legal system — the U.S. Immigration Courts.
It doesn’t make sense! But, what does figure is that a system run by those without expertise and relevant experience, haphazardly “supervised” by Article III Judges who almost invariably exhibit the same blind spots, indifference to injustice, and lack of practical knowledge and expertise as those they are “judicially reviewing” has devolved into the worst court system in America. It’s an oppressive catastrophe where “liberty and justice are not for all” and survival is often more about the mood, mindset, or personal philosophy of the judge, or the “whim of the day” of DOJ politicos, than it is about the facts of the case or the most fair and reasonable applications of the law by experts! Is this really the way we should be determining who lives and who dies, who thrives and who will struggle just to survive?
These “courts” are not fair and impartial courts at all. They are places where service to the public comes last, poor leadership and mismanagement are tolerated and even rewarded, backlogs are out of control, due process, fundamental fairness, scholarship, and best practices scorned, and precious lives and human dignity routinely are ground to dust and scattered to the wind.
We deserve better from our legal system!
Once, there was a court system with a dream of a better future for all in America — a noble, if ambitious, vision, if you will: “through teamwork and innovation, become the world’s best administrative tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.”😎
Now, sadly, that enlightened vision has disintegrated into a nightmare of dedicated dockets, biased precedents, endless backlogs, sloppy work, due process denying gimmicks, bogus statistics, mediocre judicial selections, secrecy, customer unfriendliness, dishonest blame shifting, and ridiculous Aimless Docket Reshuffling.☠️
Attorney General Merrick Garland’s “limited vision” for EOIR is a continuing nightmare for those sentenced to appear and practice before his stunningly dysfunctional and “highly user unfriendly” Immigration “Courts.” Isn’t it high time to insist that those given responsibility for stewardship over America’s largest — and probably most consequential — Federal “Court” system actually have represented humans before those “courts?” PHOTO: Thomas Hawk Creative Commons Amateur Night
Where there once was the promise of “light at the end of the tunnel,” now there is only “Darkness on The Edge of Town:”
Well lives on the line where dreams are found and lost
I’ll be there on time and I’ll pay the cost
For wanting things that can only be found
In the darkness on the edge of town
In the darkness on the edge of town
“Hey ladies, not every woman in Guatemala is hanging up there with you (yet), so what’s the problem,” says Circuit Judge Patty Shwartz of the 3rd. Cir.“ “She struggled madly in the torturing Ray” Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Chavez-Chilel v. Atty. Gen., 3rd Cir., 12-09-21, published
PANEL: SHWARTZ, PORTER, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
OPINION: Judge Patty Shwartz
KEY QUOTE:
Chavez-Chilel’s proposed PSG lacks particularity. “[N]ot every immutable characteristic is sufficiently precise to define a [PSG],” id. at 552, and courts have concluded that a proposed PSG of all women in a particular country “is overbroad[] because no factfinder could reasonably conclude that all [of a country’s] women had a well-founded fear of persecution based solely on their gender,” Safaie v. INS, 25 F.3d 636, 640 (8th Cir. 1994) (addressing Iranian women).8 Reasons to depart from this general rule are not present here. For example, in Hassan v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 513 (8th Cir. 2007), the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recognized the PSG of all Somali women because “all Somali females have a well-founded fear of persecution based solely on gender given the prevalence of” female genital mutilation. Id. at 518; see also Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 797–98 (9th Cir. 2005) (same); In re Kasinga, 21 I. & N. Dec. 357, 365–66 (B.I.A. 1996) (recognizing PSG of “young women” in a particular tribe in Togo due to pervasive practice of female
8 In Perdomo v. Holder, 611 F.3d 662, 668–69 (9th Cir. 2010), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit disagreed with the BIA’s conclusion that “all women in Guatemala” was too broad a group to qualify as a PSG and remanded for further analysis. That case rested on the Ninth Circuit’s two-part definition of a PSG, which recognized any group “united by a voluntary association, including a former association, or by an innate characteristic that is so fundamental to the identities or consciences of its members that members either cannot or should not be required to change it.” Id. at 666 (quotation marks and emphasis omitted). This definition is not consistent with our Court’s three requirements for a PSG, see S.E.R.L., 894 F.3d at 540, so we decline to follow the reasoning in Perdomo.
14
genital mutilation). Here, by contrast, there is no record evidence that all Guatemalan women share a unifying characteristic that results in them being targeted for any form of persecution based solely on their gender. Cf. A.R. 170–73, 182 (Chavez-Chilel’s testimony that she knew of no other women who suffered sexual or domestic violence); A.R. 232 (report explaining that one-third more Guatemalan women experience sexual or domestic violence against them than women in Paraguay). Accordingly, while the size of the group standing alone would not disqualify a group from being a PSG, Cece v. Holder, 733 F.3d 662, 674–75 (7th Cir. 2013), Chavez- Chilel has failed to demonstrate that her proposed PSG is sufficiently particularized. Thus, her alleged fear of persecution based upon membership in such a group does not provide a basis for asylum. Because Chavez-Chilel cannot prove her asylum claim, she cannot meet the higher standard to obtain withholding of removal. See Blanco v. Att’y Gen., 967 F.3d 304, 315 (3d Cir. 2020). As a result, the IJ and BIA correctly denied her request for asylum and withholding of removal.9
This is a seriously flawed analysis. The court conflates psg “particularity” with nexus. Obviously, not every woman in Guatemala need fear persecution for some to be persecuted on that basis!
Suppose a few Jews escaped Nazi persecution. Does that mean Jews weren’t a PSG? Suppose only 10% of Poles were killed by the Nazis because of their ethnicity. Does that mean Poles were not a PSG? Suppose only 40% of Roma in a particular country are exterminated? Does that make Roma not a PSG? What if every Catholic in a particular country doesn’t have the exact same fear of persecution? Does that mean that Catholics don’t have a “well-founded fear”of persecution? Does that mean that Catholicism isn’t “one central reason” for persecution? Of course not, except in the uninformed minds of Judge Shwartz and her panel colleagues!
Obviously “women in Guatemala” is 1) fundamental to identity; 2) particularized (it clearly excludes non-women); and 3) distinct in Guatemalan society (and every other country in the world). Indeed, like family “women” and “men” are among the oldest, most fundamental, readily recognizable “particular social groups” in human existence!
I’m not the only critic of this outrageous misconstruction of asylum law!
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
“Sir Jeffrey” Chase of the Round Table 🛡⚔️ says:
The court completely misconstrued the standard for determining particularity:
Here, by contrast, there is no record evidence that all Guatemalan women share a unifying characteristic that results in them being targeted for any form of persecution based solely on their gender.
Particularity of course is a clear marker for group inclusion, and does not require evidence that everyone in the group is being targeted for persecution – compare, e.g. family or land owners.
Professor Geoffrey Hoffman Immigraton Clinic Director University of Houston Law Center
Our friend and “practical scholar” colleague, Professor Geoffrey Hoffman of the University of Houston Law Center, adds:
Appears also to ignore the “once central reason” asylum rule in that the court is erroneously say gender must be “sole” reason (page 15, use of word “solely”)
So court got it wrong on 2 counts – not “all” women in Guatemala must be persecuted to form a valid PSG and gender need not be “sole reason” for the persecution.
Another colleague who practices in the 3rd Circuit sums it up succinctly and bluntly: “Awful!”
Dan Kowalski Online Editor of the LexisNexis Immigration Law Community (ILC)
In addition to being legally wrong on a number of points, as pointed out by Dan Kowalski at LexisNexis Immigration Community, the court’s decision is horrible policy:
Note that the IJ DID grant CAT relief, and the government did NOT appeal that grant.
The “good news” is that the CAT grant prevents Ms. Chavez-Calel from being returned to torture and persecution in Guatemala. However, by misapplying asylum law, the court basically places her in an indefinite “limbo status.”
She therefore is deprived of the right to fully integrate into our society by getting a green card and becoming a citizen. The court also strips her of any realistic path to exercising political rights! What sense does manipulating the law to intentionally create disenfranchised subclasses in American society make when better alternatives are available?
To add insult to injury, in this decision the Third Circuit joined other Circuits and the BIA in giving DHS and EOIR a “pass” on their intentional decision not to comply with the INA requirements for issuing a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) to commence removal proceedings.
Obviously, these “ivory towerists” have never experienced the actual mess that occurs when overworked, understaffed Immigration Court clerks manually mail out subsequent notices, by regular U.S. Mail, using addresses haphazardly entered by DHS personnel in the chaos that often exists at the border and upon release from DHS detention.
Perhaps, in their exalted positions, these Article IIIs no longer have to rely on the ever-deteriorating service of the U.S. Postal service. This morning, I delivered a “mini-stack” of mis-delivered U.S. Mail to my next door neighbor. We seem to get mis-delivered mail on a weekly basis. And, I live in a reasonably “upscale” neighborhood, if I do say so myself — one where folks know all the neighbors and take the time to “re-route” misdirected mail. Think there are places America where that doesn’t happen?
What do these judges think “delivery accuracy” is in the communities and situations where most Immigration Court respondents live? Maybe, there was a good reason why Congress required the NTA, which, unlike subsequent EOIR notices, is often served personally, to contain accurate information on the time and place of their hearing.
Maybe, we need Federal Judges who live in the “real world” rather than abstract one they have constructed where the lives of migrants are at issue! Maybe, we need more Federal Judges who have seen and experienced the consequences of “poor and uninformed judging” on immigrant and ethnic communities in the U.S.!
At a time when the Supremes’ righty majority appears to be intent on dismantling half a century of established women’s rights, the Third Circuit’s wrong-headed decision is a further “body blow” to both the humanity and human rights of women throughout the world!
Judge Schwartz is an Obama appointee. Her panel colleagues are GOP appointees. We deserve better from our life-tenured Federal Judiciary! Much, much better!
