"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.
“In sum, the BIA erred in finding that Chicas-Machado was not a refugee under the INA due to a lack of nexus to a protected ground, religion. Chicas-Machado demonstrated past persecution on account of religion, and is therefore entitled to the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Qiao Hua Li, 405 F.3d at 176-77. Recognizing the BIA’s error, we grant the petition for review and remand the case for further proceedings. Upon remand, the BIA must determine whether the Government can rebut the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. 8 If the BIA concludes that Chicas-Machado is eligible for asylum on remand, it should reconsider her withholding of removal claim. See Sorto-Guzman, 42 F.4th at 450. We decline to reach all other issues raised on appeal as to her asylum and withholding of removal claims, and direct the BIA to reevaluate those claims following its reconsideration of Chicas-Machado’s asylum application. See Arita-Deras v. Wilkinson, 990 F.3d 350, 361 n.10 (4th Cir. 2021) (declining to reach the merits of withholding of removal appeal after finding error in the BIA’s asylum analysis).”
“This petition raises important questions about proper notice in removal proceedings. Federal immigration law mandates that the government provide a noncitizen with a written notice to appear that contains certain critical details about her removal hearing, including the “time and place” of the proceedings. In a pair of recent decisions, the Supreme Court has clarified that the notice to appear must be a single document containing all statutorily required information. See Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021); Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). Petitioners Azucena Aracely Lazo-Gavidia and her minor son were ordered removed in absentia. The immigration judge denied their motion to reopen the removal proceedings and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed their appeal. Because Lazo-Gavidia and her son received defective notices to appear, we grant their petition, vacate the Board’s order dismissing their appeal, and remand for further proceedings.”
[Hats off to Glenn Fogle! Listen to the oral argument here.]
“Because an offender can be convicted under Nebraska’s shoplifting statute when he acts with an intent not encompassed by a generic theft offense, we hold that the statute sweeps more broadly than the generic federal offense. Accordingly, the BIA erred in finding that Thok was removable for having committed a theft offense—and, thus, an aggravated felony—based upon his Nebraska shoplifting convictions. … For the foregoing reasons, we grant the petition for review, vacate the BIA’s order, and remand the matter to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this decision.”
“Mercy Naah, a native of Cameroon, was charged as removable from the United States. She applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Naah demonstrated that she is unable or unwilling to return to Cameroon because of past persecution on account of her political opinion. Accordingly, we grant her petition for review as to her asylum and withholding of removal claims and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports for the Round Table 🛡️⚔️:
5. Experts
Unpublished 1st Cir. Victory [Experts]
[T]o keep it brief, we were on the winning side in an unpublished 1st Cir. decision issued today in which the IJ and BIA wrongly gave little weight to an country expert’s opinion on the risk petitioner faced in a CAT case. Decision attached. The Round Table filed an amicus brief in this one. Another great win for SangYeob Kim, Gilles Bissonnette and the ACLU of New Hampshire!
More to follow. We continue to make a difference!
Best, Jeff
I have just learned that counsel is filing a motion to publish. There is good language regarding the evidentiary weight of one qualified as an expert who testifies credibly. The decision points out that an expert need not have personal knowledge of the facts underlying their opinion, as long as such opinion is based on sufficient facts or data;” that “An expert cannot be “undermined by his reliance on facts . . . that have not been disputed;” and that where an IJ makes factual findings not consistent with the expert’s opinion, it is important for the IJ to explain the reasons behind those findings.
Why do Dems routinely shoot themselves in the foot on immigration while driving a wedge between Dems in power and the immigration/social justice advocates who helped them get there?
In each of the 4th Circuit cases here, our Dem AG aligned himself with restrictionist positions advocated by dissenting Bush II and Trump appointees, while eschewing the far better-reasoned, more practical approaches advocated by expert advocates and adopted by the jurists in the majority who are committed to due process.
As the 4th Circuit majority in Chicas-Machado cogently points out, the BIA’s “excessively narrow reading” of nexus conflicts with both the statutory language and practical considerations regarding the motivation of persecutors (not to mention riding roughshod over existing, binding Circuit precedent). The BIA has a long and troubling history of ignoring “mixed motive” to deny asylum.
Yet, instead of improving under Dems, the BIA’s abuse of nexus to wrongfully disqualify qualified refugees from protection has continued to metastasize under Garland! It’s all part of the anti-immigrant, “any reason to deny” culture at EOIR, promoted by Sessions and Barr and not effectively addressed by Garland.
Happy to see another Round Table victory on use of experts. But, the 1st Circuit should have published this instructive decision. Hopefully, they now will!
As we know, the BIA’s systemic mishandling of experts is a chronic problem, particularly as the BIA intentionally overcomplicates the law, as a “deterrent,” so experts are almost a requirement for success. (Even though it is well-known that many asylum applicants have difficulty just getting competent pro bono lawyers to represent them, let alone the services of “pro bono experts.”). Every example helps expose the BIA’s professional misconduct, for which Garland and his DOJ leadership have shown an unusual and disturbing tolerance.
If you don’t bring an expert, they deny for failure to sustain your B/P! If you do bring an expert, they minimize, misconstrue, or ignore their testimony!
“Catch 22” — the applicant loses either way!
Experts are also important because it’s an area where the Article IIIs’ experience with experts in civil litigation far exceeds the BIA’s. Therefore, they are apt to recognize the BIA’s sharp divergence from the weight and respect ordinarily given to experts in civil litigation. Hence, we have had substantial success with the Circuits in challenging the BIA’s continuing, inappropriately dismissive, treatment of experts.
The BIA routinely uses sloppy, often internally inconsistent, “boilerplate” in their decisions. Yet, they somehow find time to “nitpick” expert testimony looking for every minor or insignificant “omission” or “discrepancy” to discredit the expert! What a disgrace!
Finally, on Naah v. Garland, a special “shout out” to long-time NDPA stalwart and role model Danielle Beach-Oswald on her victory in a Cameroonian political persecution case in the 5th Circuit. As the decision reflects, asylum victories on non-procedural issues are hard to come by in the 5th. Danielle was a “Legacy Arlington Immigration Court regular” during my time on the bench. This just further cements her status as “one of the best in the business!”
Congrats, Danielle, and thanks for all you do!
Think how much better this system would function with a BIA of real subject-matter experts focused on due process and fundamental fairness — rather than helping out their “partners” at DHS enforcement and protecting their careers in the process! And, what if we also had a Dem AG focused on due process for immigrants in “his” courts, rather than being asleep at the switch and complicit in some of the worst, anti immigrant, biased, backlog building “jurisprudence” rolled out by the Federal “justice” system!
What if once in office, Dems actually courageously stood up for the immigrants, advocates, and values they claim to represent during elections?
Small Acts of ThanksI would like to share a nice story (for once). It illustrates how a postscript can sometimes prove far more meaningful than the main story.
A friend and colleague in the DC area, Eileen Blessinger of Blessinger Legal, planned a series of training lectures via Zoom during the pandemic. When I initially agreed to present one of the sessions on asylum law, I was told it would be for an audience of eighteen people.
Somehow, the number of attendees increased significantly. Because meetings of more than 100 people require an upgrade on Zoom, Eileen asked participants for a small donation. I believe the training went well, and that seemed to be the end of the story.
Later that night, Eileen informed me that because the number of attendees was well over 100, there was a surplus of donations beyond what was needed to cover the Zoom upgrade. After a brief exchange, we agreed that the surplus should go to pandemic first responders.
Realizing the virtue of what was initially an unintended consequence, the next speaker, Louisiana-based attorney Glenda Regnart, also agreed to open her session to a wider audience, who were invited to make a small donation to treat first responders. Subsequent speakers Kelly White, Himedes Chicas, Anam Rahman, Julie Soininen, Danielle Beach-Oswald, Heain Lee, and Jennifer Jaimes agreed to follow suit. Over $1300 was raised.
Eileen took over from there, inviting suggestions for recipients from her staff. So far, she has provided meals to nurses at Mass General Hospital in Boston; to employees at supermarkets in Louisiana and Virginia, and to preparers of meals for those in need in Alexandria, VA. Plans are also in the works to provide a meal for DC-area sanitation workers.
Those of us able to quarantine comfortably and work from home owe an unimaginable debt to those putting themselves at risk to keep our cities and towns running, keeping us all fed and safe. And as most of us read of infection and death rates as impersonal statistics, the nurses and other medical workers who are battling the disease on the frontlines on a daily basis, putting their own health at risk in the process, are far beyond our ability to properly thank.
It was a donation to another group that touched me in an unexpected way because of its connection to an earlier unspeakable tragedy. Eileen forwarded me the accompanying photo of FDNY firefighters enjoying the meal provided for them from the training surplus. Looking at the photo, I was suddenly transported back to the fall of 2001. My wife and I, who both worked in lower Manhattan, were physically very close to events on 9/11. What we saw still triggers traumatic memories. Among the horrible and tragic statistics is the heartbreaking fact that 343 firefighters died that day. More than 200 more have died as the result of illnesses they subsequently contracted in the rescue effort.
I walked past the firehouse on Duane Street every day on my way to and from work when I was an immigration judge. I remember the feeling of grief when passing by in the months following 9/11, and of stopping there one day in October to make a donation, and of words completely failing me as I tried to express my sadness and gratitude.
In the present pandemic, 15 firefighters in the unit pictured here (Engine 286/Ladder 135) had contracted COVID-19 as of last week. As early as April 7, 500 of New York’s Bravest had contracted coronavirus. Many more continue to be exposed as first responders to emergency calls from those stricken with the disease. And the firefighter who took the photo, Jerry Ross, was also a 9/11 responder.
So once again, we are reminded of the great debt we owe to so many. Thanks again to Eileen and all of the other speakers, and of course to all who contributed. Hopefully, these small acts of thanks will bring a little joy to these most essential and selfless heroes.
*************************
Go to Jeffrey’s blog at the above link for the accompanying photo of Engine 286/Ladder 135 enjoying their meal!
Thanks Jeffrey & Eileen!
So proud that in addition to Eileen, of course, so many of the wonderful pro bono attorneys highlighted in this article were “regulars” before us during my time at the Arlington Immigration Court: Kelly White, Anam Rahman, Julie Soininen, Danielle Beach-Oswald, and Jennifer Jaimes. Also, Jennifer is a former Legal Intern at the Arlington Immigration Court who was part of our daily “run the stairs challenge” (at the former Ballston location) with then Court Administrator Judges Bryant and Snow, and me. Ah, those were the days!
Jennifer Jaimes Esquire Jaimes Legal, LLC Baltimore, MD
