"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
It’s also remarkable, if not surprising, that 33,000 of us, many representing larger groups, filed written comments OPPOSING Biden’s tone-deaf, anti-due-process, anti-rule-of-law, racially-targeted, designed-to-fail, Stephen-Miller-inspired “death to asylum (and asylum seekers)” proposed regulations!https://default.salsalabs.org/Ta42828aa-7c89-4fca-a530-ab64d55d9cdf/e9c83407-de3b-4bcf-a318-704cbcd599a2. As someone who spent considerable time analyzing public comments on regulations during my career, that’s an astounding show of unified opposition.
Of course, that doesn’t mean that Biden, Harris, Garland, Mayorkas, or anyone else in the Administration will listen. But, they should!
Unfortunately, the ridiculously short 30-day comment period and that this major reversal of the positions and values that Biden and Harris campaigned upon, without meaningful input and discussion with experts who actually understand the borders and have been present there, indicates that the the comments are likely to be largely ignored. That’s going to lead to big time litigation — from both progressives and GOP nativist/restrictionists.
But, discouragingly, the Biden Administration has shown itself to be willing to tie up time and resources insanely (and not necessarily successfully) doing battle with its own would-be supporters rather than fighting the right! Just who they think is going to be the “winner” here — other than, perhaps, Donald Trump and Jim Crow— is beyond me!
James “Jim” Crow Symbol of American Racism. Biden’s ill-advised and tone-deaf nativist asylum policies appear designed to appease this guy rather than to please those who actually voted for him and other Democratic candidates!
Instead of “running away” in the face of the GOP’s scurrilous “Anti-Woke Campaign:” targeting immigrants, the LGBTQ+ community, African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, Jews, Muslims, women’s reproductive rights, teachers, free speech, libraries, public education, medical science, the environment, social justice, the Federal Government, voting rights, unions, the working poor, and just about all “mainstream American” individual freedoms, the Biden Administration and Dems in general should stand up for what’s actually great about America and against the GOP’s vile, ignorant, hateful “culture warriors” and “Jim Crow racists and misogynists. Defending the legal rights and humanity of asylum seekers and other migrants would be a good place to start a real defense of American values and democracy! That is, if someone in power were really interested in those things!
Government Misleadingly Posts Enjoined Asylum Regs
As we all know, on December 10, the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security jointly published final rules widely referred to as the “Death to Asylum” regulations. On January 8, a U.S. District Court Judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking those rules from taking effect. The rules remain enjoined at present.
However, EOIR, the agency housing the Immigration Courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals, maintains a Virtual Law Library (“VLL”) on its website. Most EOIR judges, staff attorneys, and law clerks use the VLL to reference applicable law when drafting decisions. Many private lawyers and other interested individuals outside of government use the VLL as a resource as well. In addition to listing all precedent decisions of the BIA and the Attorney General, the VLL contains links to the most current versions of both the Immigration & Nationality Act and the regulations that interpret it.
One clicking on the link to the federal regulations on the VLL is taken to a site called e-CFR, which is maintained by the U.S. Government Printing Office. At present, that site displays the enjoined “Death to Asylum” rules as if they are presently in effect. The site does not state that the regulations have been enjoined, and therefore may not be relied on.
This means that at present, an Immigration Judge, Board Member, law clerk, staff attorney, or anyone else involved in the decision-making process who researches the law applicable to a pending asylum case will read rules that are not actually in force, but that mandate the denial of asylum in cases that should be granted under the actual applicable law. The judges and their staff will see “rules” that require an overly narrow view of what constitutes political opinion or a particular social group; of who may be a persecutor and of how nexus is established. They will see language making it more difficult to find that an asylum seeker could not have reasonably relocated within their country; that discourage reliance on country condition information critical to establishing many elements of individual claims; and that, in some cases, call for the termination of bona fide asylum claims as “frivolous,” a classification that carries a lifetime bar to any and all immigration benefits.
Remarkably, when made aware of the problem, government officials defended the posting of the non-applicable rules on the grounds that their “effective date” had been reached, and seemed unable to understand what the problem was. I would hope that the Biden Administration might instruct these officials why it might actually be a problem for judges to access rules requiring them to deny asylum claims they should actually be granting. They might want to add that it would be a particularly good practice to double-check before posting any rule commonly referred to as “Death to Something.”
In the meantime, attorneys should carefully review all written decisions from EOIR, checking whether they cite to the inapplicable regs.
Copyright 2021 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
Republished by permission.
***********************
They might want to add that it would be a particularly good practice to double-check before posting any rule commonly referred to as “Death to Something.”
In the meantime, attorneys should carefully review all written decisions from EOIR, checking whether they cite to the inapplicable regs.
Says it all! EOIR = FUBAR 🤡🦹🏿♂️☠️
Hey, it’s only human lives and futures at stake!
And, of course, it’s the job of the job of the private bar to “cite check” the (non) experts @ EOIR!
Just think how justice could be achieved with real expert judges who understand asylum law in the first place and competent judicial (not bureaucratic) management focused on quality, efficiency, best practices, and most of all, correct, just results that comply with due process and fundamental fairness? What if all Federal Courts (including the Supremes) functioned in the manner set forth in the previous sentence: Racial justice might become a reality rather than an unfulfilled promise!
Fold up the tent on the “Clown Show” 🤡🦹🏿♂️ and replace it with real judges and real courts. The right folks are out there! But, they are mostly fighting the “malicious incompetence” from the outside, rather than solving problems and promoting justice “from the inside.”
EOIR might not be using the correct version of 8 CFR. But, they DO have wasteful and unnecessary “Judicial Dashboards” on every bench to jack up stress levels, promote “corner cutting and sloppy work,” and check to make sure “deportation quotas” are being made!
Pangea Legal Services v. DHS (“Pangea II”), N.D. CA (USD Judge James Donato), 01-08-21
KEY QUOTE:
Wolf has not spent his time idly at DHS. During his relatively brief tenure, he has attempted to suspend the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, and impose administrative fees for immigration services and eliminate fee waivers, among other actions. These efforts resulted in several lawsuits in federal courts across the United States, each of which challenged Wolf’s rulemaking authority on the same grounds presented by plaintiffs here. In all of these cases, the district courts have concluded that Wolf was not a duly authorized Acting Secretary, and that his actions were a legal nullity. See Batalla Vidal v. Wolf, No. 16-CV-4756 (NGG) (VMS), 2020 WL 6695076, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2020); Nw. Immigrant Rights Project v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Servs., No. CV 19-3283 (RDM), 2020 WL 5995206, at *24 (D.D.C. Oct. 8, 2020); Immigrant Legal Res. Ctr. v. Wolf, No. 20-CV-05883-
United States District Court Northern District of California
Case 3:20-cv-09253-JD Document 66 Filed 01/08/21 Page 7 of 14
JSW, 2020 WL 5798269, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2020); Casa de Maryland, Inc. v. Chad F. Wolf, Case No. 8:20-cv-02118-PX, 2020 WL 5500165, at *23 (D. Md. Sept. 11, 2020).3
This Court is now the fifth federal court to be asked to plow the same ground about Wolf’s authority vel non to change the immigration regulations. If the government had proffered new facts or law with respect to that question, or a hitherto unconsidered argument, this might have been a worthwhile exercise. It did not. The government has recycled exactly the same legal and factual claims made in the prior cases, as if they had not been soundly rejected in well-reasoned opinions by several courts. The government initially appealed two of these decisions, both of which it later voluntarily dismissed, and appears to have only one appeal pending. In the main, the government contents itself simply with saying the prior courts were wrong, with scant explanation. See, e.g., Pangea Dkt. No. 48 at ECF p. 11 (“the various courts that have embraced this argument are mistaken”); Immigration Equality Dkt. No. 37 at 14 (same).
This is a troubling litigation strategy. In effect, the government keeps crashing the same car into a gate, hoping that someday it might break through. To be sure, one court decision alone does not necessarily close the door to any further cases or arguments along similar lines. Our common law system contemplates that more than one judicial examination of facts and issues is often merited. But our system has no room for relitigating the same facts and law in successive district court cases ad infinitum. That is what the government is doing here. The Court took pains at oral argument to discuss this with counsel for the government, and specifically asked how their arguments here are in any way different from the ones made and rejected in the preceding cases.4 Counsel responded mainly with a disparaging comment to the effect that the other district courts had shirked from working their way through the record. That is untrue. Each of the prior decisions conducted a painstaking analysis of the facts with respect to the Acting Secretary
3 The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has also found that Wolf’s appointment was invalid under the Homeland Security Act. See Matter of Dep’t of Homeland Security, Gov’t Accountability Office (Aug. 14, 2020), https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/708830.pdf, at 2.
4 Attorney August Flentje at DOJ handled this portion of the government’s argument at the hearing.
United States District Court Northern District of California
Case 3:20-cv-09253-JD Document 66 Filed 01/08/21 Page 8 of 14
position at DHS, with full attention to the unprecedented efforts to validate Wolf’s claim to the job, irrespective of governing law and procedures.
A good argument might be made that, at this point in time, the government’s arguments lack a good-faith basis in law or fact. But the Court need not reach that conclusion to reject those arguments yet again. The Court’s independent review of the record indicates that Batalla Vidal, 2020 WL 6695076, which is the latest decision before this order, correctly identified and analyzed the salient points vitiating Wolf’s claim of rulemaking authority, and the Court agrees with it in full.
********************
Wolf’s continuing impersonation of a Cabinet Officer and Barr’s knowingly illegal, ultra vires approval of clearly unlawfully promulgated regulations that actually threaten the lives of bona fide asylum seekers should be dealt with as criminal offenses after Jan. 20, 2021. Every Government official who participated in this travesty, as well as the unethical DOJ officials and their supervisors who were involved in the frivolous and unethical “defense” of this clearly unlawful, and invidiously motivated, action should be removed from Federal Service. Clearly, prosecutions should be explored against racist mastermind “human rights criminal” Stephen Miller.
As the regime of treason and insurrection comes to an end, those who knowingly helped further its gross illegalities should be held fully accountable under the law. Criminals have no right to government lawyers to defend their scofflaw behavior in civil actions like this!
The EOIR Clown Show 🦹🏿♂️🤡 must go! But, there also must be some accountability for those who abused their government positions and violated their oaths of office to illegally inflict harm and suffering on the most vulnerable among us.
We have seen a serious breakdown of legal ethics and bar policing responsibility at all levels of the Federal Government during the regime. That breakdown extends to Federal Judges all the way up to the indolent Supremes who have consistently failed to hold U.S. Government attorneys (including, specifically, the highly unethical former Solicitor General and his staff) accountable for their unethical behavior in engaging in frivolous civil litigation, advancing “bad faith” defenses for clearly illegal actions, seeking unjustified stays, manufacturing and arguing clear “pretexts” for unconstitutionally discriminatory Executive actions, failing to do even minimal “due diligence,” putting forth factually erroneous and misleading arguments, and allowing the government to abuse, harass, and waste the time of private counsel for improper purposes.
This case also reinforces the absolute necessity of nationwide injunctive relief against Government abuses like this. The “solicitation” of cases challenging and improperly narrowing this necessary form of relief, a corrupt project of the Federalist Society and the former Solicitor General, should raise serious questions of the judicial qualifications of the two “GOP Justices” who recently engaged in this form of rancid, immoral, and legally defective political pandering in their “separate opinion.” Better Justices for a Better America!
What really held the American legal system together for the last four perilous years was the tenacity of lawyers, many of them arguing Immigration or human rights cases pro bono, and the legal scholarship and courage of some U.S. District Judges who stood tall even in the face of a spineless and complicit Supremes’ majority that all too often failed to support them and could barely move fast enough to give a patently lawless, corrupt, racist, treasonous, and clearly unqualified President and his neo-Nazi minions carte blanch to abuse humanity and “Dred Scottify” persons of color. Leadership, moral courage, and integrity count. But for Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer, and the late RBG, the Supremes came up disastrously short of fulfilling their Constitutional rule in far, far too many cases, and innocent people suffered and died because of it. This is simply unacceptable in our highest level judges.
It’s high time for law schools to reexamine and beef up obviously inadequate ethical training, for a review of the failure of basic ethics throughout Government, and for review and reform of the scurrilous and unacceptable abdication of ethical norms and responsibilities by Federal Judges at every level of our floundering and failing Federal legal system. Criminals like Wolf and Miller and clowns like EOIR officials violate the laws and degrade humanity because they have every reason to believe they will get away with it. They must be held accountable if we want the abuses that came close to destroying our democracy this week to be stopped!
Subject: [immprof] Amicus Brief on Behalf of Immigration Law Scholars on “Monster” Asylum Rule
Dear Colleagues:
Happy New Year! I hope you are staying well. We are pleased to share an amicus brief filed in the Northern District of California last week challenging the “monster” asylum rule, published as a final rule in December 2020. We are grateful to the immigration law scholars who signed onto this brief. The brief is focused on three aspects of the rule: 1) expansion of discretionary bars in general; 2) discretionary bars on unlawful entry and use of fraudulent documents in particular; and 3) expansion of the firm resettlement bar. The brief argues that these bars conflict with the immigration statute and further that the Departments have failed to provide a reasonable explanation for departing from past statutory interpretation with regard to these bars.
Co-counsel included Loeb & Loeb, Peter Margulies, and myself. We are grateful to the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program and other organizations who served as counsel to plaintiffs in this case.
Best wishes, Peter and Shoba
Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia (she, her)
Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar | Clinical Professor of Law
Many thanks to Peter, Shoba, Loeb & Loeb, and all the many great minds with courageous hearts ♥️ involved in this effort!
I’ve said it often: It’s time to cut through the BS and bureaucratic bungling that have plagued past Dem Administrations and put progressive practical scholars like Shoba, Peter, and their NDPA expert colleagues in charge of EOIR, the BIA, and the rest of the immigration bureaucracy. It’s also time to end “Amateur Night at the Bijou” 🎭🤹♀️and put “pros” like this in charge of developing and implementing Constitutionally compliant, legal, practical, humane immigration and human rights policies that achieve equal justice for all (one of the Biden-Harris Administration’s stated priorities), further the common interest, and finally rationalize and optimize (now “gonzo out of control”) immigration enforcement.
Professor Karen Musalo Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Hastings LawBlaine Bookey Legal Director Center for Gender & Refugee Studies @ Hastings Law Photo: CGRS website
Groups Challenge Trump Administration Rule Gutting Asylum
Thursday, December 24, 2020
Four immigrant rights organizations – Pangea Legal Services, Dolores Street Community Services, Inc., Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC), and Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights Coalition – have requested a temporary restraining order in a lawsuit challenging a sweeping new rule that will eviscerate access to protection for people seeking refuge in the United States. Set to take effect on January 11, 2021, the rule completely transforms the asylum process, severely limiting the availability of asylum and related protections to individuals fleeing persecution or torture. The plaintiff organizations are represented by the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program, and the law firm of Sidley Austin LLP.
“Published in the waning hours of the Trump administration, this rule marks its most far-reaching attempt to end asylum yet, and a death knell to our country’s longstanding commitment to offer safe haven for the persecuted,” said Jamie Crook, Director of Litigation at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies. “The rule violates our laws, flouts our treaty obligations, and upends decades of legal precedent. If the mammoth rule is permitted to take effect, it will result in people being deported to face persecution, torture, and even death in their home countries.”
The rule deprives asylum seekers of any semblance of due process, imposing many barriers to relief before they even have the opportunity to present their case in immigration court. Among its numerous harmful provisions, the rule allows judges to deny an asylum application without holding a hearing. The rule also establishes 12 new “discretionary” factors that will bar many asylum seekers from life-saving protection. These include a de facto bar to asylum for applicants who pass through another country en route to the United States, effectively codifying and expanding the Trump administration’s third country transit bar, which the courts have already struck down as unlawful.
For those who are able to get their case before a judge, the new rule radically redefines who qualifies as a “refugee,” distorting the law so thoroughly that adjudicators can deny relief to virtually all applicants. The rule explicitly excludes from protection survivors of gender-based violence, children and families targeted by gangs, and people fleeing other abhorrent abuses. It also redefines “persecution” in such a way that judges will be directed to deny asylum even to individuals who have been detained and threatened with death due to their beliefs.
“Despite its enormous scope, the administration rushed this rule through the regulatory process without regard for its life-or-death implications for asylum seekers,” said Sabrineh Ardalan, Director of the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program. “The administration chose to brush aside nearly 90,000 public comments raising serious concerns with the proposed rule.”
The plaintiffs in this lawsuit are nonprofit organizations that provide immigration legal services and have previously come together to stop other Trump administration attempts to erect unlawful barriers to asylum. They contend that the new rule will make it far more difficult to assist asylum-seeking clients and cause serious harm to the immigrant communities they serve.
The plaintiffs have asked the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to issue a permanent nationwide injunction to prevent the rule from taking effect, arguing that the rule violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and the United States’ duty under international law not to return people to persecution or torture. On Wednesday the plaintiffs requested a temporary restraining order to immediately halt implementation of the rule while the court considers the case.
The plaintiffs also argue that the rule is procedurally invalid, as it was co-issued by Acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf, whom multiplecourts have declared was unlawfully appointed to his position and lacks the authority to promulgate such a rule.
*****************
Speeding up executions, killing and torturing the most vulnerable humans, denying COVID relief to desperate Americans, issuing corrupt pardons to murderers, fraudsters, cronies, and dishonest politicos, plotting treason against the USG — that’s how the regime and its sycophants have spent their waning days.
Despite the obvious desire to move on and avoid dealing with the crimes and overt corruption of the defeated regime, it will be difficult for the Biden-Harris Administration to avoid questions of accountability for the worst President, worst regime, and worst major party in U.S. history. Honestly coming to grips with the past is often a prerequisite for a better future.
