"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.
|
**********************
As pointed out by the NAIJ Board, it’s not over till it’s over! But, definitely a big step in the right direction for the NAIJ, the Garland DOJ, and the Biden Administration!
PWS
06-26-26
June 7, 2021
The Honorable Merrick Garland Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice Washington, DC 20500
RE: Department of Justice Should Support the National Association of Immigration Judges and Withdraw the Petition to Decertify its Union
Dear Attorney General Garland,
We, the undersigned unions, organizations, immigration law professors and scholars, and other immigration court stakeholders call your attention to the urgent need to preserve and protect the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) and support collective bargaining by Department of Justice (DOJ) career civil servants. We are heartened by President Biden’s announcements on January 22, 2021, that both overturned his predecessor’s policies limiting employee rights to collectively bargain and also implement a wide-ranging policy to protect, empower, and rebuild the career federal workforce. President Biden’s announcements specifically encourage union organizing and collective bargaining.1
After four relentless years of union-busting, decisive leadership is needed to refortify the federal workforce. NAIJ and its 500+ bargaining unit members—immigration judges who are DOJ attorney employees—are in need of protection right now! NAIJ has been the collective bargaining representative for immigration judges since 1979. Yet, in 2019, the Trump administration filed a petition to strip immigration judges of their statutory right to be represented by a union and decertify NAIJ.
The Trump administration targeted NAIJ in retaliation for NAIJ’s criticism of both the unreasonable working conditions that DOJ managers imposed on its members and the sweeping curtailment of due process rights in immigration court.
While the decertification attempt was initially and thoroughly rejected in a decision by a career employee of the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), the decision was abruptly reversed
1 Executive Order 14003, on Protecting the Federal Workforce. 1
in a politically-motivated decision by the FLRA. That FLRA decision ignored the detailed fact-finding of the career employee and reversed long-standing FLRA precedent that 20 years earlier had found that immigration judges were not in a position to influence agency policy.
The FLRA decision is devoid of any reasoned analysis and creates an extremely dangerous precedent for professional workers throughout the federal government. Future administrations could wield this decision like a sword to preclude other professional employees such as physicians, scientists, engineers, and others from unionizing. Indeed, this ill-conceived anti-union precedent could have devastating repercussions for decades to come.
At this moment, a motion to reconsider is currently pending at the FLRA, and we call on the DOJ to withdraw its opposition to that motion, withdraw its decertification petition, and take all steps to restore collective bargaining rights for NAIJ members. President Biden has committed to restoring labor unions and fair working conditions for federal employees. We ask the DOJ to do its part in supporting that objective by taking all necessary actions to ensure that the NAIJ remains a union so that it can continue to represent its members in support of fair working conditions. Doing so will be a service to Immigration Court stakeholders and the public at large.
We seek your immediate review and leadership in this matter. Sincerely,
Amiena Khan
Amiena Khan, President
National Association of Immigration Judges
Unions: AFL-CIO
American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), AFL-CIO American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), Local 511
American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), Local 3525
American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees American Federation of Teachers
Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO
Association of Flight Attendants-CWA
2
Communications Workers of America (CWA)
Department for Professional Employees, AFL-CIO
Federal Education Association
International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE) International Union of Painters and Allied Trades
Labor Council for Latin American Advancement National Association of Government Employees National Education Association
National Federation of Federal Employees National Nurses United
National Treasury Employees Union
National Weather Service Employees Organization Patent Office Professional Association
Service Employees International Union (SEIU) The International Brotherhood of Teamsters UNITE HERE
United Mine Workers of America
United Power Trades Organization
Organizations:
African Services Committee
Alliance for Justice
American Immigration Lawyers Association AsylumWorks
3
Bellevue Program for Survivors of Torture Brooklyn Law School Safe Harbor Project Catholic Labor Network
Catholic Legal Services, Archdiocese of Miami Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. Center for Gender & Refugee Studies
Columbia Law School Immigrants’ Rights Clinic Disciples Immigration Legal Counsel
Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project Immigrant Defenders Law Group
The Legal Aid Society
Migrant Center for Human Rights
Minnesota Interfaith Coalition on Immigration Mississippi Center for Justice
National Immigration Law Center
National Network for Immigrant & Refugee Rights The Right to Immigration Institute
Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
Law Professors and Scholars with Institutional Affiliation for Identification Purposes only:
Sabi Ardalan
Clinical Professor of Law
Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program Harvard Law School*
Roxana C. Bacon
4
Adjunct Professor of Law Arizona State University* University of Arizona* University of Miami*
David Baluarte
Associate Clinical Professor of Law Washington & Lee University School of Law*
Jon Bauer
Clinical Professor of Law and Richard D. Tulisano ’69 Scholar in Human Rights University of Connecticut School of Law*
Lenni B. Benson
Distinguished Chair of Immigration and Human Rights Law New York Law School*
Matthew Boaz
Professor
Washington & Lee School of Law*
Stacy Caplow
Associate Dean of Experiential Education & Professor of Law Brooklyn Law School*
Rose Cuison-Villazor
Vice Dean and Professor of Law Rutgers Law School*
Ingrid Eagly
Professor of Law
University of California Los Angeles School of Law*
Lauren Gilbert
Professor
St. Thomas University College of Law*
Lindsay M. Harris
Associate Professor & Director, Immigration & Human Rights Clinic University of the District of Columbia, David A. Clarke School of Law*
Katie Herbert Meyer
Associate Professor of Practice and Director of the Immigration Law Clinic Washington University*
Geoffrey Hoffman
Clinical Professor and Immigration Clinic Director
5
University of Houston Law Center*
Alan Hyde
Distinguished Professor of Law and Sidney Reitman Scholar Rutgers Law School*
Erin Jacobsen
Professor and Director at Vermont Law School’s South Royalton Legal Clinic Vermont Immigrant Assistance
Vermont Law School*
Hiroko Kusuda
Clinic Professor and Director of Immigration Law Section
Loyola University New Orleans College of Law*
Stuart H. Smith Law Clinic and Center for Center for Social Justice
Vanessa Merton
Professor of Law
Immigration Justice Clinic Elizabeth Haub School of Law*
Karen Musalo
Professor and Founding Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies and the Refugee and Human Rights Clinic
U.C. Hastings College of the Law*
Lori A. Nessel
Professor
Seton Hall University School of Law*
Michael A. Olivas
Wm B. Bates Distinguished Chair (Emeritus) University of Law Center*
Maria Mercedes Pabon Professor of Law
Loyola University New Orleans*
Carrie Rosenbaum
Lecturer in Legal Studies University of California, Berkeley*
Faiza Sayed
Visiting Professor of Clinical Law and Co-Director Safe Harbor Clinic
6
Brooklyn Law School*
Gemma Solimene
Clinical Associate Professor of Law Fordham University School of Law*
Elissa Steglich
Clinical Professor and Co-director Immigration Clinic University of Texas School of Law*
Mark E. Steiner
Professor of Law
South Texas College of Law Houston*
Enid Trucios-Haynes Brandeis School of Law University of Louisville*
Irene Scharf
Professor
Immigration Law Clinic University of Massachusetts*
Doug Smith
Lecturer in Legal Studies Brandeis University*
Paul Wickham Schmidt Immigrationcourtside.com
Erica B. Schommer
Clinical Professor of Law
St. Mary’s University School of Law*
Michael J. Wishnie
William O. Douglas Clinical Professor of Law Yale Law School*
*Institutional affiliation for identification purposes only
7
*****************************
Thanks to my friend Judge Amiena Khan and the rest of her leadership group at the NAIJ for all they do to fight for due process for individuals in Immigration Court!
To date, Garland and his team have been busy defending Billy Barr’s and Trump’s corruption from legal accountability, appointing Barr’s hand-picked “judges” to their overtly non-progressive judiciary, attempting to intimidate the press (until the White House finally had to intervene), and carrying out pre-existing Stephen Miller inspired precedents and policies. Oh yeah, and engaging in their own mindless unilateral round of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (a/k/a yet another designed to fail “Dedicated Docket”) in Immigration Court while continuing to build on the pre-existing 1.3 million case backlog. They have also been occupied with ignoring every progressive and expert suggestion and NOT appointing progressives to leadership and judicial positions. Wow! That’s a very full plate (of unappetizing food)!
So, I’m not holding my breath for a favorable response to the latest request for the injection of some legality, common sense, and decency into EOIR. Nor am I expecting Biden and Harris to honor their commitment to Federal Employee Unions, after watching their performance to date on immigration and human rights. Additionally, given the continuing abysmal performance of EOIR and its ongoing waste and incompetence, I doubt whether they want any “internal critics” speaking truth to power.
So far, Garland is on course to be “Billy Barr, Jr.” While that might help Barr to avoid legal accountability for his corrupt administration of justice @ Justice, it’s not so good for progressives who would like to see (and once believed they would see) some “justice from Justice” particularly for racial minorities, women, children, asylum seekers, and other migrants.
They also would like to see at least minimally professional and respectful treatment of those appearing and representing individuals in Immigration Court. While Garland, Monaco, Gupta, and Clarke are all being paid comfortable “top of the line” USG salaries for ignoring long-overdue progressive reforms @ EOIR, many attorneys representing individuals in their “Star Chambers” are operating pro bono or low bono in their attempts to keep Garland’s failing and flailing system afloat.
Just more reasons why we need an independent Article I Immigration Court to deliver due process, racial, and gender justice to individuals, regardless of status.
PWS
06-08-21
May 28, 2021
VIA EMAIL to SRindependenceJL@ohchr.org
The Honorable Diego García-Sayán
Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Palais des Nations
1211 Geneva 10
Switzerland
Dear Honorable García-Sayán,
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Questionnaire on Gender Equality in the Judiciary.
I am writing in my capacity as Chair of the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee of the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ). I am currently seated at the New York Federal Plaza Immigration Court. Hon. Brea Burgie and I co-chair the NAIJ Gender Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Subcommittee.
Organizational Background
By way of introduction, NAIJ is a non-partisan, non-profit, voluntary association of United States Immigration Judges. Since 1979, the NAIJ has been the recognized representative of Immigration Judges for collective bargaining purposes. Our mission is to promote the independence of Immigration Judges and enhance the professionalism, dignity, and efficiency of the Immigration Courts, which are the trial-level tribunals where removal proceedings initiated by the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) are conducted. We work to improve our court system through: educating the public, legal community and media; providing testimony at congressional oversight hearings; and advocating for the integrity and independence of the Immigration Courts and Immigration Court reform. We also seek to improve the Court system and protect the interests of our members, collectively and individually, through dynamic liaison activities with management, formal and informal grievances, and collective bargaining. In addition, we represent Immigration Judges in disciplinary proceedings, seeking to protect judges against unwarranted discipline and to assure that when discipline must be imposed it is imposed in a manner that is fair and serves the public interest.
1
The focus of the NAIJ Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee is to identify underrepresented groups of association members and remove or reduce unconscious biases with respect to such underrepresented groups. We facilitate the ongoing and continuing effort to foster a culture and atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding for our judges.
Need for Judicial Independence
Our courts are in need of reform due to unprecedented challenges facing the Immigration Courts and Immigration Judges. This is particularly important, because achieving judicial independence is essential to ensuring a diversity of opinions and reducing bias in adjudications. Immigration Courts have faced structural deficiencies, crushing caseloads and unacceptable backlogs for many years. Many of the “solutions” that have been set forth to address these challenges have in fact exacerbated the problems and undermined the integrity of the Courts, encroached on the independent decision-making authority of the Immigration Judges, and further enlarged the backlogs.
The Immigration Court suffers from an inherent structural defect as it resides in a law enforcement, Executive branch agency – the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). The inherent conflict present in pairing the law enforcement mission of the DOJ with the mission of a court of law that mandates independence from all other external pressures, including those of law enforcement priorities, has seriously compromised the very integrity of the Immigration Court system. Immigration Judges make life-changing decisions on whether or not non-citizens are allowed to remain in the United States. Presently, approximately 538 Immigration Judges in the United States are responsible for adjudicating almost 1,300,000 cases. The work is hard. The law is complicated; the labyrinth of rules and regulations require expertise in an arcane field of law. Many of the individuals brought into proceedings do not have attorneys to represent them despite the fact that the DHS is always represented by attorneys because they have no right to appointed counsel. In contrast to our judicial role, we are considered by the DOJ to be government attorneys, fulfilling routine adjudicatory roles in a law enforcement agency. With each new administration, we are harshly reminded of that subordinate role and subjected to the vagaries of the prevailing political winds.
The problems compromising the integrity and proper administration of a court underscore the need to remove the Immigration Court from the political sphere of a law enforcement agency and assure its judicial independence. Since the 1981 Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy, the idea of creating an Article I court, similar to the U.S. Tax Court, has been advanced. Such a structure solves a myriad of problems which now plague our Court: removing a politically accountable Cabinet level policy maker from the helm; separating the decision makers from the parties who appear before them; protecting judges from the cronyism of a too close association with DHS; assuring a transparent funding stream instead of items buried in the budget of a larger agency with competing needs; and eliminating top-heavy agency bureaucracy.
In the last 35 years, a strong consensus has formed supporting this structural change. For years experts debated the wisdom of far-reaching restructuring of the Immigration Court system. Now most Immigration Judges and attorneys agree the long-term solution to the problem is to restructure the Immigration Court system. Examples of those in support include the American Bar Association, the Federal Bar Association, the National Association of Women Judges, and
2
the American Immigration Lawyers Association. These are the recognized legal experts and representatives of the public who appear before us. Their voices deserve to be heeded. To that end, the Federal Bar Association has prepared proposed legislation setting forth the blueprint for the creation of an “Article 1” or independent Immigration Court. This proposal would remove the Immigration Court from the purview of the DOJ to form an independent Court. The legislation would establish a “United States Immigration Court” with responsibility for functions of an adjudicative nature that are currently being performed by the judges and appellate Board members in the Executive Office for Immigration Review.
Questionnaire Response
As of May 19, 2021, there are 538 Immigration Judges (including supervisory Immigration Judges). Of those 313 (or 58.2%) are male and 225 (or 41.8%) are female. Of the 40 Immigration Judges who serve in supervisory/leadership roles, 17 (or 43%) are female. There are 23 Appellate Immigration Judges. In line with international trends where there is more parity for judges overall, but less for high-ranking judicial officers, seven of the Appellate Immigration Judges (or 30%) are female. Currently, EOIR has a female acting agency Director, but the agency has never had a permanent female head. Therefore, while EOIR is approaching gender equality for Immigation Judges overall, there is still a deficit in female leadership at the highest levels.
During the period 2008 – 2013, the agency identified as a clearly articulated strategic objective the hiring of candidates reflecting gender diversity. We are not aware of an updated strategy for addressing this objective. It is our view that when an agency is helmed by largely homogeneous leaders, there is a lack of varied perspectives which inhibits innovation and insights, workers’ morale suffers, the organization becomes less able to attract and retain top talent, fewer diverse career officials are promoted to management positions, and the problem becomes self-perpetuating. This condition also provides fertile ground for implicit bias to take hold and flourish, infiltrating future recruitment, as well as implicating the decisions we render in the individual cases which come before us.
The Biden administration has made diversifying the federal workforce, including at DOJ, a top priority. We are hopeful that more work will be done in the months ahead to support greater gender parity in judicial roles throughout the agency and the Immigration Court. More flexible workplace options are needed, including expanded telework and flexible working hours, which have proven to be workable and effective during the pandemic. As numerous studies have shown, women bear an overwhelming majority of caretaking responsibilities: for children, elderly parents, and family members who need additional care. Ensuring continuation of the flexible policies the Department of Justice adopted during the pandemic would ensure that more women could take roles as Immigration Judges, or stay in that role long-term, and keep a healthy work-life balance.
In regard to promoting female leadership at the highest levels of EOIR, the agency needs to examine the work culture that is rigid rather than flexible in addressing the unexpected needs of employees, and expects individuals to work long hours and be available to work evenings and weekends. This culture excludes many women who may otherwise bring valuable contributions to top-level agency positions.
3
We appreciate your time, and attention to this issue. Sincerely,
Mimi Tsankov
Hon. Mimi Tsankov
Chair, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee
Co-Chair Gender Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Subcommittee
4
*****************************
Many thanks to my friend Judge Mimi Tsankov (who also serves with me on the ABA’s National Conference on the Administrative Law Judiciary) for bringing this to my attention.
As Judge Tsankov points out, there has been some progress toward “gender equity” in terms of overall profile. However, in my view, this has been more than offset by 1) the “single sourcing” of judicial appointments to basically discourage and exclude progressive experts, advocates from the private sector, and those with backgrounds in advancing human rights and immigrants’ rights; and 2) constant political interference from the DOJ (under both parties) to promote their political agendas, usually anti-due-process, anti-immigrant, anti-asylum-seeker, and pro-enforcement, with definite overriding racial and nationalist overtones.
Indeed, the sad situation of the NAIJ itself — bogusly “decertified” by “Billy the Bigot” Barr as “punishment” for exercising First Amendment rights, exposing waste and bias, and “daring to speak truth to power” speaks for itself. To date, despite the Biden Administration’s claim to be supportive of the rights of Government employees, Garland has allowed the NAIJ (not to mention asylum seekers and other migrants) to continue to “twist in the wind.”
It’s also worth noting that the NAIJ is the only entity providing meaningful due process and anti-bias training to Immigration Judges. Indeed, it is the only entity providing any type of useful professional training and continuing judicial education at EOIR!
PWS
06-08-21
Polly A. Webber: Muzzling America’s Immigration Judges is a Travesty
Polly A. Webber, Nov. 19, 2020 – Muzzling America’s Immigration Judges is a Travesty
“It can’t be much of a surprise that I should have deep insight and strong feelings about the current state of our Immigration Courts, after more than forty years working in immigration law, twenty-one of them as an Immigration Judge appointed by Attorney General Janet Reno in 1995. Having retired in 2016, the issues I noted have become radically more pronounced and dire.
What do children in cages, refugee camps in Mexico, TV judges, lengthy delays and erratic scheduling have in common? They are all a part of the new look of the Trump Immigration Court, a shift in style and substance that is extraordinarily dismaying in many of its aspects. The Immigration Court is not an independent judicial tribunal. It is housed in a small agency within the Department of Justice (DOJ). Because of that placement, the Court has been plagued by a conflicted, dual identity, aspiring to be an independent tribunal while housed in law enforcement. It was only a matter of time before this politicized enforcement branch infected the Court.
Immigration Judges were recognized in 1979 as a collective bargaining unit called the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ). Why did the judges feel a need to seek the protection of a labor organization? Quite simply, almost none of the people managing the huge bureaucracy of the Court actually spend any time in courtrooms. These high-level policy makers often have no practical knowledge of how the Court functions, and this defect has persisted through multiple political administrations. The DOJ issues policy and practice memoranda that bind judges without consulting them about their practical impact. Thus, a need arose for collective bargaining to assure input from the judges who implement these edicts.
On November 2nd, in an action by DOJ to decertify NAIJ, the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), remanded the action back to the Regional Director for a final decision, finding that Immigration Judges influence policy and are thus managers. That notion is laughable. Applying established law to a particular case is not influencing policy. Virtually every decision the judges make is subject to review and reversal by higher courts. Generally, judges are under the thumb of DOJ, ignored or ridiculed by leadership. It has gotten far worse for my colleagues after I left at the end of 2016.
. . . .
**************
Read the rest of Polly’s article the link!
Given the grotesque level of malicious incompetence from DOJ and their EOIR toadies, it’s no wonder they want to suppress the truth about the ugly mess in the Immigration Courts. The Falls Church Clown Show 🤡 is coming to an end!
PWS
11-20-20
JEFFREY S. CHASE | OPINIONS/ANALYSIS ON IMMIGRATION LAW
Blog Archive Press and Interviews Calendar Contact
The Outrageous Decision to Decertify the IJ’s Union
Our attention is understandably focused elsewhere right now. However, it must be mentioned that on the eve of Election Day, a panel decision of the Federal Labor Relations Authority decertified the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) as a union. While this might seem to be a minor issue at the moment, it is not. At stake is the integrity of the nation’s Immigration Courts and the life-changing decisions its judges make.
The NAIJ was formed in 1971, and was certified as the recognized collective bargaining representative of Immigration Judges in 1979, 41 years ago. It weathered a similar decertification effort in 2000. Then as now, the agency argued that Immigration Judges are managers, and thus ineligible to unionize. Under federal labor law, one is classified as a manager if their position “influences policy.” 20 years ago, both the initial decision of the Regional Director and the appeal to the FLRA resoundingly dismissed that notion. In its September 2000 decision, the FLRA agreed with the finding below that IJs are not involved in creating agency policy. The FLRA then noted that “unlike decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the decisions of Immigration Judges are not published, do not constitute precedent, are binding only on the parties to the proceedings, and are subject to de novo review. The RD accordingly concluded that the decisions of the Judges do not influence and determine the Agency’s immigration policy, in contrast to the decisions of the Board.”
In two decades, the only change to the above is that while the IJ’s findings of law remain subject to de novo review, their findings of fact are now reviewed for clear error. Of course, facts are entirely case-specific, and thus have no influence whatsoever on policy. So as before, rather than create or influence policy, IJs implement established policy. Yet EOIR once again sought decertification. At the hearing in January, EOIR stipulated that the judges’ duties and responsibilities had not changed since the prior decision. As reported in an article covering the hearing, EOIR’s Director, James McHenry, testified that Immigration Judges are not supervisors, adding that they “are at the bottom of the org chart so they don’t supervise anything,” and further noted that “they cannot hire or fire anyone.” Nevertheless, he argued that because an Immigration Judge’s decision becomes a final ruling binding the agency if not appealed, Immigration Judges influence policy.
The Regional Director dismissed the claim based on the above arguments and testimony. But there was always a sense that the administration had something up its sleeve. That “something” turned out to be two Trump appointees, FLRA Chairperson Colleen Duffy Kiko, and FLRA Member James T. Abbott. They have jointly issued a series of decisions overturning decades of precedent to erode the rights of federal employees’ unions, a result clearly favored by the administration that appointed them. The two stayed true to form in decertifying the NAIJ. The FLRA’s lone Democratic appointee, Ernest DuBester, issued a scathing opinion in the NAIJ’s case, which concluded with the following language:
This is the antithesis of reasoned decision making. Based upon the conclusory nature of the majority’s analysis, along with the facetious manner in which it reconciles its decision with Authority precedent precluding collateral attacks on unit certifications, it is abundantly clear that the majority’s sole objective is to divest the IJs of their statutory rights. Once again, I refuse to join a decision “so fundamentally adverse to the principles and purposes of our Statute.”
By deciding in this matter, the decision violates the FLRA’s own rules regarding when such reversals of past holdings are allowed. Moreover, not that it matters to Chairperson Kiko and Member Abbott, but if allowed to stand, their decision ignoring the NAIJ’s 41 years as a certified union and reversing its own precedent without any reasoned basis will accomplish the following damage.
First, Immigration Judges would lose their voice, collective bargaining rights, ability to be individually defended by their union representative, and their ability to push back against the relentless attack on their independence, neutrality, and ability to fulfill their proper function as a check against executive branch overreach. Second, NAIJ officers have remained the only Immigration Judges able to allow the public to peek behind the scenes at these tribunals, by speaking at law schools and conferences (with the exception of management level judges who may be permitted to state the party line, sometimes by reading it from index cards). As several leading scholars explained in an article in Slate: “Judges and asylum officers are being instructed to decide cases in ways that many contend are contrary to law. A virtual gag rule has been placed on them in the context of law schools and the broader public. This denies information to coming generations of lawyers and eliminates public discourse on some of the most critical civil rights issues of our time.”
But of great importance is a point I raised last year in an article I wrote for Law360 on the decertification effort: the administration’s citing to a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Lucia v. SEC:
while irrelevant to the management inquiry, the citing of Lucia points to another motive of the DOJ. In a leaked internal memo, the Justice Department indicated its interpretation of the decision as a basis to bypass the Merit System Protection Board, allowing the Administration to more easily terminate ALJs whose decisions don’t align with its political views. Such actions would constitute a troubling attempt by the executive branch to influence case outcomes. Similarly, decertifying the NAIJ would simplify the removal of IJs whose decisions are at odds with the administration’s stated immigration goals by eliminating the present collective bargaining agreement’s right to an independent arbitrator in matters concerning IJ discipline and termination.
Just prior to the FLRA’s decision, an executive order creating a schedule of career federal employees who can be more easily fired for purely political reasons (such as issuing decisions not in line with the administration’s views). By ruling that IJs influence agency policy (contrary to its prior decision), the FLRA has put the Immigration Judges squarely in the crosshairs of the new executive order. To be clear: Immigration Judges whose neutral and independent application of the law would lead them to issue decisions the administration doesn’t like would be subject to easy termination. And of course, having just lost their union, those judges will have lost their best means of challenging such termination. Then, the hiring of their replacements would become even more nakedly partisan.
While it seems as I write this there will be a new administration come January, that doesn’t render this issue irrelevant. First, the earlier decertification effort in 2000 occurred under a Democratic administration. Second, leaving the above ruling in place would allow it be used as a weapon in the ways described by any subsequent administration. Whatever one’s political leanings or views on immigration, we should all be able to agree that decisions of such importance should be rendered by fair, neutral judges by applying law to facts, protected from rank political pressures.
The creation of an Article I Immigration Court is ultimately the most durable way to guarantee the independence of these vital tribunals, but the evisceration or protections caused by allowing this decision to stand is too egregious to ignore even in the short term. It is therefore hoped that readers will amplify the news of the decision and all it means. It is hoped those with the capacity to do so will provide amicus or other legal support for further actions by the NAIJ to legally challenge the FLRA decision. And the decision must be brought to the attention of an incoming Biden administration, which has so much damage to correct
There also needs to be consequences for those who abandoned their obligation of fairness and neutrality under the present administration. FLRA Member DuBester is to be applauded for continuing to strongly voice his defense of justice in the dissent. But perhaps a Biden administration can assess whether Kiko and Abbott might be better suited for other work.
Copyright 2020 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved. reprinted with permission.
***********************
Thanks for speaking out so forcefully and articulately, my friend,
I am confident that the Biden-Harris Administration will correct this egregious miscarriage of justice. As “Good Government” folks, I’m also confident that they they will constructively address the disgraceful dysfunctional mess at EOIR that threatens to topple the American justice system. We will finally have “problem solvers” leading our Government! That will make a positive difference for all Americans.
PWS
11-09-20
Here’s a message Judge Tabaddor sent to all Immigration Judges:
Subject: Update on Agency Action to Decertify NAIJ
THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF IMMIGRATION JUDGES
November 3, 2020
Dear Colleagues,
Today the Federal Labor Relations Authority reversed two decades of precedent and issued a baseless decision effectively decertifying the National Association of Immigration Judges as the union of immigration judges. See the decision here. We are outraged, though not surprised, by the lack of legal analysis. As dissenting member Ernest DuBester notes, the decision is pure “sophistry.”
This decision is not being rendered in a vacuum. We have suffered an all-out assault on labor and unions from the outset of three executive orders designed to decimate bargaining rights of unions to the most recent executive order designed to transform the federal workforce into an ”at-will” and deeply politicized body. And in the context of immigration judges, this is in line with our experience of undue interference and influence in our independent decision making authority.
We have lost this battle, but we will win the war. The NAIJ has prepared for just this day. We shall continue to fight. We are pursuing any and all available legal and other options.
Your support of NAIJ is now more important than ever. NAIJ needs you. If you have not previously joined NAIJ, join now by contacting us directly. In turn, NAIJ will continue to support immigration judges both individually with management and also as a group through public outreach, media contacts, and work on the Hill. We will need to work together to make sure that misguided policies like quotas and deadlines and micromanagement of IJs are not utilized to target us for discipline or removal from office. Even absent the protection of a collective bargaining agreement, we continue to have rights as federal government employees, including before the Merit System Protection Board. And if nothing else, this highly politicized decision is another compelling exhibit in our case for the creation of an independent Article 1 immigration court.
As always, feel free to reach out to myself or any of the NAIJ board members with any questions or concerns. My personal email address is ashleytabaddor@gmail.com and my cell is (310) 709-3580.
Ashley Tabaddor
President, NAIJ
—
***********************
Unquestionably, the move by the Attorney General to “decertify” the NAIJ (essentially eradicate it) was intended to “punish and silence” Judge Tabaddor and other NAIJ officers who have spoken out about serious due process abuses and chronic mismanagement at EOIR and the DOJ. Indeed, since all other sitting IJs are “muzzled” by the DOJ, and “EOIR Star Chamber” operations have become increasingly more secretive, less transparent, and wildly inconsistent from court to court under the Trump regime, the NAIJ is one of the few sources of accurate information for Congress and the public about the ever-deteriorating conditions in Immigration Court!
Don’t expect this battle for the “heart and soul” of Federal Civil Service and American democracy to go away any time soon!
PWS
11-05-20
Joe Davidson reports for WashPost:
If Joe Biden is elected president, he promises to overturn President Trump’s aggression against federal employee unions, support regular pay raises for federal employees and protect their workplace rights.
Biden, the Democratic nominee, has pledged to upend Trump’s actions concerning federal labor organizations on Inauguration Day in January. Trump’s assaults were codified in three executive orders he issued in 2018. They systematically undermined the ability of unions to represent not only their members, but all employees in agency collective-bargaining units.
Saying Trump “has loosed a direct attack on our members’ union rights and dignity on the job,” the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) questionnaire to Biden outlines policies the largest federal union wants reversed.
“This includes purging lawful representational activity from government worksites and equipment, weaponizing the bargaining process to propose, and in some cases impose, one-sided contracts, attacking our statutory right to collect voluntary dues, crippling our ability to mediate disputes on duty time, and more,” says the questionnaire’s introduction. “Taken together, these attacks constitute more than just a threat to our members’ livelihoods, they threaten the survival of the merit-based civil service system on which our government is built.”
AFGE endorsed Biden last month. In two internal polls, AFGE said its members supported Biden over Trump by more than 30 points.
The first question asked Biden to commit to overturning the executive orders and other directives that weaken employee due process and collective bargaining rights “on your first day in office.” Biden agreed and said “the federal government should serve as a role model for employers to treat their workers fairly.”
“On my first day in office,” he added, “I will restore federal employees’ rights to organize and bargain collectively, restore their right to official time, and direct agencies to bargain with federal employee unions.” Official time allows union leaders to represent employees, including those who are not union members, in grievance procedures and matters involving issues such as workplace safety and productivity, while being paid by the government.
[If he gets a presidential Day 1, Biden has a nearly endless list of ways to spend it]
In addition to Biden’s answers, the Democratic Party Platform promises to “strengthen labor rights for the more than 20 million public-sector employees” at all levels by supporting legislation that would “provide a federal guarantee for public-sector employees to bargain for better pay and benefits and the working conditions they deserve.”
While Trump has been relentless in his federal union offensive, all was not copacetic when Biden served as Barack Obama’s vice president. Government workers vehemently opposed three federal pay freezes imposed under Obama, with congressional approval, during an era of budget tightening.
But the Obama-Biden administration did not seek to fundamentally undermine unions as Trump has done or diminish federal workers. Obama’s stated effort to “make government cool again” contrasts sharply with Trump’s “drain the swamp” attitude toward government. Trump did not respond to AFGE’s questionnaire.
. . . .
*****************************
Read the complete article at the link.
Just another instance where Biden is going to have to separate himself from some misguided, occasionally weak-kneed and shortsighted, Obama-era policies and establish himself as his own man, with a decidedly more practical, aware, and progressive approach. And, as a long-time public servant himself (albeit an elected one) — whose career has in many ways been built and furthered by the skills, expertise, and contributions of civil servants in all branches of Government — I believe he is up to the task. Indeed, he might well be the best-qualified candidate in my lifetime to save and enhance our now reeling and crumbling civil service — one of the “crown jewels” of American democracy now under unrelenting assault from a thoroughly corrupt Trump and his GOP nihilist “wrecking crew.”
For example, look at how the cowardly and totally unethical “Billy the Bigot” Barr tried to “punish” Judge Ashley Tabaddor and the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”) (disclosure: I am a proud retired member) for speaking “truth to power.” As the only ones authorized to speak out on behalf of Immigration Judges (regardless of membership in the NAIJ), Judge Tabaddor and other NAIJ officials exposed the massive corruption, gross mismanagement, improper politicization, and medically dangerous working conditions at EOIR! As a result, Billy tried to silence her and the NAIJ by filing a frivolous action to “decertify” the NAIJ based on bogus reasons, many rejected by the FLRA in the past. This abuse of Government resources and process by Billy has since been dismissed after hearing by a FLRA official, as previously reported in “Courtside.”
As a civil servant for more than 35 years, serving in Administrations of both parties, at levels from “worker bee” to “Senior Exec,” and a veteran of 21 years on both levels of the Immigration Bench (when it actually more resembled a “real court” than the ridiculous parody engineered by Gonzo Apocalypto and Billy the Bigot), I know what I’m speaking about.
Incidentally, I was one of the “founding brothers and sisters” of the BIA employees’ union in the 1970s, and then went on to battle that same union before the FLRA during my tenure as BIA Chair in the late 1990s. So, like many issues in immigration during my career, I understand both sides.
But, I never questioned the BIA union’s authority to speak for the staff. In most ways, it was a good “focal point” for getting important issues out in the open and resolving them, even if the process was occasionally contentious and frustrating. And, I’d have to admit to getting some good ideas on management improvements from union officials. So good, in fact, that I actually hired some of them to become staff managers at the BIA.
Over my career, I was involved in thousands of asylum and refugee cases, many of them successful. Many were fleeing countries with great progressive “paper constitutions” and sometimes even very “facially reasonable” statutory law. A number of these countries had even signed the U.N. Refugee Convention. What often made these countries “persecutors” as opposed to “protectors” was in the “execution” rather than the “black letter law.”
Two characteristics that many of these persecutors had in common were: 1) an authoritarian executive who controlled a corrupt civil service usually “on the take,” staffed with family members, tribe members, or “party regulars,” and personally loyal to the leader rather than the constitution and statutes; and 2) “courts” that were either instruments of the leader and his tribe or party or too feckless to stand up against executive tyranny.
Under Trump and his corrupt GOP cronies, the US is well on its way to this type of “banana republic” public service in all three branches. And, don’t thank that a healthy economy or a robust stock market are “proof” against tyranny. Today’s China, as well as Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, are prime examples of how “economic success and power” do not necessarily equate with good government, equality, or lack of repression.
PWS
08-26|-20
Judge Amiena Khan and Judge Dorothy Harbeck (in their capacities as NAIJ Officers) write in the Federal Lawyer:
DOJ Tries to Silence the Voice of the Immigration Judges—Again!
The Second Attempt to Decertify the National Association of Immigration Judges
by Judge Amiena Khan and Judge Dorothy Harbeck
Immigration Law
Judge Amiena Khan is the executive vice president of the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) and serves as the co-chair of the NAIJ Vulnerable Populations Committee. Judge Khan was appointed by Attorney General Eric Holder in December 2010. She is seated at the New York Immigration Court and is a member of the New York State Bar. Judge Khan is the programs chair of the FBA Immigration Law Section and is also a member of the National Association of Women Judges.
Judge Dorothy Harbeck, an immigration judge in New York City, is the secretary/treasurer of the NAIJ. She is also an adjunct professor of law at Columbia and Rutgers. She
is a fellow of the Federal Bar Foundation, is on the Executive Board of the FBA Immigration Law Section, and is a member of the bar in New Jersey and New York.The 2019 DOJ Petition for Decertification
In August 2019, the Department of Justice (DOJ), in a veiled attempt to silence the voice of the immigration judges (IJs), filed a petition with the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) to decertify the Nation- al Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ).1 The NAIJ—origiThe 2019 DOJ Petition for Decertification
In August 2019, the Department of Justice (DOJ), in a veiled attempt to silence the voice of the immigration judges (IJs), filed a petition with the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) to decertify the Nation- al Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ).1 The NAIJ—originally certified in 1979 as the recognized representative for collective bargaining for all U.S. IJs—is a voluntary association that represents and speaks for the interests of the nation’s 440 IJs. The NAIJ was formed with the objectives of promoting independence and enhancing the professionalism, dignity, and efficiency of the immigration courts. DOJ asserts that IJs should be reclassified as “management officials.” This would mean IJs could no longer union- ize, be part of a collective bargaining unit, or speak independently.
NAIJ serves as the only voice of the IJs who cannot speak out without prior express permission of DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).2 NAIJ serves to afford transparency and accountability. The immigration courts are not independent courts under Article I or Article III of the Constitution. They are wholly contained within DOJ. Without a union,
IJs have no protection against the politicization of the process and their decisions. Without transparency,
the integrity of the process is in jeopardy. Without a union, the IJs cannot protest policy measures, such as the imposition of quotas and performance measures; the IJs cannot contest the numerous policies enacted by EOIR that encroach upon and undermine the inde- pendent decision-making ability of the IJs; and the IJs will not be able to rally against the effective speedup of the workforce, placing due process and fundamental fairness of the proceedings at risk.
How the Process Works
The burden to show that IJs are management officials is on the moving party (i.e., DOJ). The FLRA regional director (RD) has opened an investigation into the
NAIJ, seeking information about its responsibilities. DOJ can submit factual and legal arguments in support of its petition. The RD can then issue a decision or request a hearing to solicit more information. Either party can appeal the RD’s decision to the full FLRA board.
The Unsuccessful 2000 Attempt to Decertify
the Immigration Judges’ Union
This current effort follows a similar, and unsuccessful, strategy pursued by DOJ to decertify the immigration judges’ union approximately 20 years ago. In Septem- ber 2000, the FLRA’s RD rejected DOJ’s argument, and the full FLRA upheld the RD’s decision on appeal. In that prior decertification attempt,3 the FLRA reject- ed DOJ’s argument that IJs make policy through the issuance of decisions, noting that the trial court level IJs do not set precedent and that their rulings are often appealed and reviewed. The FLRA also said that the immigration court system was established specifically so that IJs do not maintain any management duties to enable them to focus on hearings.
The FLRA also ruled that there is a distinct differ- ence between the trial level IJs and the appellate level Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) members.4 The description of the duties of the IJ were described in the 2000 decertification attempt:
The daily routine of an Immigration Judge involves hearing and deciding cases that arise from the operation of the INS.5 A court’s juris- diction to decide these cases is determined at the time a case is filed. After filing, the cases are randomly assigned by the court administrator to an individual Judge and placed on a Judge’s calendar on his or her master calendar day. At that time, the Judge hears presentations from the parties and their attorneys, identifies the is- sues, and advises individuals as to their right to
March/April 2020 • THE FEDERAL LAWYER • 9
representation. The Judge also sets time frames and briefing schedules, as well as the date for trial.6
The nature of the IJs’ decisions and their position in the hierarchy of binding the EOIR was also set forth:
During a trial, the parties are represented by counsel and the rules of evidence are observed. Thereafter, in arriving at their decisions, Immigration Judges are required to apply immigra- tion statutes, applicable regulations, published decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals and federal appellate courts, and other foreign and state laws. After the trial, the Judge issues his or her decision, almost always orally, and advises the parties of their appeal rights. Oral decisions are not tran- scribed unless they are appealed; are not published; and are final and binding only with respect to the parties to the case. With limited exception, decisions of the Immigration Judges may be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals and review of their decisions is de novo. Certain cases may also be appealed to the appropriate U.S. circuit court.7
Citing its precedential case on the managerial status of BIA members (hereinafter “the BIA Management Case”),8 the FLRA specifically stated that the BIA appellate judges were management officials within the meaning of section 7103(a)(11) of the statute and, therefore, could not be included in the existing bargaining unit. In particular, it concluded that “the incumbent Board Member directly influences activity policy through his participation in the interpreta- tion of immigration laws and the issuance of decisions and, thereby, meets the definition of a management official set forth in section 7103(a)(11) of the Statute.”9
In the 2000 decertification attempt, the RD applied the BIA Management Case and concluded that “unlike decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the decisions of Immigration Judges are
not published, do not constitute precedent, are binding only on the parties to the proceedings, and are subject to de novo review.”10 The RD accordingly concluded that the decisions of the judges do not in- fluence and determine the Agency’s immigration policy, in contrast to the decisions of the BIA.
The FLRA concurred that the RD’s definition of a management official is defined as “an individual employed by an agency in a posi- tion the duties and responsibilities of which require or authorize the individual to formulate, determine, or influence the policies of the agency.”11
Critically, the full FLRA also found that management officials are individuals who: “(1) create, establish or prescribe general princi- ples, plans or courses of action for an agency; (2) decide upon or settle upon general principles, plans or courses of action for an agen- cy; or (3) bring about or obtain a result as to the adoption of general principles, plans or courses of action for an agency.”12
The FLRA distinguished the trial court IJs from the BIA appellate judges by specifically holding that IJs do not “make policy through the issuance of their decisions … that in arriving at their decisions, Immigration Judges are required to apply immigration laws and reg- ulations, that their decisions are not published and do not constitute precedent.” Finally, the RD observed that the decisions are binding only on the parties to the case, are “routinely” appealed, and are subject to de novo review.13 There is no difference in this now.
The FLRA specifically agreed with the RD’s rejection of the EOIR’s claims that “the sheer volume of decisions issued by the [immigration] Judges and the finality of their decisions, unless they are appealed,” affect the EOIR’s policy. This is because “no matter the volume of decisions issued, or number of appeals filed, the fact remains that when an Immigration Judge issues a decision [,] he or she is applying and following established Agency law and policy.”14 Again, there is no difference in this now.
While IJs have some authority to control practice in their own courtrooms, they have no authority to set overall policy as to how the courts as a whole will operate. Nor, critically, do they have the authority to direct or commit the EOIR to any policy or course of action. The IJs are highly trained professionals with the extremely important job of adjudicating cases.15 This organizational structure and supervisory delegation was established specifically so that the IJs are unencumbered by any supervisory and management obligations and are free to concentrate on hearings.16 Aspirationally, this is still the position of the IJs.
. . . .
************************
Read the rest of the article at the link. Many thanks to Judge Khan and Judge Harbeck for courageously speaking out and informing us in such a well-documented and scholarly manner.
It’s disgraceful that political leaders who are supposed to be committed to our Constitution and the rule of law instead misuse government funds and abuse their authority to cover up their wrongdoing and mismanagement. In a functional government, Barr and his toadies would be facing impeachment or referral for criminal investigation from Congress for their abuses of authority and attacks on our Constitution. Most certainly, a competent Congress would long ago have removed EOIR from the clutches of the DOJ politicos and placed it where it belongs: as an independent court system under either Article I or Article III.
PWS
04-23-20
THE “GOOD GUYS” STRIKE BACK: NAIJ, AILA Issue Statements Strongly Condemning Administration’s Attempt to “Decertify” Immigration Judges’ Union!
NAIJ Press Release on Attempt to Decertofu 8-12-19
For immediate release – August 12, 2019
Contact: Jamie Horwitz,jhdcpr@starpower.net, 202/549-4921
Trump Administration Seeks to Silence Federal Immigration Judges’ Union DOJ Files Legal Documents to End the Labor Rights of Judges
Retribution for Speaking Out and Exposing Problems in the Courts
Judges Make Bipartisan Appeal Asking Congress to Create an Independent Court Free From Political Influence
WASHINGTON — On Friday, August 9, the U.S. Department of Justice filed legal documents with the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) seeking to eliminate the rights of federal Immigration Judges (IJs) to be represented by a union. The petition filed by the administration asserts that IJs are “management officials” who formulate and advance policy.
“This is nothing more than a desperate attempt by the DOJ to evade transparency and accountability, and undermine the decisional independence of the nation’s 440 Immigration Judges,” said Judge Ashley Tabaddor, an Immigration Judge who hears cases in Los Angeles, speaking in her capacity as the president of the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ). “We are trial court judges who make decisions on the basis of case specific facts and the nation’s immigration laws. We do not set policies, and we don’t manage staff,” she added.
The nation’s immigration courts are not part of the judicial branch of the government. The courts where immigration cases are heard are managed by the DOJ, allowing the
nation’s chief prosecutor, the U.S. Attorney General, oversight authority and the power to hire, fire, and control the judges who preside over immigration hearings.
Over the past two years, NAIJ has been highly critical of the administration’s moves to create a quota of 700 cases per year for every IJ and to pressure judges to process cases faster, irrespective of the law and the facts of the case. The NAIJ has also documented and publicly commented on how the government shutdown earlier this year added to the case backlog. Other issues raised by the NAIJ during the Trump years have included challenges to the Attorney General’s stripping IJs of needed docket management authority and depriving IJs of adequate support staff and resources such as interpreters, courtrooms, law clerks, and access to current technology. The move to decertify NAIJ is a clear effort to thwart criticism.
“It’s absurd that anyone would consider us managers,” said Tabaddor. “We don’t even have the authority to order pencils.”
This is not the first time that the DOJ has floated the theory that Immigration Judges are managers. Two decades ago, the DOJ made a similar attempt at decertifying the judges’ union. In 2000, the FLRA ruled at that time that IJs do not act as managers. Since that decision, the role and responsibilities of IJs has further been reinforced as trial judges rather than as managers. In the last two years, for example, the DOJ has eliminated any opportunity for IJs to serve in an advisory capacity to management officials and has repeatedly refused even to consult NAIJ on decisions affecting daily court operations. Additionally, the docket schedule of each IJ is micromanaged to advance law enforcement priorities rather than priorities or scheduling set by an individual judge.
NAIJ is affiliated with the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, a much larger union that represents thousands of highly-educated federal employees including NASA rocket scientists, engineers employed by the U.S. Navy and the Army Corp of Engineers, and administrative law judges who hear cases involving Social Security claims. According to IFPTE’s president Paul Shearon, “This is nothing
more than union busting plain and simple, and part of a disturbing pattern. The White House has
signed a series of executive orders that limit the ability of federal unions to raise questions about abuses and inefficiencies, and they have tried to hinder a union’s ability to fully represent federal workers who are often stuck in a bureaucratic maze.” Added Shearon, “This administration doesn’t want to be held accountable, and they especially don’t want anyone looking over their shoulder on immigration issues.”
“It’s in the best interests of the American people for judges to hear cases based solely on the law and the facts presented, free from political considerations,” said Judge Tabaddor. “This is not a Democrat or Republican or a left, right issue.” NAIJ has long advocated for Immigration Judges to be placed in an independent agency, similar to the nation’s bankruptcy and tax courts, rather than under the control of the DOJ. In recent months, this move to create an independent agency to operate the immigration courts has been gaining traction on both sides of the aisle in Congress.
“We think many on Capitol Hill, from both parties, will oppose this effort to mute the nation’s Immigration Judges,” said Tabaddor. “When Congress returns in September, we will redouble our efforts to maintain judicial independence and due process through the creation of an independent court. The DOJ’s actions, designed to silence judges and their union, further demonstrates why judges who hear immigration cases need to be placed in an independent agency. Our rallying cry as we make the rounds in the halls of Congress will be ‘remember August 9’.”
The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), founded in 1971, is a voluntary organization formed with the objectives of promoting independence and enhancing the professionalism, dignity, and efficiency of the Immigration Court.
# # #
******************************************************
AILA – AILA: DOJ Seeks Termination of Immigration Judges Union, Further Undermining Court Independen
AILA: DOJ Seeks Termination of Immigration Judges Union, Further Undermining Court Independence
AILA Doc. No. 19081591 | Dated August 15, 2019
CONTACTS: George Tzamaras
202-507-7649
gtzamaras@aila.orgTessa Wiseman
202-507-7661
twiseman@aila.org
WASHINGTON, DC – On Friday, August 9, 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) petitioned the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) in an effort to strip immigration judges of their right to be represented by a union. In the petition, DOJ asserts that immigration judges should be considered “management officials” and therefore should be excluded from forming or joining labor unions. The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), the recognized collective bargaining representative of our nation’s immigration judges, deemed DOJ’s claim as “absurd” and said that DOJ’s actions are “designed to silence judges and their union.” Representatives Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) of the House Judiciary Committee also decried the move in a statement this week.
Benjamin Johnson, Executive Director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) responded, “DOJ’s petition to decertify the NAIJ is an effort to suppress the voices of immigration judges, who have denounced DOJ efforts to strip their authority. Ironically, while the petition contends that immigration judges are ‘management officials,’ this Administration has made every effort to limit the judges’ independence, management, and authority – micromanaging dockets, limiting discretion in adjudication, and imposing strict performance quotas.
Congress must protect the sanctity of due process, efficiency, and fairness in the court system by exercising its oversight authority over these politically motivated actions of the DOJ. Oversight alone is not enough; these actions are only possible because DOJ has total control over the immigration court system. America can no longer afford to have a system that can be so easily manipulated. AILA urges Congress to pass legislation establishing an independent immigration court under Article I of the Constitution.”
Cite as AILA Doc. No. 19081591.
**********************************************
An outrageous waste of our taxpayer money, abuse of our legal system, and unlawful attempt to silence the Administration’s critics. Note that the ONLY U.S. Immigration Judges who have a right to “speak out” against the fraud, waste, and abuse of the system by the current Administration (in other words, to “speak truth”) are senior officials of the NAIJ.
The DOJ and EOIR have effectively “muzzled” the rest of the active Immigration Judges. They are not allowed to speak to the press. Under this Administration, they aren’t even allowed to participate in educational programs and seminars aimed at educating the public about practice before the Immigration Courts.
Yet, while treating the judges little better than well-paid but overworked clerks, the Department of Justice asserts, with a straight face, that they are “management officials.” Just what, one might ask, are they “managing?”
Moreover, since judges generally need support but little if any day to day “management” in a functioning system (I wonder how much time Chief Justice Roberts spends “managing” his colleagues or how much time any Chief Judge in a legitimate system spends “managing” his or her judicial colleagues), what’s the purpose of the bloated management structure in the “EOIR Tower” in Falls Church, VA?
The real needs of the Immigration Judges — more clerks, more time off the bench to prepare, more educational opportunities, better equipment, better courtrooms, less time spent on non-productive work like reporting progress on case quotas — remain unaddressed by what passes for “management” at today’s EOIR. The filing of this meritless “decertification petition” by EOIR appears to be yet another in the long series of disingenuous efforts by DOJ and EOIR to deflect attention from their own gross mismanagement of the Immigration Court system that has helped to create monumental, unprecedented backlogs even as more resources are thrown into the maelstrom.
A truly horrible system — essentially a “Rube Goldberg Contraption — that must be abolished by Congress and reinstituted as an independent Article I Court dedicated to delivering “Due Process with efficiency.”
PWS
08-19-19