"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.
For these reasons, we do not see a strong justification for concluding that the IIRIRA detention statutes override the deep-rooted tradition of enforcement discretion when it comes to decisions that occur before detention, such as who should be subject to arrest, detainers, and removal proceedings. That means the United States has shown a likelihood of prevailing on appeal to the extent the preliminary injunction prevents officials from relying on the memos’ enforcement priorities for nondetention decisions.
***********************
Finally, some rationality and common sense! A partial stay from the ultra-conservative 5th Circuit is a good sign for the Biden Administration on this issue.
Adrift on a sea of endless incompetence, Garland’s “Dedicated Dockets” won’t save EOIR! U.S. Coast Guard photo by Petty Officer 1st Class Sara Francis Public Realm
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
Immigration Court Struggling to Manage Its Expanding Dedicated Docket of Asylum-Seeking Families
During the month of August, the Biden administration stepped up the assignment of asylum-seeking families arriving at the border to the Immigration Court’s new “Dedicated Docket” program. As of August 31, 2021, Immigration Court records indicate that a total of 16,713 individuals comprising approximately 6,000 families are now assigned to this program.
But alongside the growing number of asylum-seekers assigned to the new Dedicated Docket, new questions emerge about whether these cases will be completed fairly and within the promised timeline, whether Immigration Judges will be able to manage large Dedicated Docket caseloads, and whether the Court is reliably tracking these cases as promised.
While EOIR has set up Dedicated Docket hearing locations in eleven cities, cases assigned thus far have been unusually concentrated in just a few cities. As of the end of August half of the 16,713 cases were assigned to New York City and Boston.
With the rapid influx of cases at a number of these Dedicated Docket hearing locations, half of the currently scheduled initial master hearings are not being held until after mid-November 2021, and fully one in ten are not currently scheduled until mid-February 2022. In addition, these hearings are largely to be held via video. Only eleven percent of all scheduled hearings are set as in-person hearings.
It also continues to be a relatively small number of judges who are assigned to hear these cases. Six judges now account for nearly two-thirds (63%) of the assigned Dedicated Docket cases. Each of these six judges has already been assigned over a thousand cases just during the first three months of this initiative. Judge Mario J. Sturla in Boston has thus far been assigned the most Dedicated Docket cases for any judge—3,178 cases.
Some basic arrangements are still not in place to ensure that cases assigned to the Dedicated Docket are clearly identified in the Court’s database system which is relied on to manage the Court’s workload. As of the end of August, fully 38 percent of cases assigned to the special hearing locations set up to exclusively handle Dedicated Dockets were not flagged as “DD” cases.
To examine a variety of Immigration Court data, including asylum data, the backlog, MPP, and more now updated through August 2021, use TRAC’s Immigration Court tools here:
TRAC is self-supporting and depends on foundation grants, individual contributions and subscription fees for the funding needed to obtain, analyze and publish the data we collect on the activities of the US Federal government. To help support TRAC’s ongoing efforts, go to:
The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse is a nonpartisan joint research center of the Whitman School of Management (https://whitman.syr.edu) and the Newhouse School of Public Communications (https://newhouse.syr.edu) at Syracuse University. If you know someone who would like to sign up to receive occasional email announcements and press releases, they may go to https://trac.syr.edu and click on the E-mail Alerts link at the bottom of the page. If you do not wish to receive future email announcements and wish to be removed from our list, please send an email to trac@syr.edu with REMOVE as the subject.
*********************
I’m not aware of any “courtroom” at EOIR that actually could hold 129 respondents, their family members, and attorneys (if any). It’s a high volume court with a “mini-court” infrastructure. Our Masters were shut down several times by the Arlington Fire Department for unsafe conditions and blocking handicapped access.
Also, building new “gimmick dockets” without e-filing is totally insane!
I once did a 100-case TV Master in Cincinnati. I had no files! ICE sent their files to Cleveland while sending the Assistant Chief Counsel to appear in person in Cincinnati. They probably crossed “in transit.” EOIR provided a Spanish interpreter. However most of the non-English speakers on the docket were from Mauritania and spoke French or Wolof. It was a complete circus.
Afterwards, I told the then Chief Immigration Judge that it was “friggin’ Clown Court!” He was not amused. Nor was I!
Probably not a “career enhancing” move, but I was “working my way down the ladder” by that time.
Creating more unnecessary “gimmick dockets” at EOIR — just like hiring more new IJs, is NOT going to solve the extreme structural, organizational, personnel, and competence issues infecting the Immigration Courts. Actually, if anyone had bothered to check, “dedicated dockets” were tried during the Obama Administration. They inevitably failed — adding to the “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” while undermining due process, efficiency, and best practices!
It’s not “rocket science.” 🚀 Anybody who actually practices (as best they can, under these near-impossible circumstances) in Immigration Court these days could tell Garland exactly what the problems are.
Nobody in their right mind would suggest that the “answer” is a “Dedicated Docket” or infusing a large number of additional judges into this mess, although the solution definitely involves replacing some existing judges, starting with the BIA, and includes bringing in real progressive, expert judicial leadership. So, why is Garland rolling out more gimmicks and proposed personnel increases without addressing the REAL problems at EOIR?
Fix the system! Bring in expert progressive judges who know the law and are committed to best practices! Stop the politicized interference! Figure out what the real system requirements are! THEN go out and do additional merit-based hiring, if more judges are really part of the answer! (Hint: The vast majority of the 2+-year-old non-detained, non-priority cases should be administratively closed or referred to USCIS, or both. They are bogging down the system without promoting justice.)
Alas, poor EOIR seems to be adrift on a sea of endless incompetence, mismanagement, and neglect with no safe port in sight.
PANEL: Consuelo M. Callahan and*Paul J. Watford, Circuit Judges, and Jed S. Rakoff, District Judge.
Opinion by Judge Watford; Dissent by Judge Callahan
* The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
STAFF SUMMARY:
Granting Rafael Diaz-Rodriguez’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the panel held that child endangerment, in violation of California Penal Code § 273a(a), does not constitute “a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment” within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i).
In Martinez-Cedillo v. Sessions, 896 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2018), a divided panel held to the contrary, and a majority of the non-recused active judges voted to rehear the case en banc. However, after the petitioner passed away, the en banc court dismissed the appeal as moot and vacated the panel decision. The panel here observed that Martinez-Cedillo is no longer binding precedent, but explained that between its issuance and the decision to rehear the case en banc, two published opinions relied on it: Menendez v. Whitaker, 908 F.3d 467 (9th Cir. 2018), and Alvarez-Cerriteno v. Sessions, 899 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2018).
The panel concluded that the unusual circumstance here led it to conclude that this case falls outside the scope of the general rule that three-judge panels are bound to follow published decisions of prior panels. The panel explained that both Alvarez-Cerriteno and Menendez simply followed Martinez-Cedillo as then-binding precedent without engaging in independent analysis of the deference issue, and
** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
DIAZ-RODRIGUEZ V. GARLAND 3
both decisions were effectively insulated from en banc review on that issue. The panel explained that both decisions are irreconcilable with a subsequent decision of the court sitting en banc because their reliance on Martinez-Cedillo is in conflict with the en banc court’s decision to designate that decision as non-precedential.
Applying the categorical approach, the panel identified the elements of California Penal Code § 273a(a): causing or permitting a child “to be placed in a situation where his or her person or health is endangered,” committed with a mens rea of criminal negligence. As to the federal offense, the panel explained that Congress enacted the ground of removability at 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) and did not define the phrase “a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment.” In Matter of Soram, 25 I. & N. Dec. 378 (BIA 2010), however, the BIA held that the phrase encompassed child endangerment offenses committed with a mens rea of at least criminal negligence. In considering whether Soram was entitled to deference, the panel was guided by the Supreme Court’s decision in Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, 137 S. Ct. 1562 (2017), where the Court observed that the term “sexual abuse of a minor” was undefined and then looked to normal tools of statutory interpretation in concluding that the statute unambiguously forecloses the BIA’s interpretation of it.
Applying this approach, the panel concluded that deference was precluded at Chevron step one because the text of §1227(a)(2)(E)(i) unambiguously forecloses the BIA’s interpretation as encompassing negligent child endangerment offenses. First, the panel explained that contemporary legal dictionaries from the time of IIRIRA’s enactment indicate that child abuse, child neglect, and child
4 DIAZ-RODRIGUEZ V. GARLAND
abandonment were well-understood concepts with distinct meanings that do not encompass one-time negligent child endangerment offenses. Second, the panel explained that the statutory structure suggested that Congress deliberately omitted child endangerment from the list of offenses specified in § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). Third, the panel explained that the general consensus drawn from state criminal codes confirms that the phrase does not encompass negligent child endangerment offenses. The panel noted that the fourth source consulted in Esquivel-Quintana, related federal criminal statutes, did not aid its analysis.
Because a violation of California Penal Code § 273a(a) can be committed with a mens rea of criminal negligence, the panel concluded that it is not a categorical match for “a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment.” Accordingly, the panel concluded that Diaz-Rodriguez’s conviction under that statute did not render him removable under § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i).
Dissenting, Judge Callahan wrote that she was compelled to dissent for two reasons. First, she did not agree that the three-judge panel could disregard Menendez and Alvarez-Cerriteno. Second, Judge Callahan did not agree with the majority’s peculiar reading of the phrase as not encompassing a child endangerment offense committed with a mens rea of at least criminal negligence. Judge Callahan wrote that majority’s suggestion that § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) is unambiguous is contrary to precedent and the unanimous opinions of the court’s sister circuits. Moreover, she wrote that the majority failed to recognize that the court’s task is limited to reviewing the agency’s interpretation for “reasonableness.” Instead, the majority proffered its own definition based primarily on selected dictionary definitions and its own research.
*****************
Who knows how this eventually will come out? But, what I can guarantee is until it is finally resolved, by the Supremes or otherwise, immigration practitioners and their clients will have a mess of inconsistency and bad decisions by EOIR on their hands.
Complicated issues involving criminal law come up all the time in EOIR “detention courts,” located in the Mayorkas/Garland “New American Gulag,” where many respondents are unrepresented or under-represented. How would an unrepresented respondent be able to prepare a “defense” like this? No way! The entire EOIR system suffers from some extreme constitutional problems that Garland has done nothing to address.
Having bad precedents like this in effect for a decade or more, almost always tilted toward DHS enforcement, results in many wrongful removals, as well as numerous remands and “redos” that help increase the astronomical 1.4 million case backlog! Having better judges on the BIA, real independent jurists with practical scholarly expertise, unafraid to interpret statutes and apply the law in favor of respondents when that is the “better view,” and to impose “best practices” on the Immigration Courts, is a necessary first step in addressing EOIR’s many legal and operational shortcomings.
It appears that Garland is disinterested in meaningful due process reforms and inserting real progressive judicial leadership into EOIR. The good news: With the vast majority of the immigration, human rights, and constitutional expertise and legal talent now in the private sector, and more talent coming out of law schools all the time, the NDPA stands a good chance of “litigating Garland’s failed EOIR to a standstill” over the next four years.
While that’s hardly the most desirable result, it would be infinitely better than the continuing due-process-denying “Clown Show” 🤡 that Garland currently runs at EOIR! Sometimes, you just have to take what the opposition gives you!
At what point will “powers that be” finally pay attention to the ongoing disaster at EOIR? When the backlog reaches 1.5 million? 2 million? 3 million? 4 million? 5 million? How many unjust and illegal removals will take place, and how many lives and futures irrevocably altered or ruined before this dysfunctional system finally reaches its “breaking point?”
“Eyore is completely distraught that Garland has eschewed installing progressive expert judging and creative thinking, instead allowing the ‘death spiral’ to continue!” “Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”
“We voted to rehear this case en banc to reconsider our “single factor rule,” which we have applied in considering petitions for review from decisions by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The single factor rule, as we have applied it, requires us to sustain an adverse credibility finding if “one of the [agency’s] identified grounds is supported by substantial evidence.” Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1259 (9th Cir. 2003). On rehearing en banc, we hold that the single factor rule conflicts with the REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231 (2005), and we overrule our prior precedent establishing and applying it. We remand this case to the three-judge panel to re-examine the petition for review in light of our clarification of the standard for reviewing the BIA’s adverse credibility determinations. … Given the REAL ID Act’s explicit statutory language, we join our sister circuits and hold that, in assessing an adverse credibility finding under the Act, we must look to the “totality of the circumstances[] and all relevant factors.” § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). There is no bright-line rule under which some number of inconsistencies requires sustaining or rejecting an adverse credibility determination—our review will always require assessing the totality of the circumstances. To the extent that our precedents employed the single factor rule or are otherwise inconsistent with this standard, we overrule those cases. We remand this case to the three-judge panel for reconsideration in light of the newly articulated standard for reviewing adverse credibility determinations.”
********************
Even with Article III Courts, including the 9th Circuit, generally “drifting right,” “good enough for Government work” has been rejected! That ought to help Garland boost the EOIR backlog!
The EOIR/DOJ policy right now appears to be “give any reason to deny,” hope that OIL can make at least one of them stick, and count on righty Circuit Judges to “swallow the whistle.” While that has certainly happened in the 5th Circuit, and to some extent in the 11th Circuit, there still appear to be enough Article IIIs out there critically reviewing EOIR’s too often patently substandard work product to make Garland’s indolent “look the other way” approach to the EOIR mess highly problematic.
Analyzing all the factors also might be inconsistent with mindless, due-process-denying three or four per day “merits quotas,” invented and imposed by Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions (someone with zero (0) Immigration Court experience and a well-justified lifetime reputation as a racist xenophobe — how does Matthews v. Eldridge allow a guy like that to pick and “run” judges — the Article IIIs might choose to look the other way, but most L-1 students know this is wrong and unconstitutional).
Just aimlessly listing common testimonial problems and hoping OIL will find one or more of them actually in the record is much faster (if you don’t count the impact of Circuit remands!) That it’s inconsistent with the statute, the Constitution, and, actually, BIA precedent seems to be beside the point these days. Of course, EOIR’s “assembly line jurists” also get “dinged” for remands.
Is there is anybody left at EOIR HQ today who could properly teach “totality of the circumstances” under REAL ID?
My observation from Arlington was that the number of adverse credibility findings and asylum denials went down substantially once the Fourth Circuit, and even occasionally the BIA, began enforcing “totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors” under REAL ID. As lawyers “got the picture” and began providing better independent corroborating evidence and documentation, the ability to “nit-pick” testimony, find the respondent “not credible,”and make it stand up on review diminished, as its well should have!
Of course, in my mind, REAL ID and the Fourth Circuit were just “re-enforcing and adopting” observations that members of our deposed “Gang of Four or Five” had made in numerous dissents from our BIA colleagues “undue deference” to poorly reasoned and thinly supported adverse credibility determinations, particularly in asylum cases.
More careful analysis of the record as a whole, often with the help of JLCs, became the rule at Arlington. And, after a few initial setbacks in the Fourth Circuit, ICE in Arlington generally stopped pushing for unjustified adverse credibility rulings and adopted approaches that actually complied with Fourth Circuit law.
The antiquated “contemporaneous oral decision format,” put on steroids by Sessions and Barr, is particularly ill-suited to the type of careful analysis required by the current statute, not to mention due process. And, having far too many newer Immigration Judges who have no immigration background and who have never had to represent an individual in Immigration Court is also a formula for failure, particularly when combined with inadequate training and idiotic “quotas.”
I’m not sure that the famous Rube Goldberg could have created a more convoluted,inefficient, and irrational process than exists at today’s EOIR. It simply can’t be fixed without leadership and assistance from outside experts who understand the problems (because they and their clients have “lived them”) and who aren’t wedded to all the mistakes and failed “silver bullet solutions” of the past!
The EOIR process is so “user friendly” that any unrepresented two-year-old can easily navigate it! Rube Goldberg (1883-1970) — 1930 Public Realm
By contrast with the EOIR mess, it’s amazing what changes an expert appellate body that actually takes its job and due process seriously can effect. Imagine if we had an expert BIA that made due process and treating individuals fairly “job one,” rather than operating as a “whistle stop on the deportation railroad.”
The ongoing EOIR clown show 🤡 just keeps getting exposed. But, nobody in charge seems to care! That’s a shame, 🤮 because “human lives, ⚰️ and perhaps the survival of our democracy, 🇺🇸 hang in the balance here!”
“Due Process Forever!”Hmmm, where have I herd THAT before? Thanks, Dan, for all you do for the NDPA!
The American Immigration Council, the National Immigration Alliance, and the Law Professors, all representing a number of other organizations, also filed in behalf of the “good guys, truth, justice, and the American way,” in this case. The respondents are expertly represented by my friend and legendary immigration advocate Ira J. Kurzban, Esquire, of Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt PA.
Ira Kurzban ESQUIRE Legendary American Immigration Lawyer
One could not imagine a group MORE in need of thorough, critical, independent Article III judicial review of its decisions than today’s dysfunctional EOIR!There, potentially fatal errors have been “institutionalized” and even “normalized” as just another “unavoidable” consequence of the anti-immigrant, “haste makes waste,” “culture” that constantly places churning out removal orders above due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices!
Ironically, doubling the number of Immigration Judges, eliminating expertise as the main qualification in judicial selections, and forcing yet more “gimmicks” down their throats has actually nearly tripled the case backlog to an astounding 1.4 million cases, without producing any quantifiable benefit for anyone!
Obviously, it’s high time for Garland to “reinvent” EOIR with progressive experts, many with private sector Immigration Court experience, as judges and leaders at both the appellate and the trial level! Who knows what wonders might result from an emphasis on quality, humanity, and getting decisions correct in the first instance? Progressives are used to creatively solving difficult problems without stepping on anyone’s rights or diminishing anyone’s humanity! Those skills are in disturbingly short supply at today’s failed and failing EOIR! And, they aren’t exactly DOJ’s “long suit,” either.
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”
There was a time in the distant past when all BIA judges were not required to be members of the pro-immigration enforcement “mob!” https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License.
“Under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), the Government must detain noncitizens who are removable because they committed certain specified offenses or have connections with terrorism, and it must hold them without bond pending their removal proceedings. This appeal asks us to decide what process is due when such detainees contend that they are not properly included within § 1226(c) and whether noncitizens who have substantial defenses to removal on the merits may be detained under § 1226(c). Because the District Court granted relief in the form of a class-wide injunction, we must also decide whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) permits class-wide injunctive relief. For the reasons set forth below, we agree with the District Court that § 1226(c) is constitutional even as applied to noncitizens who have substantial defenses to removal. But for those detainees who contend that they are not properly included within § 1226(c) and are therefore entitled to a hearing pursuant to In re Joseph, 22 I. & N. Dec. 799 (BIA 1999), we hold that the Government has the burden to establish the applicability of § 1226(c) by a preponderance of the evidence and that the Government must make available a contemporaneous record of the hearing, consisting of an audio recording, a transcript, or their functional equivalent. Because we also conclude that § 1252(f)(1) does not authorize class-wide injunctions, we will reverse the District Court’s order in part, affirm in part, and remand for the entry of appropriate relief.”
******************
As as interesting footnote, like most of my colleagues at the Arlington Immigration Court, I always recorded bond hearings, long before this court ordered it as required by due process. One of the first things one of my colleagues told me when I arrived at Arlington was “record everything that happens in open court.” Recording protects everyone in the courtroom, including the judge!
It also helped our Judicial Law Clerks and interns “reconstruct” the bond record and understand our reasoning in the infrequent event that a “bond appeal” were filed. Otherwise, the “bond memorandum” would have to be based on the IJ’s notes and his or her recollection of what had transpired.
Talk about a defective system that should have been changed ages ago! But, that’s EOIR!And, it’s not going to improve without some major personnel changes and dynamic leadership that actually understands what happens in Immigration Court and is willing to think creatively, progressively, and change long-outdated practices and procedures, many of them in effect since EOIR was created in the early 1980s!
Here’s my favorite quote from Judge Krause’s opinion:
Having considered the standards urged by the Government and by Plaintiffs, we settle on one in between: To comport with due process, the Government must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the detainee is properly included within § 1226(c) as both a factual and a legal matter. See Addington, 441 U.S. at 423–24. It must show, in other words, that it is more likely than not both that the detainee in fact committed a relevant offense under § 1226(c) and that the offense falls within that provision as a matter of law. Cf. Joseph, 22 I. & N. Dec. at 809 (Schmidt, Chairman, dissenting) (contending that the Government must “demonstrate[] a likelihood of success on the merits of its charge” at the Joseph hearing).
Here’s a link to the full opinion, including my separate opinion, in Matter of Joseph, 22 I&N Dec. 799 (BIA 1999) (Joseph II):
Here’s the full text of my concurring/dissenting opinion (very “compact,” if I do say so myself):
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION: Paul W. Schmidt, Chairman; in which Fred W. Vacca, Gustavo D. Villageliu, Lory D. Rosenberg, and John Guendelsberger, Board Members, joined
I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part.
I join entirely in the majority’s rejection of the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s appellate arguments and in the unanimous conclusion that, on this record, the Service is substantially unlikely to prevail on the merits of the aggravated felony charge. Therefore, I agree that the respondent is not properly included in the category of aliens subject to mandatory detention for bond or custody purposes.
However, I do not share the majority’s view that the proper standard in a mandatory detention case involving a lawful permanent resident alien is that the Service is “substantially unlikely to prevail” on its charge. Matter of Joseph, 22 I&N Dec. 3398, at 10 (BIA 1999). Rather, the standard in a case such as the one before us should be whether the Service has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its charge that the respondent is removable because of an aggravated felony.
Mandatory detention of a lawful permanent resident alien is a drastic step that implicates constitutionally-protected liberty interests. Where the lawful permanent resident respondent has made a colorable showing in cus- tody proceedings that he or she is not subject to mandatory detention, the Service should be required to show a likelihood of success on the merits of its charge to continue mandatory detention. To enable the Immigration Judge to make the necessary independent determination in such a case, the Service should provide evidence of the applicable state or federal law under which the respondent was convicted and whatever proof of conviction that is available at the time of the Immigration Judge’s inquiry.
The majority’s enunciated standard of “substantially unlikely to prevail” is inappropriately deferential to the Service, the prosecutor in this matter. Requiring the Service to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of its charge would not unduly burden the Service and would give more appropriate weight to the liberty interests of the lawful permanent res- ident alien. Such a standard also would provide more “genuine life to the regulation that allows for an Immigration Judge’s reexamination of this issue,” as referenced by the majority. Matter of Joseph, supra, at 10.
The Service’s failure to establish a likelihood of success on the merits would not result in the release of a lawful permanent resident who poses a threat to society. Continued custody of such an alien would still be war- ranted under the discretionary criteria for detention.
In conclusion, mandatory detention should not be authorized where the Service has failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of its charge. Consequently, while I am in complete agreement with the decision to release this lawful permanent resident alien, and I agree fully that the Service is substantially unlikely to prevail on the merits of this aggravated felony charge, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s enunciation of “substantially unlikely to prevail” as the standard to be applied in all future cases involving mandatory detention of lawful permanent resident aliens.
“Pushback” from appellate judges actually committed to the then-EOIR vision of “guaranteeing fairness and due process for all,” was essential! Once the “Ashcroft purge” “dumbed down” the BIA and discouraged dissent and intellectual accountability, the system precipitously tanked! It got so bad that it actually provoked harsh criticism and objections from Circuit Judges across the political/ideological spectrum.
Eventually the Bush II DOJ was forced to back off a few steps from their all-out assault on immigrants’ rights. But, the damage was done, and there were no meaningful attempts to restore balance and quasi-judicial independence at EOIR thereafter. Indeed, Ashcroft’s Bush-era successors blamed the Immigration Judges for the meltdown engineered by Ashcroft, while sweeping their own role in creating “disorder in the courts” under the carpet in the best bureaucratic tradition!
EOIR continued to languish under Obama before going into a complete “death spiral” under the Trump DOJ kakistocracy.
Despite unanimous recommendations from experts that he make progressive reform and major leadership and personnel changes at EOIR one of his highest priorities, AG Garland has allowed the mess and the fatal absence of progressive, due-process-focused, expert judges and best practices at EOIR fester.
Long-deposed progressive judges willing to speak up for due process and fundamental fairness, even in the face of a “go along to get along” culture at DOJ, are still making their voices heard, even decades after they were sent packing! It’s tragic that Garland is letting the opportunity to create a long-overdue and necessary independent progressive judiciary at EOIR slip through his fingers. Progressive Dems might “dream” of transforming the Article III Judiciary; but, it’s not going to happen while Dems are running a “regressive judiciary” at the “retail level” in the one potentially powerful judiciary they do completely control.
Sadly, vulnerable individuals, many of them women, children, and people of color, will continue to suffer the brunt of Garland’s indifferent approach to judicial justice at EOIR. Beyond that, however, his failure to transform EOIR into an independent progressive court system willing to stand up for constitutional due process, equal justice, racial equity, best judicial practices, and the rule of law undermines democracy and diminishes the rights of everyone in America!
Norma Pimentel, a sister of the Missionaries of Jesus, is executive director of Catholic Charities of the Rio Grande Valley.
Dear Mr. President:
I write today to appeal to your sense of morality, human dignity and as a fellow Catholic. While the Supreme Court has blocked your efforts to rescind the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), better known as the “Remain in Mexico” policy, while litigation against it proceeds through the court system, I urge you to act. These legal complications, and our backlogged immigration courts system, cannot become an excuse to strand thousands of people in dire conditions, especially when other options are available.
I know from firsthand experience just how desperate the situation is. MPP was implemented in my community in early 2019. Its effect was to force thousands of people into a makeshift “tent city” along the Mexican side of the Rio Grande river as they awaited rulings on whether they would be granted asylum.
I would visit the camp almost every single day. It was a blessing that hundreds of compassionate Americans crossed the border between Brownsville, Tex., and Matamoros, Mexico, several times a day to bring tents, food, clothing, and to tend to these families’ medical needs and legal issues. While supported by the good nature and assistance that staff and others provided, I often worried about how the women, men and children at the camp could survive in such conditions. How could they stand the scorching heat of our region’s hot sun or the occasional torrential downpours that turned their encampment into a mud pit?
The lack of care for humanity and the sounds of human misery accompanied me daily as I moved through the camp. I know that reports of these conditions have reached your ears, too: I met your wife, Jill Biden, here in 2019 as she donned rubber boots to wade through the mud and see for herself the misery in which asylum seekers, including many women and children, lived for as long as two years.
So, I rejoiced when you declared an end to this immoral policy on your first days in office, and despaired when the Supreme Court required your administration to implement it once again.
I pray for the Supreme Court justices as I do for all leaders. But in my heart, I know that surely, we can do better than return to the conditions and suffering I witnessed in 2019.
. . . . .
I invite you to come and see for yourself, as your wife did in 2019, what is happening on the border. There are many layers to the immigration realities behind the strident political rhetoric that dominates and obscures the issue today. But we must find ways to counter what Pope Francis calls a “globalization of indifference.”
Mr. President, please demonstrate to the world that the words of Jesus — whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, you do unto me — are the foundation of not only our faith, but of the moral structure of our country.
******************
Read the rest of Sister Norma’s letter at the above link.
She’s right: “We cannot allow a lack of creativity and fortitude to become an excuse to abandon the principle of compassion.” But, sadly, that’s exactly what the Biden Administration is doing by listening to the wrong advice from those wedded to the failed, illegal, and cruel concept of misusing the law and perverting process as a “deterrent.”
The experts, “practical scholars,” NGOs, intellectual leaders, and courageous progressive judicial talent who can solve this problem, folks like Sister Norma, Karen Musalo, Marielena Hincappie, Kevin Johnson, Michelle Mendez, Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Lenni Benson, Michele Pistone, Geoffrey Hoffman, Jason “The Asylumist” Dzubow, and Judge Ilyce Shugall, are all “on the outside looking in.” Moreover, rather than working with them to fix the asylum system at the border and bring essential progressive reforms to our dysfunctional Immigration Courts, the Administration has actively alienated and disrespected their views in favor of recycling “guaranteed to fail, Miller-Lite” deterrence only policies of the past.
“Floaters — How The World’s Richest Country Responds To Asylum Seekers” — Beyond bad GOP judges, corrupt and evil GOP State AGs, “Miller Lite” bureaucratic retreads, and feckless and timid Biden policy wonks, this is the harsh reality of our continuing, failed, “border deterrence” policies and our abrogation of asylum laws and human morality. EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT – The bodies of Salvadoran migrant Oscar Alberto Mart??nez Ram??rez and his nearly 2-year-old daughter Valeria lie on the bank of the Rio Grande in Matamoros, Mexico, Monday, June 24, 2019, after they drowned trying to cross the river to Brownsville, Texas. Martinez’ wife, Tania told Mexican authorities she watched her husband and child disappear in the strong current. (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)
The solutions are out there! Too bad the Administration has become “part of the problem,” rather than having the guts and creativity to solve the problem while saving lives! No courage, no convictions, no solutions! It’s a formula for disaster☠️ and death!⚰️
As Sister Norma says, using the words of Jesus, in her powerful conclusion: “whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, you do unto me — are the foundation of not only our faith, but of the moral structure of our country.” Right now, He couldn’t be very pleased with the conduct of the GOP nativists, the Supremes, righty Federal Judges, horrible GOP AGs, and the feckless bureaucrats and timid policy officials of the Biden Administration!
“Floaters — How The World’s Richest Country Responds To Asylum Seekers” — According to the NYT, Biden immigration policy officials always shared this vision of “ultimate border deterrence” with Gauleiter Stephen Miller. Now, they are secretly relieved that Trump’s righty judges have “forced” them to continue running a lawless border and killing asylum seekers without legal process. EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT – The bodies of Salvadoran migrant Oscar Alberto Mart??nez Ram??rez and his nearly 2-year-old daughter Valeria lie on the bank of the Rio Grande in Matamoros, Mexico, Monday, June 24, 2019, after they drowned trying to cross the river to Brownsville, Texas. Martinez’ wife, Tania told Mexican authorities she watched her husband and child disappear in the strong current. (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)
MATAMOROS, Mexico — When the Supreme Court effectively revived a cornerstone of Trump-era migration policy late last month, it looked like a major defeat for President Biden.
After all, Mr. Biden had condemned the policy — which requires asylum seekers to wait in Mexico — as “inhumane” and suspended it on his first day in office, part of an aggressive push to dismantle former President Donald J. Trump’s harshest migration policies.
But among some Biden officials, the Supreme Court’s order was quietly greeted with something other than dismay, current and former officials said: It brought some measure of relief.
Before that ruling, Mr. Biden’s steps to begin loosening the reins on migration had been quickly followed by a surge of people heading north, overwhelming the southwest border of the United States. Apprehensions of migrants hit a two-decade high in July, a trend officials fear will continue into the fall.
Concern had already been building inside the Biden administration that the speed of its immigration changes may have encouraged migrants to stream toward the United States, current and former officials said.
In fact, some Biden officials were already talking about reviving Mr. Trump’s policy in a limited way to deter migration, said the officials, who have worked on immigration policy but were not authorized to speak publicly about the administration’s internal debates on the issue. Then the Supreme Court order came, providing the Biden administration with the political cover to adopt the policy in some form without provoking as much ire from Democrats who reviled Mr. Trump’s border policies.
Now, the officials say, they have an opportunity to take a step back, come up with a more humane version of Mr. Trump’s policy and, they hope, reduce the enormous number of people arriving at the border.
. . . .
*******************
Read the rest of Natalie’s article at the link.
Who would have thought that neo-Nazi Stephen Miller would be the real winner of the 2020 election?
When he ”wins,” America and humanity “lose.” But, apparently that’s “A-OK” with some Biden Administration officials who lack the expertise, ability, courage, and political will to establish the rule of law for asylum seekers at our Southern Border! Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com.
Five decades of experience, including plenty of wall and fence building, civil detention, expedited dockets, restrictive interpretations, criminal prosecutions, family detentions, toddlers without lawyers, money to corrupt foreign governments, “don’t come, we don’t want you and care nothing about your lives messages,” in English and Spanish, says the Biden version of the “Miller Lite” approach will fail and ultimately expand the extralegal population of the U.S.
Of course, it also will kill more desperate humans in the desert, in Mexico, in squalid “camps,” and back in their home countries. Just so long as it’s “out of sight, out of mind.” The great thing about desert deaths is that often the bodies are never found or identified. Therefore, nothing can be proved, and it’s like these people “never happened.” It’s a real bureaucratic triumph! Foreign deaths are almost as good, as they seldom get much “play” in U.S. media and always can be blamed on something other than failed U.S. policies or foreign interventions.
I’d already observed that the DOJ’s “defense” of undoing Trump immigration policies seemed as half-hearted as it was ineffective. Perhaps their lackadaisical approach came right from the top!
And, the “policy geniuses” in the Biden Administration who think “Miller-Lite Time” will be a political “happy hour” (at humanity’s expense) should remember that the right will still successfully label them as “open borders” just as they did when Obama established himself as “deporter-in-chief!”
Meanwhile, their former progressive supporters will see through the false humane rhetoric. Does it really matter if we call individuals “foreign nationals” rather than “illegals” while we’re illegally exterminating them?
I’m afraid we know the answer to “Casey’s question:” NO!
”Sorry, Casey! Not only can’t anyone in the Biden Administration ‘play this game,’ they don’t even have the guts to suit up! They view a ‘forfeit’ to “Team Miller” as good as a ‘W.’ Remember, it’s not THEIR family, friends, or relatives dying at our border. It’s just ‘the other guys,’ so who cares? When it comes to U.S. immigration policy, foreign nationals all too often find that their lives and human dignity are just another form of expendable political capital.” PHOTO: Rudi Rest Creative Commons
Torture? What torture? It’s merely “enhanced fact-finding!”
Public realm“They all want to voluntarily waive further hearings and take final orders!” Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
The phrase appears in multiple 9/11 volumes, usually uttered by top officials adamant that they were going to get things done, laws and rules be damned. Anti-terrorism efforts were always “lawyered to death” during the Clinton administration, Tenet complains in “Bush at War,” Bob Woodward’s 2002 book on the debates among the president and his national security team. In an interview with Woodward, Bush drops the phrase amid the machospeak — “dead or alive,” “bring ’em on” and the like — that became typical of his anti-terrorism rhetoric. “I had to show the American people the resolve of a commander in chief that was going to do whatever it took to win,” Bush explains. “No yielding. No equivocation. No, you know, lawyering this thing to death.” In “Against All Enemies,” Clarke recalls the evening of Sept. 11, 2001, when Bush snapped at an official who suggested that international law looked askance at military force as a tool of revenge. “I don’t care what the international lawyers say, we are going to kick some ass,” the president retorted.
The message was unmistakable: The law is an obstacle to effective counterterrorism. Worrying about procedural niceties is passe in a 9/11 world, an annoying impediment to the essential work of ass-kicking.
Except, they did lawyer this thing to death. Instead of disregarding the law, the Bush administration enlisted it. “Beginning almost immediately after September 11, 2001, [Vice President Dick] Cheney saw to it that some of the sharpest and best-trained lawyers in the country, working in secret in the White House and the United States Department of Justice, came up with legal justifications for a vast expansion of the government’s power in waging war on terror,” Jane Mayer writes in “The Dark Side,” her relentless 2008 compilation of the arguments and machinations of government lawyers after the attacks. Through public declarations and secret memos, the administration sought to remove limits on the president’s conduct of warfare and to deny terrorism suspects the protections of the Geneva Conventions by redefining them as unlawful enemy combatants. Nothing, Mayer argues of the latter effort, “more directly cleared the way for torture than this.”
To comprehend what our government can justify in the name of national security, consider the torture memos themselves, authored by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel between 2002 and 2005 to green-light CIA interrogation methods for terrorism suspects. Tactics such as cramped confinement, sleep deprivation and waterboarding were rebranded as “enhanced interrogation techniques,” legally and linguistically contorted to avoid the label of torture. Though the techniques could be cruel and inhuman, the OLC acknowledged in an August 2002 memo, they would constitute torture only if they produced pain equivalent to organ failure or death, and if the individual inflicting such pain really really meant to do so: “Even if the defendant knows that severe pain will result from his actions, if causing such harm is not his objective, he lacks the requisite specific intent.” It’s quite the sleight of hand, with torture moving from the body of the interrogated to the mind of the interrogator.
After devoting dozens of pages to the metaphysics of specific intent, the true meaning of “prolonged” mental harm or “imminent” death, and the elasticity of the Convention Against Torture, the memo concludes that none of it actually matters. Even if a particular interrogation method would cross some legal line, the relevant statute would be considered unconstitutional because it “impermissibly encroached” on the commander in chief’s authority to conduct warfare. Almost nowhere in these memos does the Justice Department curtail the power of the CIA to do as it pleases.
In fact, the OLC lawyers rely on assurances from the CIA itself to endorse such powers. In a second memo from August 2002, the lawyers ruminate on the use of cramped confinement boxes. “We have no information from the medical experts you have consulted that the limited duration for which the individual is kept in the boxes causes any substantial physical pain,” the memo states. Waterboarding likewise gets a pass. “You have informed us that this procedure does not inflict actual physical harm,” the memo states. “Based on your research . . . you do not anticipate that any prolonged mental harm would result from the use of the waterboard.”
You have informed us. Experts you have consulted. Based on your research. You do not anticipate. Such hand-washing words appear throughout the memos. The Justice Department relies on information provided by the CIA to reach its conclusions; the CIA then has the cover of the Justice Department to proceed with its interrogations. It’s a perfect circle of trust.
Yet the logic is itself tortured. In a May 2005 memo, the lawyers conclude that because no single technique inflicts “severe” pain amounting to torture, their combined use “would not be expected” to reach that level, either. As though embarrassed at such illogic, the memo attaches a triple-negative footnote: “We are not suggesting that combinations or repetitions of acts that do not individually cause severe physical pain could not result in severe physical pain.” Well, then, what exactly are you suggesting? Even when the OLC in 2004 officially withdrew its August 2002 memo following a public outcry and declared torture “abhorrent,” the lawyers added a footnote to the new memo assuring that they had reviewed the prior opinions on the treatment of detainees and “do not believe that any of their conclusions would be different under the standards set forth in this memorandum.”
In these documents, lawyers enable lawlessness. Another May 2005 memo concludes that, because the Convention Against Torture applies only to actions occurring under U.S. jurisdiction, the CIA’s creation of detention sites in other countries renders the convention “inapplicable.” Similarly, because the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment is meant to protect people convicted of crimes, it should not apply to terrorism detainees — because they have not been officially convicted of anything. The lack of due process conveniently eliminates constitutional protections. In his introduction to “The Torture Memos: Rationalizing the Unthinkable,” David Cole describes the documents as “bad-faith lawyering,” which might be generous. It is another kind of lawyering to death, one in which the rule of law that the 9/11 Commission urged us to abide by becomes the victim.
Years later, the Senate Intelligence Committee would investigate the CIA’s post-9/11 interrogation program. Its massive report — the executive summary of which appeared as a 549-page book in 2014 — found that torture did not produce useful intelligence, that the interrogations were more brutal than the CIA let on, that the Justice Department did not independently verify the CIA’s information, and that the spy agency impeded oversight by Congress and the CIA inspector general. It explains that the CIA purported to oversee itself and, no surprise, that it deemed its interrogations effective and necessary, no matter the results. (If a detainee provided information, it meant the program worked; if he did not, it meant stricter applications of the techniques were needed; if still no information was forthcoming, the program had succeeded in proving he had none to give.)
“The CIA’s effectiveness representations were almost entirely inaccurate,” the Senate report concluded. It is one of the few lies of the war on terror unmasked by an official government investigation and public report, but just one of the many documented in the 9/11 literature.
. . . ,.
****************************
Sound painfully familiar? It should, to those of us “DOJ vets” who lived through this period. The use of the “third person,” “double and triple negatives,” “weasel words” like “you have given us to understand that,” “decision by committee” where a memo is routed through so many layers of bureaucracy that the original author or authors don’t even appear on its face — are all “devices” to diffuse and obscure responsibility and avoid clear accountability for controversial(and too often wrong) decisions!
During our time at the BIA, my fellow U.W. Badger, Judge Mike Heilman and I were often at odds on the law, particularly when it came to asylum. Anybody who doubts this should read Mike’s remarkable and famous (or infamous) “rabbi dissent” in Matter of H-, 21 I&N Dec. 337, 349 (BIA 1996) (Heilman, Board Member, dissenting). Nevertheless, one thing we agreed upon was requiring any decisions written for us to use the first person to reflect whose decision it actually was!
“Lawyers enable lawlessness.” How true! In 2002, DOJ lawyers (hand-chosen by the politicos) “tanked” and enabled, even encouraged, gross law violations by the CIA.
Fast forward to 2018. Then, White Nationalist AG Jeff Sessions exhorted his wholly-owned “judges” at EOIR not to treat DHS enforcement as a party before the court, but rather as a worthy “partner” in combatting the largely-fabricated “scourge” of illegal immigration (that actually, as we can now see, was propping up Trump’s economy). Is it surprising that precedent decisions by Sessions, Whitaker, and Barr favored DHS nearly 100% of the time and the BIA thereafter issued almost no precedents where the individual prevailed (not that there were many of those following “the Ashcroft purge,” even before Sessions)?
Asylum grant rates in Immigration Court tumbled precipitously, while both the trial, and particularly appellate, levels at EOIR were “packed” with judges whose main qualification appeared to be an expectation that they would churn out large numbers of removal orders without much analysis or consideration of the factors favoring the individual. Misogyny and anti-asylum, anti-private-lawyer attitudes (those “dirty lawyers”) were encouraged by Sessions as part the “culture” at EOIR, sometimes visibly rewarded by “elevation” to the BIA.
Interestingly, at the same time in 2002 that the group of DOJ attorneys was furiously working in secret to justify torture, in clear violation of the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), another group in the DOJ, the BIA, was struggling to make the CAT work in “real world” litigated cases. A number of us dissented from the majority of our BIA colleagues’ wrong-headed and rather transparent attempt to “neuter” CAT protection from the outset. Unlike the “secret lawyers” at the DOJ, our work was public and had consequences not only for the humans involved, but for those of us who had the audacity to stand up for their rights under domestic and international law!
Here’s an excerpt from my long-forgotten dissenting opinion in Matter of J-E-, 22 I&N Dec. 291, 314-15 (BIA 2002) (Schmidt, Board Member, dissenting):
The majority concludes that the extreme mistreatment likely to befall this respondent in Haiti is not “torture,” but merely “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.” The majority further concludes that conduct defined as “torture” occurs in the Haitian detention system, but is not “likely” for this respondent. In short, the majority goes to great lengths to avoid applying the Convention Against Torture to this respondent.
We are in the early stages of the very difficult and thankless task of construing the Convention. Only time will tell whether the majority’s narrow reading of the torture definition and its highly technical approach to the standard of proof will be the long-term benchmarks for our country’s implementation of this international treaty.
Although I am certainly bound to follow and apply the majority’s constructions in all future cases, I do not believe that the majority adequately carries out the language or the purposes of the Convention and the implementing regulations. Therefore, I fear that we are failing to comply with our international obligations.
I conclude that the respondent is more likely than not to face officially sanctioned torture if returned to Haiti. Therefore, I would grant his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture and the implementing regulations. Consequently, I respectfully dissent.
Within a year of that decision, my dissenting colleagues and I were among those “purged” from the BIA by Ashcroft because of our views. I’d argue that EOIR has continued to go straight downhill since then, and is now in total free fall! Surely, any “facade” of quasi-judicial independence at the BIA has long-since crumbled. Yet, AG Garland pretends there is no problem. Garland’s apparent belief that this is still Judge Bell’s or Ben Civiletti’s or even Ed Levi’s DOJ is simply, demonstrably, wrong.
Today’s DOJ has been part and parcel of a highly inappropriate “weaponization” of the law and “Dred Scottification” directed against individual civil rights, migrants, voters, women, people of color, and a host of “others” who were on the far right “hit list” of the Trump kakistocracy. Nowhere has that been more evident than at the dysfunctional and institutionally biased EOIR. The problems plaguing American justice today have increased since 9-11. They will continue to fester and grow unless and until Garland faces reality and makes progressive leadership and judicial changes at EOIR to addresses the toxic culture of complicity and abusive use of the law to degrade individual and human rights. And, some real accountability at the rest of the badly-damaged DOJ should not be far behind.
REYNOSA, Mexico — When Joe Biden was running for president, he promised to close a squalid border tent camp in Mexico where thousands of migrants had been left to await the outcome of their immigration cases by the Trump administration.
Last spring, Biden emptied the camp, allowing most of the migrants to claim asylum and enter the U.S. even as his administration continued enforcing a Trump pandemic policy that effectively barred most other asylum seekers.
Soon after the Matamoros camp was bulldozed last March, a new camp formed about 55 miles west across from the border bridge to the more dangerous, Gulf crime cartel stronghold of Reynosa. Now that camp and another in Tijuana are home to thousands of asylum seekers, many with spouses and children in the U.S. They’re expected to grow after federal courts reinstated Trump’s so-called Remain in Mexico program last week, making it even harder for asylum seekers to enter the U.S. legally.
“We all thought this would get better when Biden got the presidency,” said Brendon Tucker, who works at the camp clinic run by the U.S.-based nonprofit Global Response Management, which also ran a clinic at the Matamoros camp.
Instead, he said, Biden’s pandemic ban on asylum claims, “is creating worse conditions in Mexico.”
About 2,000 migrants were living at the camp in Reynosa, Mexico, last week.(Molly Hennessy-Fiske / Los Angeles Times)
A White House spokesman declined to comment about the migrant camps, referring questions to the Department of Homeland Security.
Homeland Security said in a statement that, “This administration will continue to work closely with its interagency, foreign, and international organization partners to comply in good faith with the district court’s order [on Remain in Mexico] while continuing our work to build a safe, orderly, and humane immigration system that upholds our laws and values.”
In Reynosa, where about 2,000 migrants were living last week, conditions are in many ways worse than they were in Matamoros, Tucker said. There’s less potable water, fewer bathrooms, showers and other sanitation that U.S.-based nonprofits spent months installing in Matamoros. Mexican soldiers circle in trucks with guns mounted on top. Migrants face not only cartel extortion and kidnapping, but also COVID-19 outbreaks and pressure to leave from Mexican authorities. Fewer U.S. volunteers, including immigration lawyers, are willing to cross the border to help due to security concerns. Few at the camp understand their rights and U.S. pandemic restrictions, although they say they asked U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents about them before they were expelled.
“They didn’t tell us anything, they just left us here,” said Salvadoran migrant Emerita Alfaro Palacios, 34, who’s been living at the camp with her 17-year-old daughter Pamela since June, hoping to join her brother in Houston.
Migrants call the camp Plaza Las Americas, the name of the park it occupies. The first to arrive last spring holed up inside the central gazebo. Those who followed pitched tents outside, their warren of droopy tarps and clotheslines expanding daily. Gone were the mariachis who used to congregate in the park, in the shade of a dilapidated casino that still draws throngs on weekends. Last week, only the gazebo’s spindly roof was visible, like the center of an enormous, patched circus tent. Taxis and vendors still circled, selling fruit popsicles, tacos, pupusas and other dishes catering to hungry migrants, mostly Central Americans. Many said they came to the border hoping Biden would allow them to claim asylum. Some had seen reports about how he helped those at the camp in Matamoros.
Many Reynosa residents and officials consider the camp an eyesore.
Standing on the roof of a nearby building overlooking the camp last week, maintenance worker Hector Hernandez Garrido, 33, said it was the responsibility of the U.S. to accept the asylum seekers. He said he feared the camp was contaminated by COVID-19 and other diseases.
Two weeks ago, Reynosa authorities removed cook stoves from the camp kitchen, citing safety risks. They pressured U.S. volunteers to stop cordoning off a section of the camp for migrants who had tested positive for COVID-19, and have threatened to cut the camp’s electricity and water supply.
“They want us out,” said Gina Maricela, a Honduran single mother and nurse at the GRM clinic.
It’s not clear where the migrants would go. Last month, Reynosa officials also launched a legal battle to demolish the city’s primary nonprofit migrant shelter, already home to hundreds, arguing it lies in a floodplain. Felicia Rangel-Samponaro, who has been crossing the border daily to help migrants at the Reynosa camp through her nonprofit Sidewalk School, said they rented a 20-room hotel for those who are COVID-positive to quarantine. They may build a new camp, she said, but that would take weeks and cost tens of thousands of dollars.
“It’s exactly like Matamoros, but with less support,” Rangel-Samponaro said. “Cut what you like, that’s not going to stop the encampment.”
As in Matamoros and other border cities in the surrounding Tamaulipas state, it’s not city officials or even migrants who ultimately control the plaza — it’s the cartel. Migrants who enter or leave the city without paying a smuggler risk getting kidnapped and held for ransom. So do those who leave the camp, even for a few hours to shop or look for work.
Honduran migrant Lesly Pineda, a factory worker, said she and her 11-year-old son Joan were kidnapped with eight other migrants in July and released only after she paid a $2,000 ransom. A single mother, Pineda, 33, then took her son to the border and sent him across the Rio Grande with a smuggler. He remained at a federal shelter in Texas last week, she said. She had left her two oldest children, ages 15 and 14, with her mother in Honduras.
. . . .
**********************
“Floaters — How The World’s Richest Country Responds To Asylum Seekers” — Will U.S. policy makers ever get beyond this jaundiced view of the “proper place” for asylum seekers in modern society? So far, despite Biden’s and Harris’s campaign rhetoric, the “reality on the ground” (or “in the river,” as the case might be) has remained disturbingly unchanged! EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT – The bodies of Salvadoran migrant Oscar Alberto Mart??nez Ram??rez and his nearly 2-year-old daughter Valeria lie on the bank of the Rio Grande in Matamoros, Mexico, Monday, June 24, 2019, after they drowned trying to cross the river to Brownsville, Texas. Martinez’ wife, Tania told Mexican authorities she watched her husband and child disappear in the strong current. (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)
Read Molly’s full report at the link.
The Trump kakistocracy considered the legal asylum system to be a “loophole” in their White Nationalist agenda. So, they just overtly violated the law. Thanks to an indulgent “Dred Scott” Supremes’ majority, they largely got away with it!
The Biden Administration considers complying with asylum laws, due process, and the rule of law, essentially a “political option” that they are working on (slowly, and incompetently).
In the meantime, they simply continue the Trump Administration’s illegal policies. Because, hey, it’s not real humans whose rights, lives, and humanity are being stomped upon here. Just “foreign nationals” and mostly “people of color” at that. Let ‘em continue to twist in the wind, while the Administration gets its act together. That’s particularly convenient if it’s happeningsouth of the border where, except for a few courageous folks like Molly and some NGOs and religious workers, the human trauma is largely “out of sight out of mind.”
If all else fails, we can always blame Trump. Like Trump, Biden has largely ceded control of southern border policies and migration from Latin America to cartels, smugglers, and traffickers. When the legal system fails, the underground and the black market take over.
I don’t think that there is any doubt that restoring the legal asylum system and actually, for perhaps the first time,administering it fairly, lawfully, generously, and with competent expert Asylum Officers and Immigration Judges (“new blood” required) would result in a substantial number of border arrivals being granted legal asylum or other forms of protection.
We’d actually be able to screen individuals, know who we have admitted, where they are going, have them in possession of legal work authorization, in a position to pay taxes, and in many cases have them on a path to eventual full integration into our society. And, by all legitimate accounts, after four years of Trump’s legal immigration disaster and a falling birth rate, we certainly can use more legal immigration.
Instead of looking at asylum seekers as a self-defined “problem,” why not look at saving them and integrating their skills and undoubted courage, energy, and perseverance into our society in a constructive manner as an “opportunity?” Because, that’s exactly what it is!
Human migration will continue, as it always has been, to be a major force in the 21st Century. “Smart money” is on the countries that best learn how to adapt and take advantage of its realities and embrace its opportunities as the “winners of the future.”
Given a fair, functional, generous system, many asylum seekers would be motivated to apply in an orderly fashion at ports of entry, or even abroad (if we actually had a robust functioning refugee program for Latin America, which we don’t). With an honest system that treats them fairly, listens carefully, and provides reasoned understandable decisions, even those who don’t qualify would be more likely to accept the result and consider constructive alternatives.
If the U.S. stepped up, fulfilled our legal obligations, and set a good example, other countries in a position to accept refugees and asylum seekers might also be motivated to improve their performance.
But, what we’re doing right now to those we falsely promised to treat fairly won’t be swept under the carpet forever. Historians are likely to highlight the cowardly abrogation of our legal duties to refugees and asylum seekers, by Administrations of both parties, as alow point in the American story.
“A federal judge declared unlawful the U.S. government’s turnbacks of asylum seekers arriving at ports of entry along the U.S southern border. The court ruled that the United States is required by law to inspect and process asylum seekers when they present themselves at ports of entry, and condemned the practice of denying access to the asylum process through metering and similar practices.
The decision came after oral arguments were held before U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant of the Southern District of California on Tuesday.
The case, Al Otro Lado v. Mayorkas, was brought 4 years ago by Al Otro Lado and a group of 13 individuals seeking asylum in the United States whom U.S. Customs and Border Protection turned back. The Center for Constitutional Rights, Southern Poverty Law Center, American Immigration Council, and the law firm Mayer Brown challenged the policy.
Nicole Ramos, Border Rights Project Director of Al Otro Lado, said, “After over four years, a U.S. federal court concluded what our team at Al Otro Lado has known all along, that CBP’s turning away of asylum seekers from ports of entry and metering are illegal and violate the rights of the individuals and families most in need of our protection. Despite DHS’s lies about their capacity to process asylum seekers, the reasons behind why metering exists, and the agency’s destruction of evidence in the case, today the rule of law and justice prevail.”
Baher Azmy, Legal Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said, “This is such an important victory for our heroic partners at Al Otro Lado, who have fought for asylum seekers for years against every variation of government lie, denial, and abuse of power. The decision will protect thousands of vulnerable people at the border.”
Melissa Crow, Senior Supervising Attorney with the Southern Poverty Law Center, said, “This decision affirms what people fleeing persecution and immigrant rights advocates have argued for years: the U.S. government’s denial of access to the asylum process at ports of entry is blatantly illegal. The Court properly recognized the extensive human costs of metering, including the high risk of assault, disappearance, and death, when CBP officers flout their duty to inspect and process asylum seekers and instead force them to wait in Mexico.”
“Turning back asylum seekers at ports of entry unconstitutionally stripped people of their right under U.S. law to access the asylum process in the United States. Ports of entry are a critical part of our nation’s asylum system and serve as the front door for arriving asylum seekers. Today’s decision underscores that the government may not simply shut that door and deny asylum seekers this right. The law protects asylum seekers arriving at our doorstep as it does those who stepped over the threshold. CBP must inspect and process arriving asylum seekers,” said Karolina Walters, senior attorney at American Immigration Council.
“Today’s decision is not just a victory for justice and the rule of law, it takes a significant step towards ending a troubling chapter in our nation’s history,” said Stephen Medlock, a partner at Mayer Brown LLP. “Under the turnback policy that was at issue in this case, the very government officials that should have been welcoming and assisting victims of persecution and torture were told to turn them away from the United States. The district court found that to be unequivocally illegal.”
Maria Frausto at the American Immigration Council, mfrausto@immcouncil.org or 202-507-7526; Marion Steinfels at SPLC, marion.steinfels@splcenter.org or 202-557-0430; Jen Nessel, Center for Constitutional Rights, 212-614-6449, jnessel@ccrjustice.org; Melissa Flores, Al Otro Lado, melissa@alotrolado.org, 213-444-6081.”
*******************
Not surprisingly to those of us who understand the system, this illegal, inane, and unnecessary policy instituted by the Trump kakistocracy and inexplicably continued under Biden has fueled illegal entries, as we effectively gave asylum seekers no legal avenue to make their applications.
As noted above, the Trump Administration also lied to the court and the public about the justification for the program, which clearly was fabricated.
But, to be fair, the Biden Administration has done little to re-establish the rule of law for asylum seekers at the Southern Border. Obviously, this case demands a long overdue investigation into the DOJ attorneys who handled and defended the indefensible, and the misconduct of those attorneys and CBP officials in hiding or destroying evidence and creating bogus scenarios to “justify” their illegal actions. But, don’t hold your breath for Garland, who seems largely indifferent to misconduct at the DOJ or anywhere else in Government, to take any action.
Legal asylum seekers suffer severe consequences for the Government’s concerted attack on their legal rights and humanity. The “perps on our payroll” — not so much. No wonder our legal system is in free fall!
It isn’t clear to me how this case interacts with Biden’s continuation of Title 42 which illegally bars many asylum seekers from pursuing their claims in any manner. There are exceptions, but they appear to be somewhat arbitrary and depend mostly on what CBP feels like doing on any particular day.
For those allowed to pursue claims in the U.S., the Biden Administration still doesn’t have a functioning way of promptly and fairly determining their cases. “Dedicated Dockets” at EOIR are just another “designed to fail” gimmick, almost certain to increase backlogs without promoting fairness and efficiency.
That which would make the asylum system functional for all — immediate EOIR reform, including new progressive leadership, a progressive BIA, much better asylum precedents, some progressive IJs well-qualified to handle asylum cases fairly and efficiently (e.g., getting them right initially, insisting that Asylum Officers do likewise, and cracking down on frivolous behavior by DHS in Immigration Court, rather than the haste makes waste “any reason to deny culture” that drives EOIR’s incredibly poor and inept performance on asylum cases today) and working agreements with the private bar for representation and reasonable scheduling — has been of little visible interest to Garland and his lieutenants to date.
With Congress more or less living on another planet, that’s likely to leave reshaping the asylum system to the Federal Courts. There, as this case shows, there is still a smattering of Article III Judges committed to due process and the rule of law for asylum seekers. But, there are now enough right wing extremists put on the bench by the GOP to make it highly likely that any hard won progressive judicial reforms will eventually be undone.
The one place where progressive reforms could actually take place, and be made to endure, at least for the balance of this Administration — EOIR — has been mishandled by Garland to date.
What an awful, disgraceful mess — with no viable plans for improvement on the horizon!
Proposed asylum regulation changes that rely heavily on a currently broken, dysfunctional, non-expert EOIR to protect the rights of asylum seekers — after years of intentionally bashing them on behalf of their nativist overlords — is an obvious non-starter that fails to “pass the straight face test” as those who actually are condemned to practice before EOIR know all to well. Of course, the regulatory proposal wasn’t drafted by those actually familiar with the human trauma of litigating asylum cases at EOIR.
Ah, Casey, “why can’t anyone out there in ‘Bidenland’ play this game?”
“Casey Stengel might understand Judge Garland. The rest of us not so much.” PHOTO: Rudi Reit Creative Commons
“We hold that B.C. was denied due process because the IJ did not conduct an adequate initial evaluation of whether an interpreter was needed and took no action even after the language barrier became apparent. Those failures resulted in a muddled record and appear to have impermissibly colored the agency’s adverse credibility determination. We therefore vacate the BIA’s decisions and remand for a new hearing on the merits of B.C.’s claims. On remand, the agency must also remedy other errors B.C. has identified, which include dealing with the corroborative evidence he submitted.”
“Baljinder Singh achieved what many immigrants to our country seek: he became a naturalized citizen. Unfortunately, he did so through willful misrepresentation, and, as a consequence, his citizenship was revoked. Before that revocation and while he was still a citizen, he was convicted of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute illegal drugs. That led the government to initiate removal proceedings against him, and he was in fact ordered to be removed. Singh now petitions for review of that final order of removal, arguing that the pertinent statutory provisions, by their terms, permit removal only of individuals who were “aliens” at the time of their criminal convictions, whereas he was a naturalized citizen when convicted. The government responds that we must defer to the interpretation given by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) to those statutes and therefore must deny the petition for review. In the alternative, the government contends that Singh should be treated as if he had never been naturalized and was actually an “alien” at the time he was convicted. We disagree with both of the government’s arguments and will grant Singh’s petition for review.”
Who would have thought that nearly eight months into the Biden Administration, Garland would still be living in this guy’s house and cranking out some of America’s most unabashedly horrible “jurisprudence” that actually threatens human lives! This is competence? Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com
So many systemic problems here! So many obvious solutions! So much progressive expert talent out here who could get this system back on track and save lives in the process! So few excuses for Garland’s gross mishandling of the ongoing EOIR disaster!
The “culture of sloppiness, denial, and anti-immigrant bias” remains at EOIR almost eight months into the Biden Administration! Major personnel (new expert progressive judges committed to due process) and structural changes are necessary and long, long overdue!
The BIA needs to be replaced. Yesterday! Not rocket science! 🚀 Garland and his DOJ have no credibility whatsoever on civil rights, voting rights, or other racial justice issues as long as they run “star chambers” targeting primarily migrants of color (not to mention their long-suffering and dedicated lawyers, many acting pro bono).
“Justice” Star Chamber Style — Garland’s star chambers look and function disturbingly like those of Stephen Miller! Is this REALLY the “progressive humanitarian change” progressives voted for?
Immigrant justice IS racial justice IS equal justice for all! I’m certainly not the only person to have observed this!
⚠️WARNING TO PROGRESSIVE ADVOCATES: There can be no legitimate “asylum reform” without a strong, courageously progressive EOIR to set proper precedent, insure consistency, establish best practices, train judges and adjudicators, and police both the Immigration Courts and the Asylum Offices, including ordering corrective action to be taken in cases of those judge and officers repeatedly and demonstrably “not up to the job.” In simple terms, the culture of anti-asylum bias, racial dehumanization, and sloppy anti-immigrant decision-making that was promoted and institutionalized at EOIR under Sessions and Barr must be eradicated!
Do you seriously think that “this version” of EOIR, poorly trained, weakly staffed, and led by a BIA custom designed and packed by nativists to deny asylum and tilt in favor of DHS enforcement, will insure fairness and due process to asylum seekers in a “streamlined system?” No way!
Yet, beneath all the legal gobbledygook surrounding the proposed asylum regulation changes is the ugly reality that inflicting a “Miller-Lite” EOIR on asylum seekers and their advocates is EXACTLY what Garland and Mayorkas are absurdly proposing!
Advocates need to make their voices heard for immediate EOIR reforms from Garland and establishment of a new well-qualified, well-trained, progressive EOIR as an absolute, non-negotiable prerequisite to any more “gimmicks,” including most of the proposed asylum regulations.
As proved, beyond any reasonable doubt, day after day, Garland’s EOIR is “not quite ready for prime time” — not by a long shot! JUST SAY NO TO STREAMLINING & YET MORE “GIMMICKS” (see, e.g., “Dedicated Dockets”) WITHOUT RADICAL PROGRESSIVE EOIR REFORMS!⚖️🗽
The main problem with the current asylum system isn’t the law. It’s the unqualified folks charged with interpreting and applying it, those “defending the indefensible” (also an abuse of our legal process), and the spineless politicos unwilling to stand up for due process and the rule of law for migrants — at the border and elsewhere!
The failure of effective progressive leadership on EOIR reform at DOJ is simply appalling! And, OIL isn’t exactly covering itself in glory either! You can’t win the game without new and better players on the field. Right Casey?
“Casey Stengel might understand Judge Garland. The rest of us not so much.” Not going to win many games for humanity and the rule of law with Stephen Miller’s “nativist team” on the field. Is that fundamental truth really too deep for Garland and his “spear carriers” to grasp? PHOTO: Rudi Reit Creative Commons
Here’s the ugly truth about what two Administrations and some really bad Federal Judges have done to our vulnerable fellow humans seeking legal refuge at our borders:
I refer to this as the “harsh reality that the nativist Ted Cruz ‘let ‘em enjoy the beaches in Cancun’ crowd doesn’t get!”
And, here’s the truth about migrants helping our nation thrive and who are a key component of our hopes for the future. Progressives and their allies must double down and act upon these truths to combat the type of ridiculous, dangerous, anti- American nativist lies and myths that were driving some of the misinformed callers, also pushed by the “insurrectionist wing” of the GOP:
Significantly, this article came from the George W. Bush Institute, hardly a “left wing think tank.”
“Geoffrey’s 40 minutes” shows that there is, indeed, an imminent threat to American democracy, leadership, and future prosperity out there. But, it definitely does not come from migrants! A nation where about 98% of the population came from immigrant lineage can’t afford to turn our backs on today’s immigrants.
Trumpy nativists, posing as fiscal conservatives, want you to question whether the United States can afford to take in Afghan allies and refugees.
The better question is whether we can afford not to.
The Republican Party has cleaved in recent weeks over the issue of Afghan refugees, specifically those who served as military interpreters or otherwise aided U.S. efforts. On the one hand, Republican governors and lawmakers around the country have volunteered to resettle Afghan evacuees in their states. Likewise, a recent CBS News/YouGov poll found that bringing these allies to the United States is phenomenally popular, garnering support from 76 percent of Republican respondents. Influential conservative constituencies are invested in this issue, too, including veterans’ groups and faith leaders.
On the other hand, the Trump strain within the GOP has been fighting such magnanimous impulses with misinformation.
Xenophobic politicians and media personalities have been conspiracy-theorizing about the dangers of resettling Afghan allies here — even though we had previously entrusted these same Afghans with the lives of U.S. troops and granted them security clearances. And even though they go through additional extensive screening before being brought to our shores.
No matter; if you listen to Tucker Carlson and his ilk, you’ll hear that these Afghans are apparently part of a secret plot to replace White Americans, and that untamed Afghan hordes are going to rape your wife and daughter.
Often these demagogues try to disguise their racist objections to refugee resettlement (and immigration more broadly) as economic concerns. Their claim: that however heartbreaking the footage from the Kabul airport, compassion for Afghan refugees is a luxury Americans simply cannot afford.
Refugees are somehow responsible for existing housing shortages, proclaims Carlson. (This is demonstrably false; the reason we have too little affordable housing is primarily because people like Carlson oppose building more and denser housing.) More refugees would sponge up precious taxpayer dollars, according to Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.). And in general, refugees — like all immigrants — are a massive drain on the U.S. economy, alleges Stephen Miller.
This is nonsense.
. . . .
***********************
Read Catherine’s complete op-ed at the link!
Thanks, Catherine, for once again standing up to and speaking truth against disgraceful, neo-Nazi, nativist racists like Stephen Miller, Tucker Carlson, and Marjorie Taylor Greene!
By contrast, one might well ask what “value added” folks like Stephen Miller and his buddies, (Miller has largely sponged off of taxpayer funds while looking for ways to inflict misery on others and destroy America) bring to the table. None, that I can see!
Moreover, even beyond the undoubted value of robust refugee admissions, there is good reason to believe that large-scale migration presents our best opportunity for salvation and prosperity, rather than the “bogus threat” posited by Miller & Co.
As Deepak Bhargava and Ruth Milkman recently, and quite cogently, wrote in American Prospect:
. . . .
A “Statue of Liberty Plan” for the 21st century could make the United States the world’s most welcoming country for immigrants. Right now, the foreign-born share of the U.S. population lags behind that of Canada, Australia, and Switzerland. In order to surpass them, the United States would have to admit millions more people each year for a decade or longer. We currently admit immigrants to promote family integration, meet economic needs, respond to humanitarian crises, and increase the diversity of our population from historically underrepresented countries. Under this plan, we could dramatically expand admissions in all four categories and add a fifth category to recognize the claims of climate migrants. As a civic project of national renewal, with millions of people playing a role in welcoming new immigrants, such a policy could reweave frayed social bonds and create a healthier, outward-looking, multiracial national identity.
The politics of immigration, however, lag far behind the moral and economic logic of the case for a pro-immigration policy. The immigrant threat narrative has become so pervasive that many liberals have embraced it, if only because they hope to fend off threats from right-wing nationalists. President Obama not only deprioritized immigration reform in his first term but deported record numbers of immigrants, hoping that such a display of “toughness” might win support for legalization of the undocumented immigrants already here. Hillary Clinton advocated liberal immigration policies in her 2016 presidential campaign but later tacked toward restrictionism. Liberals and leftists across the global North, from Austria to France to the U.K., have offered similar concessions to nativism. But mimicking right-wing appeals is a losing gamble that only serves to legitimize the anti-immigrant agenda and its standard-bearers.
There are promising signs of potential for shifting the debate, however, if progressives lean in. Polling shows that Americans increasingly reject the immigrant threat narrative, largely due to Trump’s shameless cruelty. Last year, for the first time since Gallup began asking the question in 1965, more Americans supported increased levels of immigration than supported reduced levels. A telling barometer of how the sands are shifting is that President Biden’s proposed immigration bill is far to the left of what Obama proposed.
The work of shifting gears toward a more welcoming policy can begin right now by fully welcoming immigrants who already reside in our country. A crucial starting point would be to include a path to citizenship for essential workers, Dreamers, farmworkers, and Temporary Protected Status holders in the American Jobs Plan Congress is considering. This is not only a humane approach, but it also will stimulate economic growth and thus help finance other parts of the plan. A separate campaign by the Biden administration (not requiring congressional action) to simplify the naturalization process for nine million eligible green-card holders would help make the nation’s electorate more reflective of its population.
Getting the politics of immigration right isn’t just important for immigrants. Nativism, built upon the sturdy foundation of racism, remains among the most potent tools in the arsenal of right-wing authoritarians. Any program for economic equity or democracy will be fragile in the absence of a coherent immigration agenda. The antidote to authoritarianism is not to duck, cower, or imitate the nativists, but rather to make the case for opening the door to millions more immigrants.
If slavery and genocide were the country’s original sins, its occasional and often accidental genius has been to renew itself through periodic waves of immigration. Once we expose the immigration threat narrative as the Big Lie that it is, it becomes plain that immigration is not a problem to be solved but an opportunity and necessity to be embraced.
This, of course, also casts doubt on the wisdom of our current, wasteful and ultimately ineffective, policy of illegally rejecting legal asylum applicants at our Southern Border, rather than attempting in good faith to fit as many as qualify under our current system, as properly and honestly administered (something that hasn’t happened in the past). Additionally wise leaders would be looking for ways to expand our legal immigration system to admit, temporarily or permanently, those whose presence would be mutually beneficial, even if they aren’t “refugees” within existing legal definitions. In this respect, the proposal to modernize our laws to admit climate migrants is compelling.
Remember, as stated above:
Getting the politics of immigration right isn’t just important for immigrants. Nativism, built upon the sturdy foundation of racism, remains among the most potent tools in the arsenal of right-wing authoritarians. Any program for economic equity or democracy will be fragile in the absence of a coherent immigration agenda. The antidote to authoritarianism is not to duck, cower, or imitate the nativists, but rather to make the case for opening the door to millions more immigrants.
NDPA members, keep listening to Catherine and the other voices of progressive wisdom, humanity, practicality, and tolerance. The key to the future is insuring that the “Stephen Millers of the world” never again get a chance to implement their vile, racist propaganda in the guise of “government policy.”
Happily, many Northern Virginians have listened to our “better angels.” Humanitarian aid and resettlement opportunities for Afghan refugees are pouring in, as shown by this report from our good friend Julie Carey @ NBC 4 news:
Julie Carey NOVA Bureau Chief, NBC4 Washington PHOTO: Twitter
The local couple interviewed by Julie emphasized the impressive “human dignity” of the Afghan refugees! (I also observed this during many years of hearing asylum cases in person at the Arlington Immigration Court.) Compare that with the lack thereof (not to mention absence of empathy and kindness) shown by the nativist naysayers!
“Kevelin Danery Espinal-Lagos and her two minor sons were ordered removed to Honduras by an Immigration Judge. While their appeal was pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals, the petitioners filed derivative U visa applications with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services that, if granted, would allow them to move to reopen their removal proceedings. Accordingly, the petitioners filed a motion requesting that the Board remand their case so that they could seek a continuance from the Immigration Judge pending the resolution of their derivative U visa applications. The Board dismissed their appeal and denied their motion to remand, reasoning that their “U-visa eligibility and the steps being taken in pursuit of a U-visa could have been discussed at the hearing before the Immigration Judge entered a decision.” For the narrow ground articulated herein, we hold that the Board abused its discretion in its reason for denying the petitioners’ motion to remand. … Espinal-Lagos did not become prima facie “eligible” for a derivative U visa until her husband filed his U visa application with USCIS on July 6, 2018—several months after her hearing before the IJ on February 7, 2018. Indeed, during oral argument when asked, “When was Ms. Espinal-Lagos eligible for a U visa?”, the Government responded that she was “eligible when it’s filed”—“it” being Bethanco’s U visa application.1 The position the Government urges—that Espinal-Lagos should have disclosed to the IJ her potential future eligibility given the district attorney signature on her husband’s U visa certification— has no basis in the regulations. Therefore, the Board’s denial of Espinal-Lagos’s motion to remand was based on a legally erroneous interpretation of the governing regulations. Navarrete-Lopez, 919 F.3d at 953. The Board’s decision was also irrational because it required Espinal-Lagos to have presented information to the IJ that could not have been discovered or presented at that time. … Because the Board abused its discretion in its single reason for denying Espinal-Lagos’s motion to remand, we grant the petition for review and REMAND to the Board for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Although this case is unpublished, it’s significant for these reasons:
The “super-conservative” 5th Circuit seldom reverses removal orders;
Granting the legally-required remand in this case would have been about a 30-second “adjudication” (tops) by a competent BIA appellate judge;
Instead of confessing error and asking for a remand, OIL defended this clearly wrong garbage, a likely violation of ethics, an abuse of the Circuit Court’s time, and dilatory action that took the Fifth Circuit two years to correct;
Why would a rational, ethical system even want to remove a family eligible for derivative U status, let along violate the law and make extra work to achieve an irrational, inhumane, and counterproductive result;
For Pete’s sake, this was an UNOPPOSED MOTION TO REMAND at the BIA, but incompetent judges, bad lawyering, and a vile anti-immigrant culture at DOJ created an unnecessary disaster;
As those of us who are actually familiar with the EOIR system know, mistakes like this are a daily, if not hourly, occurrence at today’s thoroughly dysfunctional EOIR! It’s just that relatively few individuals are fortunate to have the time, knowledge, and competent legal assistance to obtain justice at the Court of Appeals level.
NO, Judge Garland, as all outside experts have been telling you, the answer to largely unnecessary, self-created, out of control EOIR backlogs is NOT “dedicated dockets,” idiotic quotas, more mindless gimmicks, or even throwing more judges into an already out of control and dysfunctional system.
It starts, but does not end, with replacing the BIA and incompetent judges at EOIR with qualified progressive experts, bringing in dynamic progressive judicial leadership that solves problems rather than creates them, ending the anti-immigrant “culture of denial” at EOIR and DOJ generally, installing real, due-process-focused training and giving new progressive expert judges independence to establish and enforce quality decision-making, due process, and best practices!
Also, OIL needs a remake and some leadership from skilled, progressive immigration litigators committed to “speaking for justice,” using judicial time wisely, and making the system work rather than mindlessly assisting in the building of backlog.
Due process is a team effort! Sadly, after four years of enabling and defending the indefensible actions of the Trump fascist kakistocracy, there aren’t many folks out there at EOIR and DOJ generally who can “play this game.”
“Can’t anyone here play this game?” So far, the answer at Garland’s EOIR is a resounding “No!” PHOTO: Rudi Reit Creative Commons
🇺🇸Due Process Forever!
PWS
08-27-21
ADDENDUM:
Even as I was writing this, Dan Kowalski sent me yet another 5th Circuit BIA remand. This one was on “divisibility” and was the result of three years of litigation to correct the BIA’s unprofessional work. THAT’S what generates unnecessary backlogs! Efficiency comes from getting thing right in the first instance, particularly when proceedings should be terminated or relief granted.
“Sajid Momin Wali, a native and citizen of Pakistan, became a lawful permanent resident in 2012. In 2017, he pleaded guilty in Texas state court to possession with intent to deliver a synthetic cannabinoid. As a result, he was charged as removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) for having been convicted of a state-law crime relating to a controlled substance defined in the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 802. Both the Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals sustained that removability determination, concluding that although the Texas statute that formed the basis of Wali’s conviction was broader than the Controlled Substances Act, Wali was removable because the Texas statute under which he was convicted was divisible. After the BIA issued its decision, this court decided Alejos-Perez v. Garland, 991 F.3d 642 (5th Cir. 2021). Under Alejos-Perez, the BIA’s determination that Wali’s statute of conviction was divisible was error. Accordingly, we grant Wali’s petition for review, reverse the BIA’s order, and remand for the BIA to reconsider whether Texas Penalty Group 2-A is divisible in light of Alejos-Perez.”
[Hats off to Amber Gracia for fighting this case since 2018!]
Amber García, Esquire Houston, TX PHOTO: AVVO
*******************
Way to go, Amber! Welcome to the NDPA “star circle!” 🌟 Amber knows “crimigration!” Why doesn’t the BIA?
Why hasn’t Garland brought in better progressive judges? Why does he think the human lives and futures at stake in Immigration Court are expendable? ☠️👎🏽🤮
This is NOT, I repeat NOT, how an “expert court” functions! And, you can’t create and operate an expert court without experts. The “expertise” needed to fix this system is primarily on the outside. Garland needs to make long overdue personnel, leadership, structural, and attitude changes at EOIR! Lives are at stake, and they are “chargeable” to Garland!
🇺🇸DPF!
PWS
08-27-21
ADDENDUM #2
BIA screwups on the x’s and o’s of judicial decision-making continue to “burn up the internet.”
Here’s yet another unpublished rebuke from the 2d Cir. on EOIR’s “any reason to deny worst practices” sent in by my colleague “Sir Jeffrey” Chase of Round Table ⚔️🛡fame:
We conclude that the BIA and IJ erred by relying on an alleged inconsistency between Tamrakar’s testimony before the IJ that the Maoists threatened him and tried to grab him before he escaped and Tamrakar’s statement during his credible fear interview that the Maoists left after threatening him to support its adverse credibility determination without first raising that discrepancy to Tamrakar. That inconsistency was not “self-evident,” Ming Shi Xue, 439 F.3d at 114, because, during the same credible fear interview, Tamrakar stated that the Maoists “tried to grab [him] but [he] ran away from them.” A.R. at 369. This statement was consistent with his testimony. Because the IJ and BIA “relied on the combined force of [three] inconsistencies,” Singh, 2021 WL 3176764, at *7, and did not provide Tamrakar the opportunity to explain one of them, we “cannot confidently predict whether the agency would adhere to [its] determination absent [its] error[].” Id. at *4. Further lessening our confidence, one of the other inconsistencies that the BIA and IJ relied on (whether Tamrakar’s friend accompanied him during the first incident or not) is closely analogous to one that our Court determined gave “no substantial support” to an adverse credibility finding on its own. Id. at *8 (noting that an inconsistency regarding whether a third party accompanied the petitioner to the police station after a key attack could be explained by differing recollections or another innocent explanation). Because we cannot confidently predict what the agency would do absent error, we vacate its decision.
Unfortunately, chronically sloppy work and wrongful denials have become so “routinized” at EOIR that the Circuits don’t even publish many of them any more! But, there are plenty of them out there!
They are just the “tip of the iceberg” of the systemic unfairness, racially-tinged bias, utter disdain for due process, lack of equal justice, unprofessionalism, glaring lack of expertise, and gross abuse of Government resources taking place in “Garland’s Star Chamber/Clown Courts!” Even one of these these is one too many!
The Human Rights advocacy community needs to organize and demand progressive changes from Garland, starting with long-overdue personnel and leadership changes at EOIR! How many more vulnerable individuals will be wrongfully denied or deported before a “responsible government official” (of which there seems to be as distinct shortage at Garland’s DOJ) pulls the plug 🔌 on this ongoing, intolerable human rights and racial justice farce going on at the DOJ!
– Sozi
