"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals PAUL WICKHAM SCHMIDT and DR. ALICIA TRICHE, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
Perhaps, the EOIR Public Information Office is too busy tracking down tweets critical of “the agency.” That could take an army of “monitors!” First things first at EOIR, I guess!
I want to say a bit about “foreground” versus “background” issues in immigration cases. I have noticed puzzlement at these concepts and recently when lecturing noticed that people do not appreciate the difference. In addition, it is not a common way of thinking about the law. It has become crucial for me, however, in my experience to clearly and effectively distinguish between these two concepts. It is also a rich source of ideas, strategies and techniques in a variety of cases, so let me try to explain it here. The other motivation for laying out the theory is that (in the future) I can point to this piece of writing as a “backgrounder” for my lectures … Sorry for the pun!
First, what are some foreground issues? You can start by readily imagining the elements of any claim – take for example an asylum case. In such a case, the applicant (or a respondent, in court) has the burden to prove most (but not all) of the issues. Those may include past persecution, future persecution, nexus (“on account of” one of the five statutory grounds), etc. The applicant may or may not have to prove that he or she cannot safely internally relocate or that there has been a fundamental change in circumstances in the country of origin. Nevertheless those are all “foreground” issues. Other pretty straightforward issues that have to be adjudicated and will be evaluated by the IJ include (1) credibility; (2) sufficiency of the evidence or corroboration; and (3) related to credibility, the consistency or coherence of the applicant’s story. Of course, background and foreground do not apply just to asylum, but can be imagined in the context of any case, and in any field of the law.
At this point, I would implore students to shout-out any “background” issues they can think of. In a pedestrian sense, all issues that come up in the course of a hearing or series of proceedings can be “brought to light” – by the judge or either party – and therefore get converted from “background” to “foreground.” But, many times these issues are not brought up, and often go unaddressed. If they are not brought up by counsel, for example, they may be waived and therefore a rich source of argument on appeal may be lost.
Some examples of background issues, and by now you probably see where I am going, include, interpreter (verbal) or translation (written) errors, transcription issues, competency or more saliently “incompetency” issues, jurisdiction, firm resettlement, other bars to relief, U.S. citizenship as a defense to deportation, other defenses, the existence of qualified relatives, unexplored avenues for relief, etc., etc. Basically, any issue that is lurking behind the scenes in any immigration court litigation can be seized upon and (in appropriate cases) be used on appeal when the BIA is reviewing what happened below before the trial judge.
A good example from an actual case may be helpful as an illustration to the reader at this point.
In my first pro bono BIA appeal years ago I utilized a series of “background” issues that resulted successfully (albeit after several months or years) in: (1) a remand to the IJ; (2) termination of the case on remand; and (3) ultimately, an (affirmative) grant of asylum for the mother and young child before USCIS. The case involved a young Haitian mother and her 7 or 8 year-old son. I got the case on appeal and read the transcript immediately. What struck me on reviewing the record was that at the very beginning of the proceedings, at the Master Calendar Hearing, an attorney or the judge mentioned very briefly in passing that the young boy was deaf. He had a disability that resulted in his being fitted with a device, a cochlear implant. The comment went unexplored or unremarked upon throughout the pendency of proceedings. Ultimately, the judge denied the political asylum claim of the mother. The fact that the child would be persecuted on account of his disability was not argued, mentioned, or even touched upon in the IJ’s decision denying relief.
As appellate counsel, I wondered if this “background” issue might be addressed on appeal. By researching how to make this a “foreground” issue on appeal, and hopefully a basis for a good remand, I learned about a very helpful case, Matter of Lozada (still good law) and was able to follow the rules and strict procedures in that case to prove that the prior attorney was ineffective by failing to bring out a key argument that could have been dispositive of the entire case.
The task was not an easy one. It should not be overlooked that Lozada and the case’s not insignificant requirements are burdensome. Moreover, the motion to remand had to be very thoroughly documented with expert affidavits, NGO reports, witness statements, and not to mention medical documents.
Once remanded, I noticed a further issue: in the file there was a one-page document with an old agency stamp which happened to be a copy of the I-589 asylum application that my client had never received an interview on and which had not been adjudicated. In bringing this further “background” issue to the Court’s attention, the burden shifted to my opposing counsel to provide the Department’s position on when, if ever, the agency had provided the required affirmative interview as required by Due Process, the INA, and the regulations.
Because the government could not prove that the interview had ever occurred, the motion to terminate was granted and I was permitted to file affirmatively (again) with USCIS, arguing this time the dire circumstances that would befall my clients in Haiti in consideration of the disability of the son and other details about the case involving the political situation in their home country.
Given these considerations, it is important for attorneys on appeal to take the record not as a given, as static, but something dynamic that can be researched and creatively explored at every level. A part of the case that was not appreciated previously can and often does exist. It may be a change of law that occurred while the case was winding its way through the lengthy and frustrating backlog (which stands of this writing at 1.6 million cases). It could be misdirection or mistaken advice by notarios or prior counsel. It can take the form of errors, made perhaps innocently and innocuously by interpreters that, if uncorrected, doom the respondent’s chances.
A further point: the retrospective stance of an appeal makes seeing background issues perhaps easier than seeing them in real time. What is really hard sometimes is seeing such issues as they happen in the context of the trial court setting. A key example of such issues that often get overlooked is burden of proof. We often see attorneys conceding deportability or inadmissibility, often overlooking key arguments or defenses. These are not really background but should be foreground issues, especially where the burden is on the government in most situations to prove by clear and convincing evidence the ground of deportability, now removability, has been proven. Other key arguments, for example, surrounding admissibility of statements of ICE officers, or others such as in the I-213 record of inadmissibility / deportability are also largely overlooked.
Finally, I want to mention in closing further fall-out from Niz-Chavez v. Garland and Pereira v. Sessions, and the latest developments surrounding the defective NTA issue. The defective NTA problem is probably one of the most underappreciated “background” issues because it implicates “jurisdiction,” or as the Board has left open, and it still remains to be decided, at the very least a “claims-processing” rule violation.
More specifically, for everyone who has an in absentia order, the rule in Rodriguez v. Garland, 15 F.4th 351, 354–56 (5th Cir. 2021), in the Fifth Circuit, and more recently, Singh v. Garland, (No. 20-70050), in the Ninth Circuit, has given us important opportunities to raise this as a crucial background issue. Even though these cases are at odds now with Matter of Laparra, 28 I&N Dec. 425 (BIA 2022), there are two circuits finding that in absentia orders must be reopened where the NTA was defective under most circumstances.
Given these developments there is no question that the defective NTA issue is not going away anytime soon. And if, as I think the Board will soon find, a defective NTA is indeed a claims-processing rule violation, at the very least, it will be important to raise such a “background” issue to reopen proceedings, obtain a remand, or otherwise preserve the procedural issue to ensure relief is available for many respondents.
*Clinical Professor, University of Houston Law Center; Individual Capacity and institution for identification only
KJ
***************************
Thanks, Geoffrey, for giving us such a timely and much-needed dose of your “accessible practical scholarship!” And, as always, thanks to Dean Kevin Johnson and ImmigrationProf Blog for getting this out to the public so quickly.
Laparra is already in trouble in two Circuits at opposite ends of the spectrum — the 9th and the 5th. As Geoffrey points out, the potential of “counter-Laparra” litigation to force some due process back into both the trial and appellate levels of Garland’s dysfunctional “courts” is almost unlimited!
But, litigation challenging Laparra and raising defective NTAs as a “claims processing rule” must be timely raised at the first opportunity. It’s a great example of “background issues” that talented NDPA litigators must “bring to the foreground” and use to save lives! It also shows the importance of great practical scholarship and meticulous preparation. Good lawyering wins!
What fun, sending Black Cameroonian refugees back to rape, torture, and possible death! We don’t need to know much asylum law or real country conditions here at EOIR. We make it up as we go along. And, Judge Garland just lets us keep on playing “refugee roulette,” our favorite game! https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
Nearly all of the deported people interviewed had fled Cameroon between 2017 and 2020 for reasons linked to the crisis in the Anglophone regions. Human Rights Watch research indicates that many had credible asylum claims, but due process concerns, fact-finding inaccuracies, and other issues contributed to unfair asylum decisions. Lack of impartiality by US immigration judges – who are part of the executive branch, not the independent judiciary – appeared to play a role. Nearly all of the deported Cameroonians interviewed – 35 of 41 – were assigned to judges with asylum denial rates 10 to 30 percentage points higher than the national average.
. . . .
*****************
The complete report gives a totally damning account of EOIR’s incompetence, ignorance of asylum law, poor decision making, “rigged” assignment of bad judges, and systemic bias directed against asylum seekers, primarily people of color. Although human rights conditions have continued to deteriorate in Cameroon, asylum grant rates have fluctuated dramatically depending on how the political winds at DOJ are blowing.
For example, judges denying asylum because of imaginary “improved conditions” in Cameroon falls within the realm of the absurd. No asylum expert would say that conditions have improved.
Yet, in a catastrophic ethical and legal failure, there is no BIA precedent “calling out” such grotesque errors and serving notice to the judges that it is unacceptable judicial conduct! There are hardly any recent BIA published precedents on granting asylum at all — prima facie evidence of the anti-asylum culture and institutional bias in favor of DHS Enforcement that Sessions and Barr actively cultivated and encouraged!
Even more outrageously, these same members of the “asylum deniers club” remain in their influential appellate positions under Garland! As inexplicable as it is inexcusable!
The HRF report details the wide range of dishonest devices used by EOIR to cut off valid asylum claims: bogus adverse credibility determinations; unreasonable corroboration requirements; claiming “no nexus” when the causal connection is obvious; failing to put the burden on the DHS in countrywide persecution involving the government or past persecution; bogus findings that the presence of relatives in the country negates persecution; ridiculous findings that severe harm doesn’t “rise to the level of persecution,” failure to listen to favorable evidence or rebuttal; ignoring the limitations on representation and inherent coercion involved in intentionally substandard and health threatening ICE detention, to name just some. While these corrupt methods of denying protection might be “business as usual” at EOIR “denial factories,” they have been condemned by human rights experts and many appellate courts. Yet Garland continues to act as if nothing were amiss in his “star chambers.”
This bench needs to be cleared of incompetence and anti-asylum bias and replaced with experts committed to due process and fair, impartial, and ethical applications of asylum principles. There was nothing stopping Sessions and Barr from “packing” the BIA and the trial courts with unqualified selections perceived to be willing and able to carry out their White Nationalist agenda! Likewise, there is nothing stopping Garland from “unpacking:” “cleaning house,” restoring competence, scholarly excellence, and “due process first” judging to his shattered system!
“It’s not rocket science, but ‘unpacking’ the Immigration Courts appears beyond Garland’s skill set!” “Unpacking” Photo by John Keogh Creative Commons License
All that’s missing are the will and the guts to get the job done! Perhaps that’s not unusual for yet another Dem Administration bumbling its way through immigration policy with no guiding principles, failing to connect the dots to racial justice, betraying promises to supporters, and leaving a trail of broken human lives and bodies of the innocent in its wake. But, it’s unacceptable! Totally!
Subject: Victory for Immigrants and Their Advocates!
All,
I am proud to share that NYLAG and co-counsel Public Citizen reached a historic settlement in NYLAG v. Board of Immigration Appeals (18 Civ. 9495 (S.D.N.Y.)). Under the settlement entered last night, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) will for the first time make the vast majority of its decisions available to the public by publishing them online, helping to level the playing field for immigrants.
NYLAG brought this case to challenge the BIA’s longstanding failure to make its judicial decisions publicly available, which meant that neither immigrants nor their attorneys could access these crucial documents to help them defend their cases and seek relief. This gave an unfair advantage to the government’s lawyers, who could access these same decisions to advocate for removal of NYLAG’s clients and immigrants across the country, in proceedings already stacked against them. To challenge this practice, NYLAG made a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) that BIA post all of its final orders in immigration cases in its electronic reading room– which FOIA has required since 1996 for all federal agencies.
Last February, NYLAG and co-counsel Public Citizen won a critical victory in the case, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that people can sue to enforce the FOIA requirement that federal agencies post certain documents online so that they are accessible to the public.
Last night, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York approved the settlement agreement between NYLAG and the BIA, under which the BIA has agreed to place nearly all its opinions into an online reading room. This will ensure that immigrants and immigration advocates across the country (including NYLAG’s own Immigrant Protection Unit’s staff and clients) will have access to these opinions within six months of when they are issued. The Board also must post prior decisions dating back to 2016.
This victory is a testament to NYLAG’s ability to create large-scale change. Kudos to the NYLAG attorneys involved in this case – Danielle Tarantolo, Jessica Ranucci, and Jane Stevens (before her retirement) of SLU; and Jodi Ziesemer and Melissa Chua of IPU –and our dedicated co-counsel at Public Citizen. This victory could not have been achieved without their partnership, diligence, and hard work.
Beth
***************************
Congrats to all concerned! As noted in Beth Goldman’s last paragraph, while Garland has been reluctant to make progressive changes and to bring much needed management and substantive reforms to EOIR, advocacy groups have been able to force some systemic improvements through litigation.
It seems like a wise AG would “clean out the deadwood” @ EOIR and bring in dynamic experts who can solve problems and make the necessary changes to restore due process to his ridiculously broken system. But, that apparently would be an AG “other than Garland.”
Olukayode David Ojo, a native of Nigeria, seeks review of a September 27, 2019 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming an April 15, 2019 decision of an immigration judge, which denied asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. See In re Olukayode David Ojo, No. A088-444-553 (B.I.A. Sept. 27, 2019), aff’g No. A088-444-553 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. Apr. 15, 2019).
We grant Ojo’s petition for review and vacate the agency’s denial of Ojo’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection because those determinations were permeated with several legal and procedural errors. First, insofar as Ojo’s request for asylum was rejected as untimely, the agency applied the wrong legal standard to his claim of changed circumstances and the agency’s alternative discretionary determination failed to indicate the requisite examination of the totality of the circumstances. Second, with respect to Ojo’s application for withholding of removal, the agency erred when it incorrectly categorized his federal conviction for wire fraud and identity theft as “crimes against persons,” and concluded that they fell within the ambit of “particularly serious crimes” without evaluating the elements of the offenses as required under the agency’s own precedent. Finally, with respect to his CAT claim, the agency erred in concluding that Ojo lacked a reasonable fear of future persecution or torture in Nigeria due to his status as a criminal deportee without even addressing the declaration of his expert supporting his claim.
Accordingly, the petition for review is GRANTED, the BIA’s decision is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
JUDGE MENASHI dissents in a separate opinion.
*****************************
The majority opinion is 51 pages; Judge Menashi’s dissent another 35 pages. That’s 86 pages of Article III time trying to straighten out the BIA’s sloppy work and mis-application of basic legal concepts.
It would be in everyone’s best interests if Garland jettisoned his “Miller Lite holdover BIA” and replaced them with real appellate judges — experts in human rights and asylum law with reputations for careful practical, due-process-focused scholarship — Judges like his sole BIA appointment to date, Judge Andrea Saenz.
It’s painfully obvious that the out of control problems in immigration law will NOT be solved with the BIA currently in place. They lack the expertise, temperament, and background to get “the retail level of our justice system” back on track.
As this case, among others, illustrates, Garland’s failure to institute long overdue personnel and quality control reforms at EOIR is continuing to “bleed over” into the Article IIIs, occupying an increasing amount of their time. It also creates astounding inconsistencies among Circuits and among panels in the same Circuit. Garland’s “personal court system” is dysfunctional on multiple levels and is sowing more dysfunction throughout our justice system!
Garland and his lieutenants, including “above the fray” Solicitor General Liz Prelogar, also should take a look at the OIL “defense” in this case. It’s basically this:
“The respondent is a bad guy. So, it doesn’t matter if the BIA applies the wrong legal standards because they have discretion to deport any bad guy for any reason or even for the wrong reason. Even if the BIA didn’t do its job, you, Court of Appeals, should do it for them because, as we said, this is one bad dude who needs deporting. Did we mention that he’s a bad guy?”
The combined abysmal performance of EOIR and OIL, enhanced by the lack of leadership and engagement from Garland and his senior managers, is eroding the foundations of the U.S. legal system at an alarmingly rapid rate!
I will say that at least he thought about, analyzed, and explained his views in much greater detail than the so-called “subject matter experts” at the BIA.
The answer is to replace the ongoing “EOIR Clown Show” 🤡 with real expert judges, at both the trial and appellate levels, who will consistently get these right in the first (or second) instance. That would “move” dockets (without violating rights), reduce the burdens on the Article IIIs, and promote (rather than actively undermine) consistency. It would also produce a consistent body of judicial scholarship on due process, racial justice, and best judicial practices in immigration, human rights, and fundamental Constitutional law that would help guide and solve systemic problems in the overall Federal legal system.
Why not bring in the talent and creative problem solving to turn a disgraceful, deadly, resource-wasting failure into a model judiciary? It’s a question that Garland has yet to answer!
EOIR: EOIR reminds interested stakeholders that hearings on Feb. 8, 2022, and beyond will proceed as scheduled, subject to local operational and case-specific decisions. Please monitor EOIR’s website for information about the agency’s operations nationwide.
EOIR NYC: In an effort to provide more clarity on operations at each of the NYC immigration courts from Feb. 8 onward, [EOIR] is providing additional guidance. See attached.
USCIS: In the interest of reducing the burden on both the agency and the public, USCIS has revised its guidelines to state that initial and renewal EADs generally may be issued with a maximum validity period of up to 2 years for asylees and refugees, noncitizens with withholding of deportation or removal, and VAWA self-petitioners; or up to the end of the authorized deferred action or parole period to applicants in these filing categories
CBS: After a recent internal review, the Biden administration decided to maintain a pandemic-era order put in place under former President Donald Trump that authorizes the rapid deportation of migrants from the U.S.-Mexico border, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) told CBS News Thursday.
VOA: U.S. House Representative Zoe Lofgren, a Democrat from California who leads the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship, unveiled the legislation Thursday.
Law360: A group of 148 organizations supporting immigrant and civil rights sent a letter to President Joe Biden and congressional leaders urging them to allocate at least $50 million to provide “immediate and dramatic” expansion of legal representation for people facing immigration proceedings.
CNN: An ongoing feud over President Joe Biden’s immigration policies is escalating in Florida where Gov. Ron DeSantis is threatening to keep long-standing shelters from caring for migrant children, culminating in a heated back and forth unfolding in internal correspondence obtained by CNN.
Law360: Immigrant rights groups urged the Biden administration on Tuesday to release people held in immigration detention in Illinois amid fears that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement will send the detainees out of state as Illinois shuts down its last two detention centers.
WaPo: About a hundred members of the police, National Guard and army on Sunday evicted 381 migrants, mainly Central Americans and Mexicans, from a makeshift camp they had been staying in for almost a year in Tijuana at the U.S. border crossing.
DHS: “The southern border can be an inhospitable place for man and beast, and that is exactly why a machine may excel there,” said S&T program manager, Brenda Long. “This S&T-led initiative focuses on Automated Ground Surveillance Vehicles, or what we call ‘AGSVs.’ Essentially, the AGSV program is all about…robot dogs.”
AILA: BIA found §2C:35-10(a)(1) of New Jersey Statutes Annotated is divisible and the record of conviction can be reviewed under the modified categorical approach to determine whether the specific substance possessed is a controlled substance under federal law. (Matter of Laguerre, 1/20/22)
AILA: BIA found Iowa Code §714.1 is divisible with respect to whether a violation of it involved theft by taking without consent or theft by fraud or deceit, permitting use of modified categorical approach to determine whether violation involved aggravated felony theft. (Matter of Koat, 1/27/22)
AILA: BIA found the amount of forfeiture ordered in a criminal proceeding may be considered in determining whether a crime of fraud or deceit resulted in a loss to victim(s) exceeding $10,000, if the amount ordered is sufficiently traceable to the conduct of conviction. (Matter of F-R-A-, 2/3/22)
LexisNexis: Helen Harnett writes: “I thought you might be interested in this BIA decision. The IJ terminated proceedings because the NTA did not contain a time or date.”
AILA: In light of unexplained irregularities in the record, the court vacated the BIA’s denials of withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and remanded to the agency for further factfinding. (Bonilla v. Garland, 1/12/22)
AILA: The court held that the petitioner’s conviction for driving a motor vehicle without consent of the owner or lessee under Rhode Island General Laws (RIGL) §31-9-1 did not constitute a categorical aggravated felony theft offense. (Da Graca v. Garland, 1/18/22)
AILA: The court held that the BIA adequately considered the question of extraordinary circumstances called for in Matter of Jean, and found it lacked jurisdiction to consider the relative weight the BIA gave the evidence in denying the inadmissibility waiver. (Peulic v. Garland, 1/11/22)
AILA: The court agreed with the BIA that the Honduran petitioner’s proposed particular social group (PSG) of “prosecution witnesses” lacked particularity, and found no error in the BIA’s decision upholding the IJ’s adverse credibility finding as to petitioner. (Herrera-Martinez v. Garland, 1/5/22)
AILA: Where the petitioner had a pending U visa application, the court held that the BIA abused its discretion in denying his motion for a continuance, finding that the BIA had departed from precedential opinions in holding that he had failed to show good cause. (Garcia Cabrera v. Garland, 1/6/22)
Law360: The Fourth Circuit breathed new life into a Guatemalan migrant’s asylum case, faulting an immigration judge for failing to tie death threats that the man received to his son, who was targeted for gang recruitment.
AILA: The court concluded that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in holding that the petitioner’s proposed particular social group (PSG)— “Honduran women who are unable to leave their domestic relationships”—was not legally cognizable. (Jaco v. Garland, 10/27/21, amended 1/26/22)
AILA: The court concluded that res judicata did not bar the removal proceedings, deadly conduct was categorically a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT), and petitioner was admitted to the United States when he adjusted to lawful permanent resident (LPR) status. (Diaz Esparza v. Garland, 1/17/22)
AILA: The court held that because petitioner, who was homosexual and identified as transgender, had said that she could probably safely relocate in Guatemala, the BIA did not err in finding that the government had rebutted the presumption of future persecution. (Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 1/10/22)
AILA: The court affirmed the BIA’s determination that petitioner’s felony assault conviction was a particularly serious crime rendering him ineligible for withholding of removal, because he had failed to show how the alleged errors compelled reversal. (Aviles-Tavera v. Garland, 1/4/22)
AILA: The court denied the petitioner’s petition for panel rehearing, withdrew its prior panel opinion of 8/6/21, and held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion by applying an incorrect legal standard when it denied petitioner’s motion to reopen. (Parada-Orellana v. Garland, 1/3/22)
AILA: The court held that BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance, finding that Matter of Lozada requires more than a statement that the noncitizen is “not interested” in filing a bar complaint.(Guzman-Torralva v. Garland, 1/13/22)
AILA: The court held that the record supported the IJ’s and BIA’s conclusion that the Chinese Christian petitioner did not meet her burden of establishing her eligibility for asylum given the discrepancies in her testimony and the lack of corroborative evidence. (Dai v. Garland, 1/24/22)
AILA: The court held that the BIA legally erred by considering arguments that the government did not present to the IJ, and that the BIA engaged in impermissible factfinding on the conditions in Kosovo, rendering its decision to deny remand an abuse of discretion. (Osmani v. Garland, 1/24/22)
AILA: The court held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s successive motion to reopen, and that the BIA did not deprive the petitioner of a constitutionally protected liberty interest in declining to reopen proceedings sua sponte. (Urrutia Robles v. Garland, 1/26/22)
AILA: The court rejected the petitioner’s contention that, because she was actually a minor when she was released on her own recognizance without notice of her hearing to a reasonable adult, the notice provided her was inadequate. (Jimenez-Sandoval v. Garland, 1/13/22)
Law360:An Indian man can’t be deported for missing an immigration court date after he received a notice to appear that didn’t specify a date and time, even though that information came in a later notice, the Ninth Circuit has ruled.
AILA: The court held that arson in violation of California Penal Code (CPC) §451 was not a categorical match to its federal counterpart, and thus that the petitioner’s conviction under CPC §451(b) was not an aggravated felony that rendered him removable. (Togonon v. Garland, 1/10/22)
AILA: The court issued an order denying the rehearing en banc of Velasquez-Gaspar v. Garland, in which the court upheld the BIA’s conclusion that the Guatemalan government could have protected the petitioner had she reported her abuse. (Velasquez-Gaspar v. Garland, 1/25/22)
AILA: The court held that the petitioner, who had been convicted of cocaine possession under Florida law, had failed to show that Florida’s definition of cocaine covers more than its federal counterpart, and thus upheld the BIA’s denial of cancellation of removal. (Chamu v. Att’y Gen., 1/26/22)
Law360: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security urged a D.C. federal court to halt immigration advocates’ efforts to inspect a large detention center accused of denying detainees access to counsel, calling a probe “particularly intrusive” amid debate over the lawsuit’s viability.
AILA: EOIR will close the Fishkill Immigration Court due to the closure of the Downstate Correctional Facility in which the court is located. Holding hearings at the location will cease at close of business on February 17, 2022. Pending cases at time of closure will transfer to Ulster Immigration Court.
Liz’s “Item 4” under “Litigation,” upholding termination for a statutorily defective NTA, inspired the following additional thoughts.
ETHICS ON VACATION @ DHS & DOJ: Apparently a Frivolous DHS Appeal Asking BIA To Publish Intentional Misconstruction of 7th Circuit Law is SOP For Mayorkas, Garland, & Underlings!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
Courtside Exclusive
Feb. 9, 2022
So, DHS argues on appeal that the BIA should violate, and intentionally and dishonestly, “misconstrue” 7th Circuit precedent. And, for a good measure, publish the result to insure that no IJ in the 7th Circuit gets it right in the future.
Why aren’t there ethical problems with this outrageous, unprofessional DHS appellate argument? Why isn’t this a precedent, as it provides helpful guidance and can be used to prevent future frivolous litigation by DHS? Why is there no accountability for this frivolous appeal, request to publish, and the blatant effort by DHS counsel to “pull the wool over the eyes” of the IJ and the BIA?
The pattern of taking a frivolous appeal, making unethical arguments, and asking the BIA to publish as a precedent shows the arrogant view of ICE that they “have EOIR in their pocket” (certainly consistent with the Sessions/Barr rhetoric) and that there will be neither accountability nor consequences for frivolous and unethical conduct by DHS attorneys! By not publishing the result as a precedent, the BIA leaves it open for other IJs and single Appellate Judge BIA “panels” to get it wrong in the future. It also sends a signal that taking a whack at making misleading arguments for illegal and unethical results has no downside at Mayorkas’s DHS or Garland’s BIA.
Wonder why there are gross inconsistencies and endless backlogs at EOIR?A totally undisciplined, unprofessional system where “anything goes” and “almost anything” will be defended in pursuit of removal orders certainly has something to do with it! It’s simply been building, under Administrations of both parties, since 2001!
The one-sided BIA precedent process — publishing mainly cases favorable to DHS — is no accident either. Pro-DHS rulings can be used by OIL (correctly or incorrectly) to argue for so-called “Chevron deference” or its evil cousin “Brand X” disenfranchisement of Article III Judges.
By contrast, precedents favorable to individuals merely promote due process, fundamental fairness, best practices, consistency, and efficiency. They might also be used to curb misbehavior by IJs and DHS counsel. Nothing very important in the eyes of EOIR’s DOJ political overlords.
GOP AGs, from Ashcroft through Sessions and Barr, have made it clear that precedents favorable to DHS Enforcement are far less likely to be “career threatening” or “career limiting” for their “captive judges.” On the other hand, precedentsstanding for due process, vindicating migrants’ rights, or curbing “outlier” behavior by IJs and DHS attorneys can be risky. And, perhaps surprisingly, Dem AGs in the 21st Century also have been “A-OK” with that, as Garland demonstrates on a daily basis.
Where are Ur Mendoza Jaddou (yes, she’s at USCIS, not ICE, but she’s “upper management,” knows the issues, and has access to Mayorkas) and Kerry Doyle at DHS? Whatever happened to Lisa Monaco, Vanita Gupta, and Lucas Guttentag at DOJ?
These are the types of “real time” problems that leadership can and should be solving by setting a “no nonsense due process first” tone and bringing in and empowering expert Appellate Judges (“real judges”) and DHS Chief Counsel who will put dueprocess, fundamental fairness, and ethics foremost! But, apparently it’s “below the radar screen” of Biden Administration leadership at DHS and DOJ.
The case for an independent Article I Court has never been stronger! Garland’s lack of leadership and furthering of injustice adds to Chairperson Lofgren’s case for fundamental change and removal of EOIR from DOJ, every day!
“A federal court ruled that tworules issued by the Trump administration restricting — and in some cases eliminating — access to work authorization for asylum seekers were illegally issued and are therefore invalid.
More than a year ago, a group of nearly 20 asylum seekers along with three organizations sued the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) challenging these rules. The individual asylum seekers include transgender women, parents with small children, and children and adults who fled political persecution, gender-based violence, or gang and drug-cartel violence. The rules prevented or delayed their access to a work permit. The organizational plaintiffs — AsylumWorks, the Tahirih Justice Center, and Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto — argued that the rules derailed their missions to provide employment assistance and legal and social services to asylum seekers.
The National Immigrant Justice Center, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Kids in Need of Defense, and Tahirih Justice Center provided counsel in the case.
Plaintiffs challenged the substantive provisions that drastically curtailed access to work authorization, and they argued that the rules were invalid because purported Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf issued them even though he was not lawfully installed as DHS Secretary. The rules took effect in August 2020 and were partially enjoined by a different court in September 2020, but that decision left many of the rules’ harmful provisions in place. Despite these ongoing harms and despite a change in administration, the government dragged its feet arguing that the rules should remain in place “for the time being” to allow “developing administrative actions” to resolve the case.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia refused to entertain these delay requests, and rejected the government’s “interpretative acrobatics” to justify Mr. Wolf’s purported authority to engage in rulemaking. Instead, the court followed numerous other courts around the country and concluded that “Wolf’s ascension to the office of Acting Secretary was unlawful.” The court also rejected the Biden administration’s attempt to ratify one of the rules in question, reasoning that the ratification “did not cure the defects … caused by Wolf’s unlawful tenure as Acting Secretary.”
Reflections from Counsel and Organizational Plaintiffs:
“The ability to earn an income is critical to asylum seekers’ ability to survive in the United States as they pursue protection from persecution,” said Keren Zwick, director of litigation at the National Immigrant Justice Center. “The court’s decision recognizes that the government cannot neglect to fill a cabinet position with a Senate-approved candidate for 665 days and then rely on unvetted, temporary officials to strip asylum seekers of access to a livelihood in the United States.”
“The court got it right,” said Annie Daher, senior staff attorney at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies. “People seeking asylum should be treated with dignity and fairness as they pursue their legal claims. Access to work permits allows asylum seekers to provide for their families, obtain vital legal representation, and ultimately find safety and security in the United States. Today’s ruling will make a life-saving difference for our plaintiffs and for all people who turn to this country for refuge.”
“Children seeking asylum often need a USCIS-issued ‘employment authorization’ document as their only form of photo ID, to access education and other services critical to their stability and well-being during the asylum process,” said Scott Shuchart, senior director, legal strategy, at Kids in Need of Defense. “The court correctly restored access to these important documents for, potentially, thousands of unaccompanied children who will now have the opportunity to build a more secure life in the United States as they pursue lifesaving protection.”
“The right to work is an essential component of humanitarian protection,” said Joan Hodges-Wu, executive director and founder of AsylumWorks. “Work is not only imperative to economic survival; it also represents a means for asylum seekers to maintain personal dignity and self-respect during the long and protracted legal process. The court took a critical step toward upholding the rights of asylum seekers by vacating illegally-issued rules created to deter individuals and families seeking safety from harm. We applaud the court’s decision and look forward to continuing our work to help asylum seekers prepare for and retain safe, legal, and purposeful employment.”
“This decision restores the critical ability of countless survivors of gender-based violence to work, and thus be independent and provide for their families, while their asylum applications are pending—a process that often takes many years,” said Richard Caldarone, senior litigation counsel at the Tahirih Justice Center. “It also makes clear that the government remains obligated to promptly decide survivors’ requests for work authorization rather than leaving them in bureaucratic limbo for months or years. The decision takes arbitrary and punitive restrictions on work permanently off the books. We applaud the court’s decision and look forward to its immediate implementation.”
“We are thrilled that our motion for summary judgment was granted. This decision will have an enormous impact on our clients and so many other asylum seekers who come to this country seeking safety and justice,” said Christina Dos Santos, the Immigration Program director at Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto. “The Trump-era rules were punitive and cruel to asylum seekers, preventing them from receiving the right to work, potentially for years, as they waited to have their cases heard in our backlogged immigration court system. We have seen first hand how these policies forced asylum-seekers and their families into poverty and destitution. A resolution was urgently needed. We applaud the court’s decision.””
************
Garland’s poor judgement, legally deficient, ethically questionable defenses of illegal and inhumane Trump-era immigration policies continue to astound! Also, the inane maneuvers conducted by Mayorkas, presumably with Garland’s approval, attempting to illegally “ratify” one of these rules is simply disgraceful! Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell strongly and correctly rejected this flailing waste of Government resources in her opinion.
Chief Judge Howell’s decision describes a compendium of some of the most egregious evasions of rules and wasteful attempts to paper them over, by both the Trump and Biden Administrations, that can be imagined. It’s an appalling example of the failure of Biden’s “good government” pledge! Inflicting this utter nonsense on the Federal Courts and on individuals fighting for their lives and rights, and stretching the resources of their pro bono lawyers, is on Garland! It’s inexcusable!
Has Alfred E. Neumann been “reborn” as Judge Merrick Garland? PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
Congrats to my good friend Joan, AsylumWorks, the Tahirih Justice Center, and all the other great NGOs who are “taking it to” Garland and and his flailing Justice Department as well as to Mayorkas and his lousy, inept, illegal gimmicks being used to “shore up” grotesquely cruel and unfair Trump policies that Biden & Harris were elected to change! Gotta wonder what Ur Mendoza Jaddou and other folks who were supposed to “just say no” to these disgraceful policies are doing over at DHS!
Here’s what Joan said about the case:
WE WON! 🗽 The court ruled in AsylumWorks’ favor and struck down a series of Trump era rules that significantly delayed – and in many cases outright denied – work permits for asylum seekers.Today, justice prevailed.
🇺🇸Due process Forever!
Best,
—
Joan Hodges-Wu, MA, LGSW
Founder & Executive Director | AsylumWorks
Justice DID indeed prevail! That’s thanks to you, Joan, your fellow NGOs, and some great pro bono lawyers who showed that despite campaign promises, true “justice” for all persons under our Constitution resides elsewhere than at our flawed and failing Department of “Justice” under Garland’s uninspired and often tone deaf “leadership.”
Tal Kopan @ SF Chron reports on latest public miscue:
A California lawyer tweeted what she saw in immigration court. The DOJ demanded she delete it
By Tal Kopan
WASHINGTON — On Feb. 1, attorney Monika Langarica was in a San Diego courtroom watching as the Biden administration resumed hearing cases on a controversial immigration policy that requires migrants to wait in Mexico while they plead their case to enter the U.S. That evening, she wrote a series of tweets describing what she saw.
The next day, she received an email from the Justice Department that shocked her: The administration asked her to delete the tweets. They claimed she violated a policy against making a record of immigration court proceedings and threatened potential criminal penalties if she committed “further violations.”
The Justice Department retracted its request and apologized to Langarica after The Chronicle inquired about the threat, saying further review confirmed she was not tweeting from the courtroom and thus did not violate any policies.
Still, the surprising episode raised several issues, including First Amendment concerns, issues of transparency in the often secretive immigration courts as well as criticisms of the policy at the heart of the dispute.
“It (was) shocking, because we are in our right to observe these proceedings, we are in our right to share with the public what is happening in these court rooms,” Langarica said in an interview before the apology had been issued. Langarica is an attorney with the UCLA Center for Immigration Law and Policy and formerly with the San Diego American Civil Liberties Union.
Why would an agency with failure, problems, and valid criticism “coming out it ears” 👂 be wasting official time monitoring the Twitter accounts of court observers?
Assuming that were some legitimate reason, why wouldn’t the first reaction to Ms. Langarcia’s tweets be “Hey, let’s sit down with you and your friends and figure out how to fix this?”
Instead of having more “flackies” in their bloated bureaucracy to suppress the public trappings of failure and to “massage the message,” why not put the resources into getting better bodies out there to FIX THE MYRIAD OF PROBLEMS crippling the agency and making it a parody of justice? It’s going to take more than a band of public apologists in the PIO to outsmart brilliant, informed investigative reporters like Tal!
It’s little wonder that EOIR doesn’t want light shed on what’s really happening in their “Star Chambers!”
“Scream as loud as you want. Nobody’s going to hear you!”
Reminds me of one of my favorite “EOIR War Stories.” My Arlington colleague Judge Wayne “Tell It Like It Is” Iskra once truthfully said in open court said what most experts and his colleagues privately had been saying for ages: “This system is broken!” Unknown to Judge Iskra, however, a reporter was sitting in the audience and the comment received publicity, the thing that EOIR fears most!
Coming from a former two-time Chief Judge of the U.S. Army Criminal Courts, hardly known as a “bleeding heart liberal,” one would anticipate that Iskra’s blunt assessment might have spurred some immediate corrective action and internal reforms. But, the only action it created at EOIR was basically to tell Iskra to “sit down and shut up.”
As always, EOIR was more concerned about “protecting itself” from a judge speaking truth than dealing with the consequences of that truth. As a result, the system is even more broken now than it was when Iskra had the audacity to “speak truth to power!”
Joseph A. Vail Asylum Workshop shares valuable immigration insights in the era of the Biden Administration
Retired Immigration Judge, U.S. Immigration Court and Former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt discusses growing immigration court backlogs.
Feb. 7, 2022 – More than 350 practitioners attended the annual Joseph A. Vail Asylum Workshop recently. The four-hour virtual event held on Jan. 28 was presented by the University of Houston Law Center’s Immigration Clinic and co-sponsored by Interfaith Ministries of Greater Houston. Interfaith Ministries joined this year to shed light on the plight of Afghani refugees who have settled in Houston since the government in Afghanistan collapsed and the Taliban takeover.
The goal of the workshop was to provide an update on immigration practices since President Biden took office. For example, while Biden halted the building of the border wall between the U.S. and Mexico and removed Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) – where asylum seekers must remain on the Mexican side of the border while awaiting U.S. immigration court dates – a federal court order forced MPP to be reinstated. Immigration court backlogs continue to grow with former Board of Immigration Appeals Chairman Paul W. Schmidt predicting them reaching over 2 million by the end of 2022.
The first panel, moderated by Immigration Clinic Director Geoffrey Hoffman, explored the Biden Administration’s focus on Prosecutorial Discretion, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), Migratory Protection Protocols (MPP), recent circuit court decisions, Afghan and Haitian case precedents, and immigration court backlogs.
“I hope you are emboldened to take a pro-bono client,” said Hoffman. “You can reach out to any of us on this call and use us as mentors.”
Panelist Magali Candler Suarez, principal at Suarez Candler Law, PLLC warned practitioners that Title 42 – a public health and welfare statue that gives the Center for Disease Control and Prevention the power to decide whether something like Covid-19 in a foreign country poses a serious danger of spreading in the U.S. – was being applied to Haitians in a racist manner.
“Many Haitians are being turned back at the border,” said Candler Suarez. “They are being denied the right to apply for asylum.”
The second panel, moderated by Parker Sheffy, a clinical teaching fellow at the Immigration Clinic, was a refresher on asylum, withholding of removal and CAT. Panelist Elizabeth Mendoza from the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), which supports immigration attorneys in this work, spoke about challenges because of newly appointed immigration judges and evolving Covid practices.
“Unfortunately, things are in flux this month,” said Mendoza. “It’s not out of the ordinary to be given conflicting information.”
Well known former U.S. immigration judge, Jeffrey S. Chase, was the final panelist in this group and focused on the future of asylum in the U.S. “The Biden Administation issued a paper on climate change and migration,” said Chase. “[What] they were really talking about [though was] asylum and how climate change will impact that.”
A third panel offered insights on the use of experts in removal proceedings. UH Law Center Professor Rosemary Vega moderated the discussion which ranged from psychological experts to country experts and where to find them.
“The Center for Gender and Refugee Studies has a giant list of experts on many topics,” said panelist and UH Law Professor Lucas Aisenberg. “It’s the first place I go to when I’m working on a case.”
The workshop wrapped up with speakers from Interfaith Ministries of Greater Houston explaining what it is like to be a refugee from Afghanistan and how hard it has been to meet the needs of Afghan refugees that have arrived in the last year.
“Two years ago, we resettled 407 Afghan refugees,” said Martin B. Cominsky, president, and CEO of Interfaith Ministries of Greater Houston. “Since September 2021, we have resettled 11,081 refugees.” He implored practitioners on the call to help in any way they can.
The Joseph A. Vail Asylum Workshop has been held annually since 2014 in memory of the University of Houston Law Center Immigration Clinic’s founder. Since the clinic’s inception in 1999, it has become one of the largest in the nation, specializing in handling asylum applications for victims of torture and persecution, representing victims of domestic violence, human trafficking, and crime, and helping those fleeing civil war, genocide, or political repression. The clinic has served over 2,000 individuals who otherwise could not afford legal services.
For a full list of speakers at this year’s event, click here.
******************
“Immigration court backlogs continue to grow with former Board of Immigration Appeals Chairman Paul W. Schmidt predicting them reaching over 2 million by the end of 2022.”
“Aimless Docket Reshuffling” is thriving @ Garland’s EOIR. Instead of gimmicks designed to “prioritize for denial and deterrence” (how about those “engineered in absentia dockets?”) why not work with the private bar and DHS to prioritize at both the Asylum Office and EOIR those with the most compelling cases from countries where refugee flows are well-documented?
For example, why not “prioritize” represented Uyghur and Afghani cases which should be “slam dunk” asylum grants? What’s the purpose of making folks who are going to be part of our society unnecessarily spend years in limbo?
Is anybody in the Biden Administration actually planning for a possible human rights catastrophe, or just waiting for it to happen and then declaring yet another “migration emergency.”
Contrary to the uninformed view of many, backlogs aren’t just a workload problem or a hindrance to enforcement. There are huge human, psychological, economic, societal, and institutional costs with maintaining large uncontrolled backlogs.
Most of those costs fall on the individuals with strong, likely winning cases who constantly are “orbited to the end of the line” to accommodate ever-changing, ill-advised, enforcement agendas and misguided “quick fix” initiatives. That’s so that DHS and DOJ can misuse the legal system as a deterrent — by prioritizing the cases they think they can deny without much due process to “send messages” about the futility of asking for protection or asserting rights in the U.S. legal system! And, those with strong cases (and their attorneys) “twist in the wind” as denials and deterrence are prioritized.
Trying to prioritize “bogus denials” (often without hearings, lawyers, time to prepare, or careful expert judging) also creates false statistical profiles suggesting, quite dishonestly, that there is no merit to most cases. These false narratives, in turn, are picked up and repeated by the media, usually without critical examination.
Like the “Big Lie,” they eventually develop “a life of their own” simply by repetition. When occasionally “caught in action” by Article IIIs, the resulting backlog bolstering remands and “restarts” are inevitably blamed on the individuals (the victims), rather than the systematic Government incompetence that is truly responsible!
The truth is quite different from the DOJ/DHS myths.Over the years, despite facing a chronically unfair system intentionally skewed against them, some hostile or poorly qualified Immigration Judges and Appellate IJs, and wildly inconsistent results on similar cases before different judges (so-called “Refugee Roulette”), asylum seekers have won from 30% to more than 50% of the time when they actually receive an opportunity for a full, individual merits determination of their claims.
But, getting that individual hearing has proved challenging in a system that constantly puts expediency and enforcement before due process, fundamental fairness, and human dignity! No matter how the Government tries to hide it, that means that there lots of bona fide asylum seekers out there whose cases are languishing in a broken system.
The creation of the USCIS Asylum Office was supposed to be a way of dealing with this issue through so-called affirmative applications and “quick approvals” of meritorious cases. But, during the Trump Administration even that flawed system was intentionally and maliciously “dumbed down,” “de-functionalized,” “re-prioritized,” and hopelessly backlogged. It was so bad that the Asylum Officers’ Union actually sued the Trump Administration for acting illegally.
More “gimmicks” like Garland’s failed “dedicated dockets” won’t fix his dysfunctional system. Fundamental leadership, personnel, substantive quality, procedural, and “cultural” changes are necessary to address backlogs while achieving due process and fundamental fairness at EOIR. Ironically, that was once the “EOIR Vision.” ⚖️ It’s too bad, actually tragic, Garland doesn’t share it!🤯
Mica Rosenberg National Immigration Reporter, Reuters
Hi there all,
I wanted to share with you our latest Reuters investigation about unaccompanied minors released to the town of Enterprise, Alabama where the chicken industry is booming and we profiled a teen who easily found work after she was released from federal custody. We detail how last summer U.S. Department of Health and Human Services temporarily halted releases from shelters to the town, as several federal agencies probed whether migrants were at risk. While no child trafficking has been found, labor exploitation of migrants there is being investigated.
This follows our coverage of the reunification of one migrant family separated in 2017 at the U.S.-Mexico border under Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy who was reunited in January. We have been in touch with the family since 2020.
Here is the story with a graphic that shows the scale of the work of the Biden administration’s reunification task force:
We also were able to report on another heartwarming reunion, after a family lost their baby in the chaos of the evacuation of Afghanistan. Our story published last November helped lead to tips that located the baby in Kabul so he could be reunited with relatives there and hopefully soon taken to the United States to join his parents who have resettled in Michigan:
Genevra W. Alberti, Esq. The Clinic at Sharma-Crawford Attorneys at Law Kansas City, Mo. PHOTO: The Clinic
Dear Colleagues,
The Clinic at Sharma-Crawford Attorneys at Law – a nonprofit removal defense organization in Kansas City, Missouri – is hosting its fifth annual Immigration Court Trial Advocacy College from Thursday, April 28 to Saturday, April 30, 2022 in the Kansas City metro area.
This is a unique, hands-on, one-on-one, training experience designed to make you confident in immigration court, and the program has something for beginners as well as experienced removal defense litigators. Under the guidance of seasoned trial attorneys from all over the country (myself included) and using a real case, real witnesses, and real courtrooms, participants will learn fundamental trial skills while preparing a defensive asylum case for a mock trial. The complete conference schedule and faculty bios are available on The Clinic’s website here.
Among our All-Star Faculty will be Members of the Round Table of FormerImmigration Judges Hon. Lory Diana Rosenberg, Hon. Sue Roy, and Hon. Paul Wickham Schmidt.
Hon. Susan G. Roy Law Office of Susan G. Roy, LLC Princeton Junction, NJ Member, Round Table of Former Immigration JudgesHon. Lory Diana Rosenberg Senior Advisor Immigrant Defenders Law Group, PLLC, Member, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
Me
Days 1 and 2 of the program will focus on helping attendees master the fundamentals of trial practice and prepare a defensive asylum case and witness for trial. For many of the sessions, attendees will be broken up into smaller groups, each with its own set of faculty members to provide one-on-one input. Each attendee will be assigned a role – either the respondent’s attorney, or the DHS attorney – and will have a volunteer “witness” to prep. On day 3, mock trials will be held in real courtrooms with faculty serving as the judges.
Tickets are available now, and you can register on The Clinic’s website here. There is a discounted rate for nonprofit attorneys. Price includes lunch, snacks, coffee and refreshments on all three days, along with breakfast on Friday and Saturday and a happy hour on Thursday. **IMPORTANT: It is imperative that you commit to attending all 3 days of the conference, so please do not register unless you can do so.** If you have questions about this, please let me know. Proof of COVID-19 vaccination is also required.
Space is limited, so be sure to get your tickets soon. We hope to see you there!
Under Trump, asylum seekers sent to Mexico were often confused and adrift, unsure how to find legal help or return for their U.S. court appointments. They were visible on the streets of Mexican border cities and were easy targets for criminal gangs.
Marysol Castro, an attorney with El Paso’s Diocesan Migrant and Refugee Services who provides legal aid to asylum seekers in MPP, said the program’s return under Biden was a “relief” to some, “because otherwise if you go to the border you’re getting expelled” under Title 42.
Castro said new enrollees in MPP have court dates with fast-tracked hearings, unlike asylum seekers who were placed into the program under Trump and are still stuck in Mexico “with no hope.”
Mexican authorities say they received assurances from the Biden administration that migrants placed in MPP would have improved access to legal counsel. But despite the vastly lower numbers, there is still far more demand for pro bono legal services than nonprofit groups and charities can provide, Castro said.
More than two-thirds of MPP returns under Biden have been sent to Ciudad Juárez, where they are provided secure transportation through a State Department contract with the U.N. International Organization for Migration. The Mexican government houses them in a shelter set up in a converted warehouse in an industrial area of the city.
“The shelters are more restrictive,” said Victor Hugo Lopez, a Mexican official who helps oversee the program. “The migrants can request permits to go outside, but we try to keep them safe by keeping them inside.”
Dana Graber Ladek, the IOM chief of mission in Mexico, said her organization continues to oppose MPP on principle, even as it’s working with both governments to ameliorate conditions for those sent back.
“It still has a tremendous amount of negative impacts,” she said. “It’s not how asylum is supposed to work.”
Representation remains a problem, but also an opportunity, just as Nolan Rappaport said on The Hill! Fortunately, Professor Michele Pistone has been thinking in advance and has built a “scalable” program (VIISTA-Villanova) that already is turning out qualified grads who can become accredited representatives and could quickly be expanded. By coordinating scheduling of hearings with nationwide NGOs and pro bono groups and “leveraging” resources that might be available to get pro bono resources to the border without overtaxing them elsewhere with “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” (“ADR”), the representation problem can be solved.
One good sign is that cases of those likely to be granted, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, have been prioritized which can help move dockets forward while reducing resource-wasting appeals and petitions for review. But, there is much more “low hanging fruit” here to be harvested, in my view:
Also prioritize many Haitian cases, domestic violence cases from Latin America, and family-based cases which, if represented and documented, should be relatively straightforward grants;
Replace the BIA with judges who are asylum experts and will issue the necessary positive guidance on granting asylum that will move dockets, promote consistency, and reduce appeals;
Why ignore the “waiting for Godot” cases left over from Trump’s intentionally “built to fail” program? Get them represented and scheduled for hearings;
End the failing and totally misguided “Dedicated Dockets” at EOIR. Instead, treat the MPP as the “Dedicated Docket;”
To keep backlog from further building, use ideas from the “Chen-Markowitz” plan to remove two “hopelessly aged” cases from the EOIR backlog docket for every MPP case “prioritized.” This could also free up some representation time. Go from ADRto “Rational Docket Management” (“RDM”), closely coordinated with the private bar and DHS!
Finally, keep in mind that directly contrary to the babbling of Paxton and other ignorant GOP White Nationalists, the purpose of asylum law is protection, not rejection! And, the generous standard of proof for asylum, recognized by the Supremes 35years ago, combined with existing regulatory presumptions of future persecution based on past persecution should, if honestly and expertly applied, favor asylum applicants (even if that hasn’t been true in practice). The U.S. legal system is supposed to be about guaranteeing due process fundamental fairness, and achieving justice, not to serve as a “deterrent,” “punishment,” or “enforcement tool.”
In the case of MPP, everyone in the program has already passed initial credible fear or reasonable fear screening!That means with well-qualified Immigration Judges possessing asylum expertise, new expert BIA judges, competent representation, and a focus on insuring justice by DHS Counsel, many, probably the majority of the MPP cases should be grants of asylum of other protection.
That will help clean out the camps, while addressing the serious “immigration deficit” that was engineered by Trump and Miller. It also allows refugees to become contributing members of our society, rather than rotting away and squandering their human potential in squalid camps in Mexico!
To date, most MPP cases havebeen denied with questionable due process, little obvious expertise, and a complete lack of positive, practical guidance by the BIA. This strongly suggests severe shortcomings and bias in the DHS/DOJ implementation of Remain in Mexico (“MPP”). But, it’s never too late to do better!
The Post article suggests that there have been some modest improvements in MPP under Biden. It’s time to take those to another level! The ideas and tools are out there. All that’s missing is the dynamic leadership, teamwork, and competent, creative., due-process-focused focused management.
Born in 1921, Motley was the first Black woman to argue at the Supreme Court and the first to serve as a federal judge. Democratic presidents twice considered — and twice rejected — her for a seat on a federal appeals court.
Motley, who went by Connie, faced countless indignities. She graduated from New York University and Columbia Law School, and a Wall Street firm offered her a job interview based on her stellar academic record. But the firm wouldn’t even meet with her when she showed up for the appointment because she was Black. Instead, she took a job at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.
She was the only female lawyer at the Fund for 15 years. During her employment interview in 1945 with then Legal Defense Fund boss Thurgood Marshall, the future Supreme Court justice asked her to climb a ladder next to a bookshelf. “He wanted to inspect her legs and feminine form,” writes Tomiko Brown-Nagin in her compelling and readable new biography of Motley, “Civil Rights Queen.” When Marshall stepped down to become a judge in 1961, he passed over Motley and picked a less experienced White man as his successor.
James Hohmann Columnist WashPost PHOTO: WashPost website
Follow James Hohmann‘s opinions
Follow
Motley earned less than men who did the same work. Motley nonetheless won nine of the 10 cases she argued at the Supreme Court. As a new mother, struggling with postpartum depression, she drafted briefs for Brown v. Board of Education. Pursuing the implementation of the landmark decision turned out to be a decades-long slog. She successfully integrated the flagship universities in Georgia and Mississippi, where she was James Meredith’s attorney.
In 1965, Lyndon B. Johnson had intended to nominate Motley to take Marshall’s seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit when he resigned to become solicitor general — a stepping-stone to the Supreme Court in 1967. But then-Sen. Robert F. Kennedy (D-N.Y.), remembered by history as a civil rights champion, pressed Johnson to pick a White man over Motley for the appellate court. Kennedy called Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach in July 1965 to complain that naming Motley would be too risky from a “political and public relations viewpoint.” Katzenbach summarized the call in a memo to Johnson. “I think there is merit in Sen. Kennedy’s assessment,” the attorney general told the president.
(Johnson nominated Motley to the District Court for the Southern District of New York a year later. The American Bar Association declined to give Motley a “highly qualified” rating on the dubious grounds that she lacked trial experience in New York, even though she’d litigated hundreds of cases in federal courts. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman James O. Eastland (D-Miss.) accused her of being a communist sympathizer and held up Motley’s confirmation for seven months.)
A dozen years later, during Jimmy Carter’s presidency, Attorney General Griffin Bell had veto power over judicial nominations and opposed Motley’s elevation to the 2nd Circuit because they’d tangled when she was a lawyer for the Legal Defense Fund. Carter eventually nominated Amalya Kearse, a Black woman who was a partner at a major law firm and didn’t have critics inside his administration.
Along the way, Motley mentored Sonia Sotomayor after the future justice joined Motley’s court in 1992. Sotomayor, who in 1998 secured the 2nd Circuit appeals court seat that eluded Motley, famously wrote that “wise Latina” judges “would more often than not reach a better conclusion” than White male judges who lacked their lived experiences. Motley, who rejected being called a “feminist,” disagreed that female judges brought special insight to the bench. Instead, she argued for a more representative judiciary on the grounds that inclusion would strengthen democracy by increasing confidence in the rule of law among racial minorities.
Motley died in 2005 at 84, still believing in the ability of the third branch to help deliver on that promise. Biden’s pledge to name a Black woman to the Supreme Court is a validation of Motley’s enduring faith in a system that repeatedly passed her over.
******************
The Thurgood Marshall story shows that it wasn’t only White men who undervalued Black women. Black men displayed some of the same disgusting and condescending attitudes! Motley just kept on achieving and contributing, making the most of her opportunities, rather than stewing about what had unfairly (and probably illegally) been denied to her.
Obviously, the careers of guys like GOP Senators Wicker, Cruz, and Kennedy show that White guys still benefit from a system that still doesn’t hold them to the same standards imposed on women, particularly talented women of color.See, e.g.,https://apple.news/A-e_PL2khRhiEbrj_L7woCA
But, unlike these “snowflake right-wing whiners,” women of color are used to “plowing forward” and making their own way, despite systemic biases and obstacles placed in their path by men of limited ability who spread lies, show disgusting bias, and contribute little to the common good!
Folks, this is the same Ted Cruz who demonstrated his true character and lack of concern for his constituents by fleeing with his family to a cushy resort in Cancun while Texas was in crisis! He’s also someone who would deny legal refuge to those whose lives are actually in danger because they don’t “fit in” with his White Nationalist view of desirable demographics. (Compare “Cancun Ted’s” version of “refuge” with the camps in which real refugees and their families are rotting in Mexico thanks to righty-wing judges and GOP AGs.)
Perhaps the most interesting disconnect among the privileged GOP White guys who are opposing a Black woman nominee who hasn’t even been named yetis the juxtaposition with the performance of these dudes during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings — an unending homage to the “birth privilege” of angry, entitled right-wing white guys. Here’s an apt quote from Chauncey Devega in Salon:
When Trump says “young men,” no adjective or modifier is needed. It is clear to everyone, given his inclinations, history, words and deeds, that “young men” of course means “white men”.
This reflects a larger sentiment in America at present. For too many white men — poor, working-class and middle-class — there is widespread anger at somehow being displaced by nonwhites and women who are “cutting ahead in line” because of “affirmative action” and other nonexistent “entitlements.”
These angry white men feel obsolete and marginalized in a changing America, frustrated by globalization and excluded by a more cosmopolitan country. But their anger is misdirected toward the groups they perceive to be receiving “special treatment.” Their collective anger would be better directed at men who look like them but who have created social inequality, injustice and immiseration in America and around the world.
President Biden should stick to his guns and nominate a talented and deserving Black woman. It’slong, long overdue! And, he should pay no attention whatsoever to the outrageous, totally disingenuous laminations of privileged guys like Cruz, Wicker, and Kennedy who have already “achieved” far above the level of their demonstrated merit, ability, or positive contributions to the common good.
We need Federal Judges and Justices who are wise, fair, talented, experienced contributors to society; we don’t need the advice or “stamp of approval” of insurrectionists and dividers who rely on racially biased myths to cover for their own all too obvious human inadequacies!
“Statutes are so totally annoying! Enforcing them is above our pay grade, if it burdens our ‘partners’ at DHS Enforcement! But, we’ll ‘throw the book’ at individuals for anything! Seems fair to us!” https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons
The Supreme Court’s decisions in Pereira and Niz-Chavez, along with the text and structure of the statutory provisions governing in absentia removal orders and Notices to Appear, unambiguously required the government to provide Singh with a Notice to Appear as a single document that included all the information set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1), including the time and date of the removal proceedings. Because the government did not provide Singh with statutorily compliant notice before his removal hearing, Singh’s in absentia removal order is subject to recission pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii). We grant Singh’s petition on that ground, do not reach his exceptional circumstances argument, and remand to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
PETITION GRANTED and REMANDED.
***************************
No surprise to “Sir Jeffrey” Chase, me, or experts. What is “below the radar screen” here is how the BIA’s “pattern or practice” of intentional misinterpretation of this very clear statutory provision over three Administrations and in a number of situations has fed the backlog.
One of the “gimmicks” used by DOJ and EOIR to short-circuit due process has been to use bogus “in absentia” orders to complete cases without real hearings and without doing much work while creating a “myth of non-appearance” by asylum seekers. Indeed, under Garland whole dockets were set up with the expectation that individuals would not appear. Agency officials then “cheered” having produced these bogus “final orders.”
It would be unusual if ANY of those subjected to this process under a Garland received “compliant NTAs” sufficient to support in absentia orders! Even with these “gimmicks,” and many more judges, haphazardly selected and often lacking expertise, the backlog has mushroomed.
In truth, asylum seekers appear for their hearings at a rate approaching 100% provided that they get proper notice, understand the process, and are represented. A competent Attorney General would take this empirical data, work with legal services groups, and develop a process to comply with the statute, improve the notice system, promote universal representation, and reduce in absentia hearings.
The obvious first step would be to absolutely require DHS to comply with statutory requirements in issuing Notices to Appear and to impose meaningful sanctions and consequences for the failure to do this. To the extent that the failure to comply is a function of the EOIR/DOJ bureaucracy, those bureaucrats and politicos responsible should also be held accountable by the Immigration Courts.
That’s what fair, impartial, independent judging is supposed to be about! But, Garland, like his predecessors, has tried to “gimmick” his way out of providing fair hearings as required by the statute and our Constitution while ignoring “best practices.”
Does anyone seriously think that a group of “real appellate judges” — experts committed to fair and impartial interpretations that advance due process while promoting best practices — would have come up with the Laparra nonsense? No way!
Yet given a chance to materially improve EOIR’s performance, Garland has chosen the “quality, excellence, and due process for all is optional, at best” approach of his predecessors, even if shying away from their overt weaponization of EOIR against migrants.
Remember, when Garland and company inevitably attempt to deflect or shift blame for their backlogs and “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” to the victims, those stuck in his dysfunctional system and their lawyers, this backlog is largely self-created by folks who have consistently ignored expert advice and input while failing to install competence, expertise, and demonstrated commitment to guaranteeing fairness and due process for all into a broken, biased, and intentionally unfair system!
We, the undersigned organizations committed to the rights of asylum seekers and refugees, write to express our serious concerns over reports that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has begun a new practice of using Title 42 to expel Venezuelan migrants to Colombia. We understand that the first two Venezuelan individuals to be expelled under this policy were flown to Colombia on January 27, 2022 and that additional Title 42 expulsion flights to the country are expected to take place on “a regular basis” for Venezuelans who “previously resided” in Colombia. This practice represents a concerning and unacceptable escalation to your administration’s misguided approach to border and migration policy that flouts domestic and international refugee and human rights law. We urge you to cease these and other Title 42 expulsions immediately, to prioritize protection and access to asylum in your regional and domestic migration policies, and to engage asylum and human rights experts as you pursue new policies.
One year into your administration, you have continued the misuse of a xenophobic Trump-era policy that weaponized an obscure provision of Title 42 of the U.S. code to summarily block and expel individuals, often repeatedly, from the U.S. southern border, without providing them the opportunity to seek asylum or the ability to access any protection screening required by law. These new flights to Colombia come amidst troubling reports that your administration placed on hold plans to restart asylum processing at U.S. ports of entry and that high-level officials have resisted ending Trump-era asylum restrictions, including Title 42 expulsions.
Title 42 expulsions have nothing to do with protecting public health and are not necessary to protect the public from the spread of COVID-19. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, public health experts, the UN Refugee Agency, and other humanitarian advocates have demonstrated that it is possible to protect public health and ensure access to asylum simultaneously. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) objected to the use of Title 42 for mass expulsions of migrants and confirmed such expulsions lacked a valid public health basis. Your Chief Medical Advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci has himself stated that immigrants are “absolutely not” driving a COVID-19 outbreak and that expelling migrants is not a solution to an outbreak.
Over the past twelve months, your administration expelled people—often expelling the same person repeatedly—from the U.S. southern border more than one million times. In just the first seven months of your administration, U.S. border officials carried out 704,000 expulsions, a significant increase from the Trump administration’s 400,000 expulsions conducted over ten months. In addition to the new expulsion flights to Colombia, DHS also carries out land expulsions to Mexico and expulsion flights to send individuals and families back to their countries of origin, including Haiti, Guatemala, Honduras, and Brazil. Even though your administration has acknowledged that “Haiti is grappling with a deteriorating political crisis, violence, and a staggering increase in human rights abuses…” – the U.S. has since September 2021, inexplicably chartered nearly 150 flights of almost 16,000 Haitians, including families with infants, back to a country that is unquestionably unsafe without offering them any opportunity to seek protection before expulsion. These expulsions under Title 42 violate the law and risk sending people back to dangerous conditions – sometimes the very ones that caused them to seek safety in the first place.
As you are aware, Venezuela is currently facing a severe economic, political, and humanitarian crisis. Millions of Venezuelans have left the country due to political persecution, a collapse of basic services, food insecurity, and rampant violence. Over 1.7 million Venezuelans are being hosted in Colombia and many have been granted temporary status there and only a small percentage of Venezuelans have sought asylum in the United States; however, Colombia is not safe for all Venezuelan migrants and refugees. Venezuelans, and all other individuals fleeing persecution have the right to seek asylum under U.S. law and to have their claims for protection assessed on a case-by-case basis. Your administration is blatantly violating the law by expelling these people to other countries in the region, such as Colombia, and we are deeply troubled by the informal and opaque arrangements with third countries that facilitate these expulsions. Your administration terminated several such agreements with Central American countries when you came into office, making these new flights especially concerning.
During its first year in office, your administration committed to a comprehensive regional approach to migration, aiming to strengthen asylum systems and refugee resettlement programs in the region and promote “safe, orderly, and humane migration.” Despite this pledge, your administration’s actions suggest that the United States seeks out negotiations with countries throughout Latin America that externalize its borders further south, shifts responsibility to countries already hosting millions of refugees, and impedes people’s ability to seek protection in the United States. Earlier this month, under pressure from your administration, the Mexican government implemented new requirements that Venezuelans obtain a visa to travel to Mexico. According to reports, your administration has also requested that Mexico sign a safe third country agreement, which could effectively block most individuals (except Mexicans) from seeking asylum in the United States.
We urge your administration to abandon efforts to prevent people from seeking asylum through externalized migration controls in the region and to undermine the right of people to seek protection in the United States. As you pursue other regional efforts, it is imperative that your administration operate with increased transparency and engage with asylum and human rights experts about potential efforts such as anticipated regional compacts on migration with other countries in the Americas. While regional protections must be strengthened, these efforts must not and need not come at the expense of existing protection mechanisms and access to asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border, including at ports of entry.
Your administration has the responsibility to uphold U.S. refugee law and treaty obligations. We call on your administration to cease further expulsions of Venezuelan migrants to Colombia, and to immediately end its use of all expulsions under Title 42. Our organizations continue to welcome the opportunity to engage on and inform how to promote a protection centered approach to “safe, orderly, and humane migration,” including restoring access to asylum at the border, including at ports of entry.
immigrants’ rights = human rights = civil rights = racial justice = economic stability = common good
By failing miserably on the first, the Administration has found itself flailing and failing on the rest.
Nowhere is this more apparent than at DOJ! Garland has squandered the precious first year in office by NOT cleaning house at EOIR and bringing in practical experts in immigration/human rights/due process to remake and reform the system so that it can deal fairly, timely, and justly with asylum applicants applying at the border and and elsewhere in the U.S., as they are legally entitled to do.
Instead of expertly culling the vast majority of backlogged pending cases which are neither priorities nor viable removal cases at this point, Garland has built the unnecessary, largely self-created backlog at a record pace to more than 1.6 million with no end in sight! Add that to his disgraceful failure to stand up against illegal and immoral policies and clear violations of human rights at the border by his own Administration and you get today’s catastrophic situation.
“Standing tall” for the rule of law (and human decency) is supposed to be the Attorney General’s job. Why are these NGOs being forced to do it for him?
How bad have things gotten at Garland’s DOJ? This has already been a tough week that saw his DOJ attorneys “blow” a plea bargain in a major civil rights case, be excoriated by the 4th Circuit in a published case for a miserably botched performance in what should have been a routine “reasonable fear” case, and have Chairwoman Lofgren introduce her Article 1 bill with a broadside against DOJ’s horrible stewardship over EOIR.
As if to punctuate Chairwoman Lofgren’s critique, Garland topped it off with this gem: a beatdown in a pro se Salvadoran asylum case, which OIL basically failed to “pull” although the BIA decision conflicted with Garland’s own more recent precedent, from a Fourth Circuit panel that included two recent Trump appointees not heretofore known for vigorously defending asylum seekers’ rights!https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/pro-se-ca4-psg-remand-luna-deportillo-v-garland
Folks, this is NOT “good government.” Not by a long shot!
There is no more important task — NONE — facing DOJ than pumping some due process and quality back into immigration law and making the long overdue management, personnel, procedural, and legal quality reforms at EOIR.
Yes, that apparently would require Garland to take on some folks at the White House who obviously consider human rights to be a “political strategy,” integrity and courage optional, and live in mortal fear of Stephen Miller and far-right nativists. It would mean taking decisive actions to treat asylum seekers and other migrants (including many individuals of color) as “persons” under our Constitution. It would end the intentional “Dred Scottification of the other.” It would send some Sessions/Barr “plants and holdovers” packing from their current jobs!
Unquestionably, these moves would incite predictable, tiresome, apoplectic reactions by Miller and the GOP White Nationalist cabal on the Hill. They would put Garland “in the spotlight” and interrupt the serenity of his inner sanctum on the 5th floor of the DOJ where he apparently likes to contemplate the world and “things other than due process for immigrants.”
But, taking on folks like that is what good lawyers are supposed to do. As a public lawyer, it’s not just about being somebody’s “mouthpiece” — it’s standing up for the rule of law!
I among many others have said from the outset that Garland won’t be able to sweep the total meltdown at EOIR and in immigration legal positions under the table, much as he obviously would like them to go away! Yes, he inherited an awful mess from his Trump predecessors. But, almost a full year in, that doesn’t absolve him of responsibility for failing to initiate the common sense steps to fix it and to bring in experts who actually know what they are doing and have the guts and backbone to follow through — even when the going gets tough, as it undoubtedly will. The problems at DOJ go far beyond EOIR; but,EOIR must be the starting place for fixing them. There is no more time to lose!
It’s time for Garland to start worrying about running “America’s most unfair and dysfunctional courts,” defending grotesque human rights violations and scofflaw policies by his own Administration, and a DOJ that takes untenable and embarrassingly bad legal positions before the Federal Courts. Much as he’d like to pretend that “immigration doesn’t matter,” or expressed a different way “human lives don’t matter if they are only migrants,” he’s starting to get pressure from Congress, the Article IIIs, and NGOs to fix EOIR and “shape up” the DOJ’s lousy, sometimes unprofessional and ethically questionable, approach to immigration, human rights, and racial justice issues. Justice for immigrants is the starting point for achieving racial justice in America. PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
Garland’s failure to institute widely recommended common sense legal reforms — government for the common good — at EOIR undermines our democracy while endangering “real” human lives every day! That’s a toxic legacy that he won’t be able to avoid!
