⚖️💰JUSTICE FOR SALE: DOJ ATTEMPTED TO “BUY OUT” “HOLDOVER” BIA MEMBERS TO CLEAR THE WAY FOR AGGRESSIVELY NATIVIST AGENDA — It Failed, But The Anti-Immigrant, Anti-Asylum, Anti-Due Process Tilt Still Took Place!

EYORE — “Eyore In Distress”
Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”

https://www.rollcall.com/2020/05/27/doj-memo-offered-to-buy-out-immigration-board-members/

Tanvi Misra reports for Roll Call:

https://www.rollcall.com/2020/05/27/doj-memo-offered-to-buy-out-immigration-board-members/

DOJ memo offered to buy out immigration board members

The buyouts were only offered to Board of Immigration Appeals members hired before Trump took office

The Justice Department memo came from the director of the Executive Office of Immigration Review, a Justice Department agency. (Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call file photo)

By Tanvi Misra

Posted May 27, 2020 at 5:04pm

The Justice Department offered buyouts to pre-Trump administration career members on its influential immigration appeals board as part of an ongoing effort to restructure the immigration court system with new hires who may be likely to render decisions restricting asylum.

An internal memo viewed by CQ Roll Call shows that James McHenry, the director of the Executive Office of Immigration Review, offered financial incentives to longtime members of the Board of Immigration Appeals to encourage them to retire or resign. The buyouts and “voluntary separation incentive payments” were offered to “individuals whose positions will help us strategically restructure EOIR in order to accommodate skills, technology, and labor markets,” according to the April 17 memo.

EOIR is the Justice Department agency that oversees the Board of Immigration Appeals, a 23-member body that reviews appealed decisions by immigration judges and sets precedent.

According to two knowledgeable sources at EOIR who declined to be identified for fear of retaliation, the memo was sent to the nine board members appointed under previous Republican and Democratic administrations, before Trump took office. No one accepted the buyout offers, according to both sources.

CQ Roll Call reached out for comment on the memo to McHenry, EOIR and the Justice Department and received a statement Wednesday saying that “the Department does not comment on personnel matters.”

“Any insinuation that politicized hiring has become ramped up is inconsistent with the facts,” the statement said.

The memo sheds light on an ongoing debate over BIA hiring. Immigration judges, lawyers and former EOIR employees say the Trump administration has used the board to help meet its goal of reducing immigration, while government officials say they have simply streamlined a lengthy hiring process that was always subject to political judgments.

In October, CQ Roll Call reported on documents showing the Justice Department had tweaked the hiring process to fill six new vacancies on the board with immigration judges with high asylum denial rates and a track record of complaints. Additional memos that CQ Roll Call wrote about earlier this month shed further light on these rule changes that enabled fast-tracking of those and more recent hires.

The three most recent hires to the board include an immigration judge who denied 96 percent of the asylum requests before him and had a history of formal complaints about “bias and prejudice.” The vacancies were created after a flurry of career board members left the BIA.

“EOIR does not select board members based on prohibited criteria such as race or politics, and it does not discriminate against applicants based on any prohibited characteristics,” the Justice Department said in its statement. “All board members are selected through an open, competitive, merit-based process that begins with a public advertisement on the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) federal employment website.”

Recent changes to EOIR hiring procedures “have made the selection process of board members more formalized and neutral,” the department said.

While buyouts are typically offered to soften the blow of workforce reductions, the two sources at EOIR said the agency’s offers were made so that the BIA could be reconfigured entirely, with the positions of “board members” replaced by those of “appellate immigration judges.” The differences go beyond title, extending to pay ranges and leave policy. Appellate immigration judges also hear cases at both the trial and appellate levels, creating potential conflicts of interests.

“Many board members have viewed themselves as appellate immigration judges for years, and EOIR first proposed such a designation in 2000,” according to the Justice Department statement. “Elevating trial-level judges to appellate-level courts is common in every judicial system in the United States.”

The American Immigration Lawyers Association and other critics said the buyout offer is the latest example in a series of moves that have undermined the neutrality of the immigration court system. They point out that BIA is already housed under a law enforcement agency, the Justice Department, whose leadership may have a stake in the outcome of the court process.

“The administration is trying to further politicize the immigration court system by packing the appellate bench and is seeking to make room for more handpicked judges with this buyout,” Benjamin Johnson, AILA’s executive director, told CQ Roll Call.

“These latest actions reveal the severe impact of our nation’s immigration system being housed under the Attorney General and only underscore the real need to create an independent immigration court,” he said.

**************

The refusal of the “holdovers” to take the “buyout” just forced the DOJ politicos to use a different “strategy:” creating additional “appellate judgeships” and “packing” them with appointees with established records of hostility to asylum seekers and the due process rights of respondents.

This presents an interesting historical comparison with an earlier GOP Administration’s program for promoting an anti-immigrant agenda at the BIA. Under Bush II, Ashcroft arbitrarily “cut” the size of the BIA to get rid of the vocal minority of judges who dared to speak up (usually in dissent) for the rights of asylum seekers and other migrants to due process, fundamental fairness, and humane treatment. I was one of those judges “exiled” from the BIA during the “Ashcroft Purge of ‘03.”

Fortunately, I got a “soft landing” just down the hill from the “EOIR Tower” at the Arlington Immigration Court where I remained on the bench and (mostly) “below the radar screen” for the following 13 years. And, yes, I was offered a “buyout” in the form of “early retirement,” which would have been a rather bad financial deal for me at the time. So, I rejected it, and eventually got a much better “deal.”

The DOJ’s claim that the current farce is a “merit selection system” is beyond preposterous. But, as long as Congress and the Article IIIs won’t stand up to Trump’s blatant abuses of due process, the “de-professionalization” of the career Civil Service, and the dehumanization of the “other” before the law (“Dred Scottificfation”), the charade will continue.

Of course the problem isn’t, as EOIR would lead you to believe, that some “trial judges” are elevated to the appellate bench. It’s which “trial judges” are being “rewarded” for their records of hostility to asylum seekers, respondents, and their attorneys.

Also, in what has become essentially a “closed system” of Immigration Judges, staffed almost exclusively by government attorneys overwhelmingly with prosecutorial backgrounds, the “elevation” of existing trial judges, basically tilts the system heavily in favor of DHS and against respondents. Indeed, some fine Immigration Judges with broader experience including private practice, who would have made superior Appellate Immigration Judges in a true merit-based system, were instead forced off the bench by the demeaning, biased, restrictionist policies implemented at EOIR.

Also, having served as both a trial and appellate judge, I know that the “skill sets” are related, but by no means identical. Not all good trial judges make good appellate judges and vice versa. While it’s certainly to be expected that some trial judges will be elevated to the appellate bench, that should not be the sole source of appellate judges.

Appellate judging requires scholarship, collegiality, creativity, writing, and a broad perspective that many talented private advocates, academics, and NGO lawyers possess in abundance. The same holds true of the Article III Appellate Bench. From the Supremes on down, it’s basically in various degrees of failure to uphold the rule of law and the Constitution against the attacks by the Trump regime.

It’s a case of far too many former District Court Judges, former prosecutors, and right-wing “think tankers,” and far too few individuals who have litigation, legal, and life experience gained from representing those who actually come before the courts. The Supremes in particular are badly in need of folks with a broader, more practical, more humane perspective on the law.

The institutional failure of today’s Supremes in the face of concerted Executive tyranny threatens to collapse our entire justice system and take our democratic republic down with it. The whole Article III judicial selection system needs careful reexamination and reforms lest it fall into the same type of institutional dysfunction and disrepute as today’s Immigration “Courts” (which aren’t “courts” at all in any normal sense of the word).

Of course, Trump, Barr, and the rest of their anti-democracy gang would love to make the captive, biased, Executive-controlled Immigration “Courts” the “model” for the Article III Judiciary. And, John Roberts and the rest of the “JR Five” seem all too eager to accommodate them. The perception already is out here that Roberts & Co. “work for” Trump Solicitor General Noel Francisco in somewhat the same way as Immigration “Judges” work for Billy Barr. Until Roberts and his gang show the courage to stand up to Trump and enforce the legal, constitutional, and human rights of “the other” in our society, that perception will only deepen.

As generations of African-Americans discovered following the end of Reconstruction, Constitutional and legal rights are meaningless in the face of biased and cowardly legislators, judges, and other public officials who simply look the other way, join the abuses, or “go along to get along” with treating “the other” unfairly under the law.

Due Process Forever, Captive & Complicit Courts, Never!

PWS

05-28-20

UPDATE:

Benjamin Johnson
Executive Director
AILA

AILA Statement on BIA:

AILA: EOIR Director Attempts to Buy Out Remaining Board Members to Solidify Control of Immigration Courts

AILA Doc. No. 20052830 | Dated May 28, 2020

Washington, DC – According to the Roll Call story published May 27, 2020, Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) Director McHenry sent the remaining members of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) a buy-out memo offering them financial compensation in exchange for early retirement or resignation. This memo was sent on April 17, 2020, during the global public health crisis, and highlights the continuing push by this administration to manipulate the functions of the BIA, the appeals court located within EOIR.

AILA Executive Director Benjamin Johnson stated, “This administration has taken numerous steps to alter the composition and role of the BIA, all in an effort to gain more control over the immigration courts and influence court decisions. In recent months, it came to light that the EOIR Director was attempting to pack the immigration bench with more appointees who have among the lowest asylum grant rates in the country. Now, he is attempting to winnow existing members from the BIA and replace them with a roster of Appellate Immigration Judges, despite congressional and stakeholder concerns about politicization of the BIA. Last year, these new appellate judge positions were created out of thin air. They appear to have nearly identical job functions as the BIA members but the Appellate Immigration Judges can adjudicate both trial and appellate level cases at the same time and can be reassigned away from the BIA at the whim of the EOIR Director.”

“This effort shows a complete disregard, or at the very least a failure to appreciate how our judicial system is supposed to work to provide a fair day in court. In 2003, Attorney General Ashcroft purged several members of the BIA, a political move that was severely criticized and ultimately undermined the credibility of our court system. These recent efforts by this administration make it even clearer that our nation urgently needs an immigration court system that is independent, fair and impartial.”

###

The American Immigration Lawyers Association is the national association of immigration lawyers established to promote justice, advocate for fair and reasonable immigration law and policy, advance the quality of immigration and nationality law and practice, and enhance the professional development of its members.

**************************

The BIA is a travesty, to be sure. But, an even bigger travesty is the continued “deference” given to a biased, unqualified, non-expert tribunal and its political handlers by the Article III Courts! Under Marbury v. Madison, it’s the job of the Article III Courts to say what the law is. To “defer” to the BIA, a body that currently functions not like a independent, expert tribunal, but has become a “shill” for DHS Enforcement and an adjunct of White Nationalist White House Policy Advisor Stephen Miller, is a disgraceful case of judicial task avoidance and dereliction of duty.

If nothing else, the ongoing disaster at the BIA points to an “inconvenient truth” in America’s justice system: We need better, more informed (particularly in the areas of immigrants’ rights and human rights), more courageous judges at all levels of the Federal Judiciary if we are to survive as a democratic republic where the rule of law and equal justice under law have meaning!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-28-20

2D CIR. JOINS 9TH IN REJECTING BIA’S PRECEDENT, MATTER OF MENDEZ, 27 I. & N. Dec. 219 (BIA 2018) (Holding Misprision of Felony is a CIMT) – Mendez v. Barr

https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/75dbe12d-c0a1-497d-848e-59f07e9aa4b2/3/doc/18-801_complete_opn.pdf

Mendez v. Barr, 2d Cir., 05-27-20, published

PANEL: PARKER, CHIN, and SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges.

OPINION BY: Judge Barrington D. Parker

DISSENTING OPINION: Judge Richard Sullivan

KEY QUOTE FROM MAJORITY:

Tomas Mendez was admitted to the United States in 2004 as a lawful

17 permanent resident. In 2010, he was convicted of misprision of a felony in

18 violation of 18 U.S.C. § 4. That section makes it a crime for one with knowledge

19 of the commission of a federal felony to conceal it and not promptly report it to

20 the appropriate authorities. 18 U.S.C § 4.

21 In 2016, upon returning from a trip abroad, the Department of Homeland

22 Security charged him, based on his misprision conviction, as inadmissible under

23 § 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, because he was a

24 noncitizen convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”). The

25 immigration judge sustained the charge, and the Board of Immigration Appeals

2

1 (“BIA”) affirmed. The BIA concluded that the violation of § 4 meant that he had

2 committed a CIMT. Matter of Mendez, 27 I. & N. Dec. 219, 225 (BIA 2018).

3 The BIA defines a CIMT as crime that is “inherently base, vile, or

4 depraved, and contrary to the accepted rules of morality and duties owed

5 between persons or to society in general.” Rodriguez v. Gonzales, 451 F.3d 60, 63

6 (2d Cir. 2006).1 For decades, the BIA never considered misprision a CIMT. Matter

7 of Sloan, 12 I. & N. Dec. 840, 842 (BIA 1966) (holding misprision does not

8 constitute a CIMT).

9 However, in 2002, the Eleventh Circuit held in Itani v. Ashcroft that a

10 conviction under § 4 is categorically a CIMT “because it necessarily involves an

11 affirmative act of concealment or participation in a felony, behavior that runs

12 contrary to accepted societal duties and involves dishonest or fraudulent

1 Unless otherwise indicated, in quoting cases all internal quotation marks, alterations, emphases, footnotes, and citations are omitted.

3

1 activity.” 298 F.3d 1213, 1216 (11th Cir. 2002).2 Following the Eleventh Circuit’s

2 lead, the BIA did an about face and determined in a case arising in the Ninth

3 Circuit that misprision was a CIMT. In re Robles-Urrea, 24 I. & N. Dec. 22, 25 (BIA

4 2006).

5 The Ninth Circuit rejected the BIA’s conclusion. The court held that

6 because § 4 required only knowledge of the felony and did not require an intent

7 to defraud, or conceal, or to obstruct justice, the statute encompassed conduct

8 that was not inherently base or vile. Robles-Urrea v. Holder, 678 F.3d 702, 710-12

9 (9th Cir. 2012). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that “[n]othing in the statute

10 prohibiting misprision of a felony references the specific purpose for which the

11 concealment must be undertaken,” let alone a purpose sufficient to qualify

12 misprision as a categorical CIMT. Id. at 710.

2 In 2017, the Fifth Circuit joined the Eleventh Circuit to hold that misprision is categorically a CIMT. Villegas-Sarabia v. Sessions, 874 F.3d 871, 878 (5th Cir. 2017). We respectfully decline to follow the Fifth and Eleventh Circuit’s approach. We believe that neither Itani nor Villegas-Sarabia satisfactorily supports the assertion that specific intent, or intent to defraud, can be read into § 4, especially when Congress did not include such a requirement and has shown elsewhere in the criminal code that it knows how to include such a requirement if it so chooses. The Eleventh Circuit in Itani reasoned only “that misprision of a felony is a crime of moral turpitude because it necessarily involves an affirmative act of concealment or participation in a felony, behavior that runs contrary to accepted societal duties and involves dishonest or fraudulent activity.” 298 F.3d at 1216. We are reluctant to adopt this reasoning because, “any crime, by definition, runs contrary to some duty owed to society” and “[i]f this were the sole benchmark for a crime involving moral turpitude, every crime would involve moral turpitude.” Robles-Urrea v. Holder, 678 F.3d 702, 709 (9th Cir. 2012). We are also unpersuaded by Villegas-Sarabia, where the Fifth Circuit relied almost exclusively on Itani’s reasoning.

4

1 Mendez moved to terminate removal proceedings and for cancellation of

2 removal, arguing that misprision is not a CIMT. Relying on the BIA’s decision in

3 Robles-Urrea, the IJ found Mendez removable as charged. The IJ also pretermitted

4 Mendez’s application for cancellation of removal, concluding that because his

5 2010 misprision conviction constituted a CIMT, it stopped the clock for

6 calculating length of residency and prevented him from establishing the required

7 seven years of continuous residency. In February 2018, the BIA issued a

8 precedential decision in this case. Matter of Mendez, 27 I. & N. Dec. at 219. It

9 reaffirmed its holding that misprision is a CIMT and declined to follow the Ninth

10 Circuit’s rejection of its reasoning in Robles-Urrea.

11 Mendez petitions for review. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252

12 (a)(2)(D). Mendez argues that a conviction for misprision is not a CIMT because

13 it does not categorically involve conduct that is inherently base, vile, or

14 depraved. He also argues that, contrary to the BIA’s contention, its decision is

15 not entitled to Chevron deference. We agree on both points.

16 DISCUSSION

17 The dispositive issue is whether misprision is a CIMT. Because the BIA has

18 no particular expertise in construing federal criminal statutes (as opposed to the

19 INA), we owe no deference to its construction of § 4. United States v. Apel, 571 5

1 U.S. 359, 369 (2014); Mendez v. Mukasey 547 F.3d 345, 346 (2d Cir. 2008).

2 Accordingly, we review de novo the BIA’s conclusion that Mendez’s conviction

3 under § 4 is a conviction for a CIMT. Rodriguez, 451 F.3d at 63.

. . . .

*******************************

There is a “Circuit split:” The 5^th & 11^th Circuits agree with the BIA’s decision in Matter of Mendez; the 9^th and 2d Circuits reject it. That means it’s likiely to eventually be up to the Supremes to decide who’s right.

PWS

05-27-20

LAW YOU CAN USE: THE DEVIL👹 IS IN THE DETAILS: JEFFREY S. CHASE — OPINIONS/ANALYSIS ON IMMIGRATION LAW: “Just One More Thing…”

HTTPS://WWW.JEFFREYSCHASE.COM/BLOG/2020/5/27/JUST-ONE-MORE-THING

JEFFREY S. CHASE | OPINIONS/ANALYSIS ON IMMIGRATION LAW

Blog

Archive

Press and Interviews

Calendar

Contact

“Just One More Thing…”

When reviewing asylum applications of late, I find myself thinking of the popular 1970s TV show “Columbo.” After interviewing a suspect, it’s title character, a disheveled homicide detective, would famously stop on his way out to ask “just one more thing.” What he asked next was always critical to proving the case.

Asylum claims are increasingly reliant on nuance. For example, in Hernandez-Chacon v. Barr, the Petitioner’s statement that she had resisted an attempted rape by one of the gang members “because [she had] every right to” was a significant reason for the Second Circuit’s conclusion that her subsequent persecution was on account of an imputed political opinion.

Similarly, in Lopez-Ordonez v. Barr, the Fourth Circuit’s finding of imputed political opinion relied largely on the Petitioner, while a soldier in the Guatemalan army, uttering a warning that he would “call the human rights right now” if a fellow soldier carried out his intent of harming a baby.

And in Orellana v. Barr, the Fourth Circuit found support for the Petitioner’s assertion that the Salvadoran government was unable or unwilling to provide protection from her domestic partner in her testimony that she would call the police when her partner would become abusive and lock herself in a room with her children while the partner paced outside with a machete, but that the police would not show up for hours, and sometimes not show up at all.

In the above examples, the critical statements came out during testimony in court. But under pressure to meet unrealistic case completion goals, immigration judges are increasingly suggesting that respondents forego testimony and rely on their written applications, or waive direct examination and reserve the right to redirect. In some instances, judges have imposed time limits on testimony. There has been even greater pressure to forego the testimony of other witnesses and instead rely on their written submissions alone.

This pressure to make asylum adjudication more administratively efficient conflicts with the process through which such claims develop. While the written evidence explains the claim, an unanticipated response to a probing question may provide a eureka moment that alters the legal analysis. In my first year on the bench in 1995, a response from a female asylum seeker uttered with a certain degree of conviction caused me to make a connection to a 1993 decision of the Third Circuit in Fatin v. INS. That decision, authored by then-circuit judge Samuel Alito, recognized a particular social group consisting of both gender and a refusal to conform to the government’s gender-specific laws. After weeks of subsequent research and analysis, the case before me ended in a grant of asylum, a result that never would have occurred without the extensive testimony that elicited that one critical utterance.

While EOIR management’s present focus is on efficiency, it bears noting that claims for asylum and related reliefs have life-or-death consequences. For example, a February report of Human Rights Watch documented 138 Salvadorans who were murdered after being deported from the U.S., and 70 other deportees who were subjected to beatings, sexual assault, or extortion. And those are just the statistics for one country.

It is therefore extremely important to find a way to anticipate the details that might turn a case from a denial to a grant, and to include those details in the written asylum application. And this can be best achieved through the Columbo method of asking “just one more thing.”

Examples:

Domestic violence claims

Typically, applications describe the brutal mistreatment suffered by the asylum-seeker. But in Matter of A-B-, the Attorney General claimed a lack of evidence that the persecutor “was aware of, and hostile to” a particular social group. The A.G. rather attributed the motive for the attack to the persecutor’s “preexisting personal relationship with the victim.”

In such cases, ask “just one more thing” to establish that the abusive partner was at least partially motivated to harm the asylum seeker because of her gender (which should in turn be argued to constitute her particular social group). For example, the respondent in A-B- described how her ex-husband believed “a woman’s place was in the home, like a servant.” This statement established (1) that the persecutor was aware of a particular social group, consisting of women, and (2) his own hostility towards such group, through his relegating its members to a subservient role in society.

Additional “Columbo” questions would inquire whether the persecutor’s verbal abuse included gender-specific derogatory terms; how he generally spoke of or treated other women in his life; and whether he would have inflicted the same forms of abuse on e.g. his brother, a close male friend, or a male roommate. The answers may well establish that the asylum seeker’s inclusion in a social group defined by her gender was at least “one central reason” for her being targeted for abuse.

“Just one more thing” should also be asked to flesh out imputed political opinion as a possible motive, as in the above-cited Hernandez-Chacon case.

Family-based claims

These claims often arise in the gang context, when gang members unable to target a particular individual target family members of that individual instead. Although courts for decades have held family to be the quintessential example of a particular social group for asylum purposes, two recent administrative decisions have complicated these claims. First, the BIA in Matter of L-E-A- dismissed the threat to the family member as being motivated by financial considerations and not by an actual animus towards the family. The Attorney General then weighed in, questioning whether a family enjoys the required distinction in the eyes of society to constitute a particular social group.

Regarding nexus, the “Columbo” questions should focus on circumstantial evidence of intent. Keep in mind the BIA’s decision in Matter of S-P–. One of the factors set out in that decision for determining when purported criminal prosecution might actually be political persecution is where the abuse is “out of proportion to nonpolitical ends.” For example, if someone accused of jaywalking is sentenced to ten years in prison and subjected to torture and interrogation sessions, it’s safe to assume that it isn’t really about the jaywalking.

With this in mind, the “just one more thing” issue in such cases is to elicit details about the purported motive vs. the seriousness of the threatened harm. Where the issue is extortion, and the Board might therefore view the motive as economic, ask exactly how much money was involved. Under the S-P- test, a threat to rape and kill someone because their family member neglected to pay $20 in renta probably isn’t about the money. The same might be found even where a larger sum is involved where the threats are directed at, e.g., a teenage child who lacks any realistic ability to pay. Or where the family has managed to avoid paying for years, is there a point where a dispute that began purely over money starts to take on some animus towards the family as well?

Regarding social distinction, “just one more thing” should be asked to establish how the asylum-seeker’s family was viewed in the society in which they lived, as well as the general distinctions that all families enjoy in such society. Was it known throughout the community that MS-13 is targeting the client’s family? If so, might that knowledge have caused the family to achieve social distinction? It is also worth asking whether the institution of family is addressed in the country’s constitution, or how kinship is treated regarding the country’s inheritance and guardianship laws.

Unwilling/unable issues:

As in Orellana v. Barr above, ask “just one more thing” about how many times your client turned to the police, and how many times they actually responded. Also, how long did it take them to respond, and what did the response consist of? How did the authorities treat the abuser? Did they take the position that the issue was a “personal matter” not proper for police intervention?

If the client did not bother to call the police because they viewed it as futile, ask “just one more thing” about what caused them to form such a view. Do they know of relatives, friends, or neighbors whose experiences with the authorities support such a view? Can they cite examples in which there were repercussions for those who called on the authorities for protection? Have the authorities asked for bribes, or made statements exhibiting bias or corruption? Or have they gone as far as to admit that they are unable to provide effective protection?

Copyright 2020 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

Reprinted by permission.

(Disclaimer: The foregoing is meant as “food for thought,” and is not to be interpreted or relied upon as legal advice, or to create an attorney-client relationship. And as the law changes, by the time you read this, the information contained therein might not be up to date.)

MAY 27, 2020

*********************************

Thanks, Jeffrey, my friend!

I’ve always said about asylum litigation in Immigration Court: The Devil 👹 is in the details. And, if you don’t find that Devil, the Assistant Chief Counsel will. And, YOU will burn🔥!

PWS

05-27-20

NO EXPERIENCE REQUIRED: Barr Awards 2 of 4 New Supervisory Judge Positions @ EOIR to Immigration Neophytes — Just Keep The Deportation RR Running Full-Speed Ahead Into The Abyss!

Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/barr-appoints-four-new-acijs-two-have-no-experience

Barr Appoints Four New ACIJs; Two Have No Experience

[NOTE: Two of the four new ACIJs have no immigration law experience, yet they will hear cases.]

EOIR, May 22, 2020

“The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) today announced four new assistant chief immigration judges (ACIJs). ACIJs are responsible for overseeing the operations of the immigration courts to which they are assigned. In addition to their management responsibilities, these Attorney General appointees will hear cases. Biographical information follows…”

*****************

Get the full EOIR announcement at the link

The deadly ☠️ judicial farce at EOIR continues, unabated, as lives and the law are treated as meaningless in a “court” system run by enforcement politicos.

Apparently, at today’s EOIR all you need to hear cases is the willingness to check “deny” and “remove” on the form orders and to exhort others to “go along to get along!”

Due Process Forever! Captive Courts, Never!

PWS

05-26-20

☠️⚰️DHS DEATHWATCH: Second Detainee Dies of COVID-19

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/hamedaleaziz/immigrant-ice-coronavirus-death

Hamed Aleaziz reports for BuzzFeed News:

A 34-year-old Guatemalan man who tested positive for COVID-19 died in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody at a Georgia hospital on Sunday, according to an internal government report obtained by BuzzFeed News.

Santiago Baten-Oxlaj, 34, had been in ICE custody at Stewart Detention Center, in Lumpkin, since early March and was granted a voluntary departure to Guatemala, ICE later confirmed in a press release.

Baten-Oxlaj was arrested on March 2 at a probation office in Marietta, Georgia “pursuant to his conviction for driving under the influence,” ICE said. On March 26, an immigration judge granted him voluntary departure. “At the time of his death, Baten was awaiting departure from the United States,” ICE added.

On April 17, he was admitted to a local hospital for treatment of decreased oxygen saturation levels, hospital officials tested the man for COVID-19 and the result was positive.

On Sunday, he died at the hospital, according to the report, which listed his preliminary cause of death as COVID-19.

ICE said it “is undertaking a comprehensive agency-wide review of this incident, as it does in all such cases.”

His death comes weeks after a 57-year-old man in ICE custody in San Diego died after testing positive for COVID-19. The San Diego County medical examiner’s office said the man, Carlos Ernesto Escobar Mejia, died of acute respiratory failure due to pneumonia resulting from COVID-19. He was the first immigrant in ICE custody to die of the disease.

As of May 16, 1,201 immigrant detainees have tested positive for the disease in ICE custody out of 2,394 who had been tested.

. . . .

*********************

Read the rest of Hamed’s article at the above link.

Unfortunately, this won’t be the last victim. According to the article, over 50% of those detainees tested for COVID-19 were positive.

With the BIA basically taking a “pass/dive” on requiring health and safety considerations to be serious factors in custody decisions, custody cases will continue to be litigated in U.S. District Courts throughout the country. Why have a BIA incapable of functioning as an independent tribunal consistent with due process?

PWS

05-26-20

1ST CIR. THWARTS BIA’S ATTEMPT TO USE “SUA SPONTE” AUTHORITY TO COVER UP ARBITRARINESS, BIAS, & CLEAR LEGAL ERROR! — Thompson v. Barr

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca1-on-pardons-thompson-v-barr

Dan Kowalski reports on LexisNexis Immigration Community:

Daniel M. Kowalski

22 May 2020

bia

Connecticut

pardon

CA1 on Pardons: Thompson v. Barr

Thompson v. Barr

“Petitioner Richard Marvin Thompson (“Thompson”) appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his motion to reopen sua sponte his immigration proceedings, alleging that the BIA committed a clear legal error. Thompson asks this Court to exercise jurisdiction to review whether the BIA clearly erred when it determined that he was not entitled to relief from deportation under section 237(a)(2)(A)(vi) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2) (A)(vi) (the “Pardon Waiver Clause”), because a pardon issued by the Connecticut Board of Pardons and Paroles is “not effective for purposes of establishing entitlement to” a waiver of deportation. Because we find that this Court has jurisdiction to review this colorable legal question and because, here, the BIA departed from its settled course of adjudication, we vacate the decision of the BIA and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

[Hats off to Gregory Romanovsky, William M. Tong, Attorney General of Connecticut, Jane Rosenberg, Assistant Attorney General, Clare Kindall, Solicitor General, amicus curiae for the State of Connecticut, Trina Realmuto, Kristin Macleod-Ball and Emma Winger!]

******************

So, let’s take a little closer look. Thompson immigrated legally to the U.S. in 1997, at age 14. Nearly two decades ago, Thompson was convicted of second degree assault in Connecticut and given a suspended sentence and 3-years probation. In other words, no jail time.

He successfully completed probation, got a GED, and worked as a commercial operator for 10 years. Essentially, Thompson successfully rehabilitated and became a productive member of society.

In 2012, the Obama Administration DHS, in its wisdom, instituted removal proceedings against Thompson based on his 2001 Connecticut assault conviction. After being found removable and losing on appeal, Thompson received a full and complete pardon from the Connecticut State Board of Pardons, the highest pardoning authority in the state. Although established by the legislature, the Board of Pardons’ action was deliberative and based on an assessment of the factors in Thompson’s individual case. It was not an “automatic expungement” pursuant to legislation.

Since the time for filing a motion to reopen had expired, Thompson asked the BIA to reopen his case “sua sponte” — on its own motion — to recognize that the pardon had eradicated the legal basis for removal.

Following its previous rulings, as well as sound policy and common sense, the BIA should promptly have granted Thompson’s motion and terminated proceedings in a two or three sentence order. Instead, the BIA, now operating under the “Trump removal regime in 2018,” denied the motion based on specious reasons that deviated without rational explanation from their prior treatment of substantially identical motions.

The BIA’s action touched off approximately 20 months of furious litigation involving a small army of lawyers on both sides, including the Connecticut Attorney General and the Connecticut Solicitor General, as well as the American Immigration Council, filing briefs in support of Thompson.

Following this 34-page opus by the First Circuit, Thompson’s case is by no means over. It’s been “orbited” back to the “Weird World of EOIR” where Thompson might, or might not, receive justice at some undetermined point in the future. To make matters even worse, Thompson remains detained at the Etowah County Detention Center in Gadsden, Alabama. Alabama is one of the current “hot spots” for COVID-19.

Is it any wonder that a “weaponized,” overtly anti-immigrant “court system” that looks for “reasons to deny” meritorious cases, rather than promoting prompt and efficient due process in deserving cases is running a backlog of approximately 1.4 million “on and off calendar” cases?

The longer the reviewing Circuit Courts keep up the fiction of treating EOIR as a legitimate adjudicative organization rather than the biased, “non-expert,” unconstitutional extension of DHS Enforcement that it has become, the bigger the mess will get and the more injustice that will be done to individuals like Thompson.

Meanwhile, legions of lawyers and judges at all levels, who could and should be devoting their talents to operating a constitutional immigration justice system that provides “due process and fundamental fairness with efficiency and humanity for all concerned” will instead continue to flail as a result of this “designed and operated to fail” system run by a kakistocracy to produce injustice and to squander judicial time and legal resources on a massive scale. When will it ever end?

Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-24-20

👂🏻👀🤫EOIR RUMOR MILL — DOJ Honcho & X-OILer David H. Wetmore Reportedly Will Be Tapped As New BIA Chair!

https://jnc.dc.gov/biography/david-h-wetmore

David H. Wetmore

David H. Wetmore, Esq. is a career appellate litigator in the United States Department of Justice, currently serving as Associate Deputy Attorney General. During his tenure at the Department of Justice, Mr. Wetmore has also served as Senior Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General and as a Trial Attorney in the Civil Division. He has been the principal author of hundreds of appellate briefs and argued over twenty-five cases in federal courts of appeals. Prior to joining the Department of Justice, Mr. Wetmore was an associate attorney in Sidley Austin LLP’s District of Columbia office, and at Jenner & Block LLP’s Chicago office, where his practice focused on civil, criminal, and constitutional litigation. Mr. Wetmore has experience in all aspects of litigation, from initial investigation and discovery through trial and appeal, in both state and federal courts, including in the District of Columbia. He has also served as an Adjunct Professor at The George Washington University Law School.

Mr. Wetmore earned his Bachelor of Arts, magna cum laude, from Miami University, where he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa, graduated from the University Honors Program, and received Departmental Honors in Political Science and Philosophy. He earned his Juris Doctor, with High Honors, from The George Washington University Law School, where he was an Articles Editor of The George Washington Law Review, elected to Order of the Coif, and a member of the Moot Court Board. Following law school, Mr. Wetmore served as a law clerk to the Honorable Gordon J. Quist, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, and later to the Honorable Daniel A. Manion, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

*****************

Normally reliable, totally unofficial anonymous sources say Wetmore’s “the one.”

There is further rank, unverified speculation that the current Acting Chair, Judge Garry Malphrus, eventually will get the just-advertised “Vice Chair/Deputy Chief Appellate Judge” position as a reward for reliably furthering the BIA’s anti-immigrant jurisprudence during his tenure. Malphrus replaced former Chair David Neal who resigned suddenly last Fall.

Wetmore currently is an Associate Deputy Attorney General at the DOJ. That’s roughly the DOJ equivalent of the “Under Assistant West Coast Promo Man*.” The Associate Deputy Attorney General, of course, should never be confused with the Deputy Associate Attorney General, an entirely different position. Actually, it’s about as far up the DOJ hierarchy that a “career” attorney can get. The higher level positions, in this case the Deputy Attorney General, are Presidentially-appointed politicos.

With this development, the connection between the BIA and the Office of Immigration Litigation (“OIL”) should become “seamless.” The BIA staff can just “cut and paste” OIL briefs into their decisions and vice versa. This eliminates the need to sometimes request time-consuming Circuit Court remands to get the BIA to adopt OIL’s preferred litigating position. In turn, this should totally eliminate the possibility of an individual ever “winning” a BIA appeal and will eradicate any remaining traces of due process or fundamental fairness at the BIA.

These moves, combined with an outrageous proposed increase in the filing fee for a BIA appeal, will undoubtedly be a powerful tool for deterring, discouraging, and punishing individuals for exercising their legal rights. These are critical steps in insuring the smooth operation of the regime’s “Deportation Railroad.”

Any way you look at it, today’s BIA certainly presents an “interesting diversity profile,” particularly considering the community whose rights it once was supposed to protect, but now has unabashedly abandoned as it seeks to carry out the Trump/Miller/Barr White Nationalist mission of “Dred Scottifying the other.”

It also continues a two-decades long “DOJ tradition” of intentionally failing to attract better-qualified candidates from the private immigration sector, with actual experience representing and interacting with asylum seekers and other migrants, for BIA judgeships. The “outside, non-restrictionist world” has also been overwhelmingly excluded from appointments to Immigration Courts, with essentially de facto preference being given to government prosecutors.

Obviously, the reduction of Immigration Judges and Appellate Immigration Judges to something akin to “deportation clerks” straining to meet “production quotas” and pressured by regime politicos to aid DHS Enforcement by churning out deportation orders has been an important step in “dumbing down” EOIR. Today, EOIR is probably more subservient to DHS Enforcement, less impartial, and more of an administrative disaster than it was under the “Legacy INS.” Except, now there is more of everything — more overt political interference in the adjudication process, more bad law intentionally created, more and bigger backlogs, more intellectual dishonesty, more chaos, more disrespect for and demeaning of respondents and their attorneys, and more lives ruined.

Due Process Forever! Weaponized, Captive, “Courts” Never!

PWS

05-21-20

*Stones, The Rolling, “The Under Assistant West Coast Promo Man”

Well, I’m waiting at the bus stop in downtown L.A.
Well, I’m waiting at the bus stop in downtown L.A.
But I’d much rather be on a boardwalk on Broadway

Well, I’m sitting here thinkin’ just how sharp I am
Well, I’m sitting here thinkin’ just how sharp I am
I’m an under assistant west coast promo man

Well, I promo groups when they come into town
Well, I promo groups when they come into town
Well they laugh at my toupee, they’re sure to put me down

Well, I’m sitting here thinking just how sharp I am
Yeah, I’m sitting here thinking just how sharp I am
I’m a necessary talent behind every rock and roll band

Yeah, I’m sharp
I’m really, really sharp
I sure do earn my pay
Sitting on the beach every day, yeah
I’m real real sharp, yes I am
I got a Corvette and a seersucker suit
Yes, I have

Here comes the bus, uh oh
I though I had a dime
Where’s my dime
I know I have a dime somewhere
I’m pretty sure

Writer/s: Keith Richards, Michael Jagger

Publisher: Abkco Music, Inc.

Lyrics licensed and provided by LyricFind

Check it out from YouTube here (you can skip the commercials):

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjLoP2OzMfpAhWFYTUKHaZUDvUQyCkwAHoECBMQBw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D6-3_TK2GASE&usg=AOvVaw1o9mdRm85Jy8KtVxomIK9N

RIGGED “COURTS” – BIA’S ANTI-ASYLUM BIAS “OUTED” AGAIN, AS 6TH CIR. BLASTS BOGUS DENIAL OF ASYLUM TO GUATEMALAN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVOR – Says Sessions’s “Reasoning” in A-B- “Abrogated” By Judge Sullivan’s Ruling in Grace v. Whitaker — Juan Antonio v. Barr

https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/20a0156p-06.pdf

Juan Antonio v. Barr, 6^th Cir., 05-19-20, published

PANEL: COLE, Chief Judge; BOGGS and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges

OPINION BY: Judge Gibbons

CONCURRING OPINION: Judge Boggs

KEY QUOTES:

Footnote 3:

3Matter of A-R-C-G was overruled by Matter of A-B, which held that the Board in Matter of A-R-C-G- did not conduct a rigorous enough analysis in its determination that the particular social group was cognizable. See Matter of A-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 316, 331 (A.G. 2018) (noting that because DHS conceded that particular social group was cognizable, “the Board performed only a cursory analysis of the three factors required to establish a particular social group”). Our sister circuits have determined that this change counsels remand. See Padilla- Maldonado v. Att’y Gen. U.S., 751 F. App’x 263, 268 (3d Cir. 2018) (“While the overruling of A-R-C-G- weakens [the applicant’s] case, it does not automatically defeat her claim that she is a member of a cognizable particular social group. As we remand to the BIA to remand to the IJ, the IJ should determine whether [the applicant’s] membership in the group . . . is cognizable . . ..”); Moncada v. Sessions, 751 F. App’x 116, 118 (2d Cir. 2018) (“This Court, like the BIA, applies the law as it exists at the time of decision. And, where, as here, intervening immigration decisions from the executive branch alter the applicable legal standards, we have previously exercised our discretion to remand the matter to the BIA to apply the new standards in the first instance. Recognizing the wisdom of this practice, we take the same tack here and remand this case ‘for the BIA to interpret and apply the standards set forth in [Matter of A-B-] in the first instance.’” (quoting Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 278 (2d Cir. 2007) (internal citations omitted)).

However, Matter of A-B- has since been abrogated. See Grace v. Whitaker, 344 F. Supp. 3d 96 (D.D.C. 2018). Grace found that the policies articulated in Matter of A-B- were arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. See id. at 126–27 (holding that there is no general rule against claims involving domestic violence as a basis for membership in a particular social group and that each claim must be evaluated on an individual basis under the statutory factors). The district court’s decision in Grace is currently on appeal to the D.C. Circuit. We acknowledge that we are not bound by Grace but find its reasoning persuasive. Because Matter of A-B- has been abrogated, Matter of A-R-C-G- likely retains precedential value. But, on remand, the agency should also evaluate what effect, if any, Matter of A-R-C-G- and Grace have had on the particular social group analysis. See Bi Xia Qu, 618 F.3d at 609 (“When the BIA does not fully consider an issue, . . . the Supreme Court has instructed that a reviewing court ‘is not generally empowered to conduct a de novo inquiry into the matter being reviewed.’ Rather, ‘the proper course, except in rare circumstances, is to remand to the [BIA] for additional investigation or explanation.’” (quoting Gonzales v. Thomas, 547 U.S. 183, 186 (2006))).

. . . .

When an asylum claim focuses on non-governmental conduct, the applicant must show that the alleged persecutor is either aligned with the government or that the government is unwilling or unable to control him. See Khalili, 557 F.3d at 436. An applicant meets this burden when she shows that she cannot “reasonably expect the assistance of the government” in controlling her perpetrator’s actions. Al-Ghorbani, 585 F.3d at 998. For example, in In re S-A, the Board found that an applicant was eligible for asylum when she suffered domestic abuse at the hands of her father. In re S-A-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1328 (BIA 2000). Relying on evidence showing that “in Morocco, domestic violence is commonplace and legal remedies are generally unavailable to women,” and that “‘few women report abuse to authorities’ because the judicial procedure is skewed against them,” the Board held that “even if the respondent had turned to the government for help, Moroccan authorities would have been unable or unwilling to control her father’s conduct.” Id. at 1333, 1335 (quoting Committees on International Relations and Foreign Relations, 105th Cong., 2d Sess., Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1997 1538 (Joint Comm. Print 1998)).

Here, both the immigration judge and Board agreed that the beatings, rape, and threats Maria suffered were severe enough to constitute persecution, but that she failed to show that the Guatemalan government was unwilling or unable to control Juan. In support of its conclusion,

No. 18-3500 Juan Antonio v. Barr Page 16

the Board noted that the government issued a restraining order against Juan, the mayor fined Juan for beating their daughter, and that Maria and their children were able to remain in their home for the year before she left Guatemala. AR 5, BIA Decision. Maria argues on appeal that the Board’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. We agree with her.

Taken as a whole, the record compels the conclusion that Maria cannot “reasonably expect the assistance of the government” in controlling Juan. Al-Ghorbani, 585 F.3d at 998. First, the Board’s conclusion that the restraining order effectively controlled Juan is clearly contradicted by the evidence. Maria testified that Juan “did not obey [the restraining order] because there [was] no police” and “[h]e wasn’t afraid” of any consequences, AR 180, Immigration Ct. Tr., and that at some time that year, Juan came to Maria’s home and beat their oldest child with his belt. She further testified that she went to the police station to file a complaint, but the police never investigated the crime. Second, the Board’s conclusion that “the respondent and her children were able to live legally in the family house” for a year does not paint an accurate picture of that year. AR 5, BIA Decision. The year was not a “period of calm,” as the Board characterized it, but rather, a year which affirmed that the Guatemalan government had not effectively gained control over Juan. Id at 5 n.2. Throughout the course of the year, Maria received threats that Juan “was going to kill [her], and if not[,] that he would pay someone to do something.” AR 188, Immigration Ct. Tr. Juan’s girlfriend also “began threatening [Maria] about once a week, yelling at [her] . . . that she and Juan would kill [her] if [she] didn’t move out of the house.” AR 332, I-589 Appl. In May 2014, Juan’s sister told Maria that “Juan had bought a gun and that he planned to kill [Maria].” Id. at 333. The events of that year indicate that the government had not effectively gained control over Juan.

Moreover, that Juan received a fine of approximately $200 for beating up their oldest child (from a judge who no longer works in town, at a courthouse that has since been destroyed) may indicate some willingness of the Guatemalan government to control Juan but it does not indicate its ability to do so. The concurrence points to the restraining order and fine as evidence

No. 18-3500 Juan Antonio v. Barr Page 17

Guatemala is willing to enforce its laws but may not always be successful.4 While the concurrence would emphasize what Guatemala did, it is more important to look at the numerous instances when the government failed to act or even respond as well as the harm the government failed to prevent. The death threats Maria received continued even after Juan was fined. And Juan’s purchasing of a gun—which ultimately led Maria to flee—came after Juan was fined. Moreover, the police failed to respond to Maria’s calls for help on two occasions when Juan came to Maria’s house and threatened her and/or their children. In reviewing this evidence, the immigration court opined that it “would be left to wonder if Juan intended to kill the respondent, the mother of his four children, why would he not have done so.” AR 70, Immigration Ct. Order. But it cannot be that an applicant must wait until she is dead to show her government’s inability to control her perpetrator.

The supplemental evidence regarding Guatemala’s country conditions corroborates that Maria could not “reasonably expect the assistance of the government” in controlling Juan’s actions. Al-Ghorbani, 585 F.3d at 998; see In re S-A-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1328 (BIA 2000). The evidence Maria submitted shows that “[t]he systemic marginalization of indigenous communities . . . continues with no meaningful efforts by the government to overcome it.” AR 285, State of the World’s Minorities and Indigenous Peoples 2015—Guatemala. It also indicates that “[i]mpunity for perpetrators remain[s] very high,” AR 255, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2016, and that for Mayan indigenous women, there is “increased vulnerability and gender-based violence . . . exacerbated by a weak state apparatus that struggles to implement laws and programming to protect these groups.” AR 274, Guatemala Struggles to Protect Women Against Endemic Violence. Indigenous Mayan women are particularly unable to seek help from the government because they speak a different language from most of the country’s authorities. To be sure, the supplemental material does not indicate no willingness on behalf of the Guatemalan government—indeed, the country has taken some steps to codify laws prohibiting violence against women—but rather, the material reinforces the country’s lack of

4The concurrence’s reference to the enforcement of domestic abuse law violations in this country is both inapt and irrelevant.

No. 18-3500 Juan Antonio v. Barr Page 18 resources and infrastructure necessary to protect indigenous Mayan women from their perpetrators.

Further, the Board’s conclusion that Maria did not meet her burden of showing that the Guatemalan government was “helpless” relies on a standard that has since been deemed arbitrary and capricious. AR 5, BIA Decision. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia found that the “complete helplessness” standard is arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law, and “not a permissible construction of the persecution requirement.” Grace v. Whitaker, 344 F. Supp. 3d 96, 130 (D.D.C. 2018).

Thus, the Board’s conclusion that Maria did not demonstrate that the Guatemalan government was unwilling or unable to control Juan is not supported by “reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Zhao, 569 F.3d at 247 (quoting Koulibaly, 541 F.3d at 619). Maria’s testimony about her experiences, corroborated by supplemental evidence of the conditions for indigenous Mayan women in Guatemala, compels a contrary conclusion to that of the Board. See Mandebvu, 755 F.3d at 424. Based on the evidence in the record, Maria could not “reasonably expect the assistance of the government” in controlling Juan’s actions. Al-Ghorbani, 585 F.3d at 998. We therefore vacate the Board’s finding that Maria did not show that the government was unable or unwilling to protect her and remand so the agency can reconsider her application consistent with this opinion.

*****************************

Thanks to my Round Table colleague Judge Jeffrey Chase for spotting this decision and sending it my way.

And congratulations to Margaret Wong, Esquire, of Cleveland, OH, who represented the respondent so ably before the 6^th Circuit. Margaret and the attorneys from her firm appeared before me numerous times during the many years that I was assigned to the Cleveland docket part-time from Arlington, with most of the hearings taking place by televideo.

Margaret W./ Wong
Senior PartnerMargaret W. Wong & Associates LLC

The BIA’s bogus “helpless standard” came directly from Matter of A-B- — Sessions’s unethical, legally incorrect, and misogynistic attempt to write female domestic violence victims from Central America out of refugee protections as part of his White Nationalist agenda. Judge Gibbons’s opinion found persuasive U.S. District Judge Sullivan’s (D. D.C.) conclusion in Grace v. Whitaker that Sessions’s A-B- atrocity was “arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.”

This further confirms the problems of a politicized and weaponized Immigration Court system controlled by anti-asylum politicos. How many more “Marias” are out there who are arbitrarily denied protection by the Immigration Courts and the BIA, but lack the ability to obtain competent counsel to assist them and/or are not fortunate enough to have a Court of Appeals panel that takes their case seriously, rather than just “deferring” to the BIA? For example, the Fifth Circuit has “tanked” on the A-B- issue. And, today, the Trump regime is being allowed to turn away asylum seekers at the border in violation of law and without any meaningful opportunity whatsoever to present a claim.

Disgraceful as the BIA’s performance was in this case, worse happens every day in the broken Immigration Court system and the abusive, scofflaw enforcement system administered by the Trump regime. And those charged with putting an end to such blatant violations of law and human rights – the Article III Judiciary – have largely shirked their duty to put an end to this unconstitutional, illegal, unethical, and inhumane “bad joke” of a “court system” and to stop the regime’s illegal abrogation of U.S. asylum laws.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-19-20

IT’S HERE! — IMMIGRATION HISTORY AT ITS BEST! — Months In The Making, The “Schmidtcast,” A 7-Part Series Featuring Podcaster Marica Sharashenidze Interviewing Me About My Legal Career “American Immigration From Mariel to Miller” — Tune In Now!

Marica Sharashenidze

Born in 1993, Marica was raised in Maryland and earned a B.A. in Sociology from Rice University. Marica worked in the past as a paralegal at Hudson Legal in Ann Arbor and most recently explored eGovernance based infrastructure projects on the Dorot Fellowship. In the past, she received the Wagoner Fellowship, from the Higher School of Economics in Saint Petersburg, Russia, where she completed a year long ethnographic research project. She is fluent in Russian and proficient in Spanish and Hebrew.

Hon. Paul Wickham Schmidt
U.S. Immigraton Judge (Ret.)
Adjunct Professor, Georgetown Law
Blogger, immigrationcourtside.com

Judge (Retired) Paul Wickham Schmidt

Judge Schmidt was appointed as an Immigration Judge at the U.S. Immigration Court in Arlington, Virginia, in May 2003 and retired from the bench on June 30, 2016. Prior to his appointment as an Immigration Judge, he served as a Board Member for the Board of Immigration Appeals, Executive Office for Immigration Review, in Falls Church, VA, since February 12, 1995. Judge Schmidt served as Board Chairman from February 12, 1995, until April 9, 2001, when he chose to step down as Chairman to adjudicate cases full-time. He authored the landmark decision Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1996), extending asylum protection to victims of female genital mutilation. He received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Lawrence University in 1970 (cum laude), and a Juris Doctorate from the University of Wisconsin School of Law in 1973 (cum laude; Order of the Coif). While at the University of Wisconsin, he served as an editor of the Wisconsin Law Review. Judge Schmidt served as acting General Counsel of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) (1986-1987; 1979-1981), where he was instrumental in developing the rules and procedures to implement the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. He also served as the Deputy General Counsel of INS for 10 years (1978-1987). He was the managing partner of the Washington, DC, office of Fragomen, Del Rey & Bernsen (1993-95), and also practiced business immigration law with the Washington, DC, office of Jones, Day, Reavis and Pogue from 1987-92 (partner, 1990-92). Judge Schmidt also served as an adjunct professor of law at George Mason University School of Law in 1989 and at Georgetown University Law Center (2012-14; 2017–). He has authored numerous articles on immigration law, and has written extensively for the American Immigration Lawyers Association. Judge Schmidt is a member of the American Bar Association, the Federal Bar Association, and the Wisconsin and District of Columbia Bars. Judge Schmidt was one of the founding members of the International Association of Refugee Law Judges (“IARLJ”). In June 2010, Judge Schmidt received the Lucia R. Briggs Distinguished Achievement Award from the Lawrence University Alumni Association in recognition of his notable career achievements in the field of immigration law. Since retiring, in addition to resuming his Adjunct Professor position at Georgetown Law, Judge Schmidt has established the blog immigrationcourtside.com, is an Americas Vice President of the IARLJ, serves on the Advisory Board of AYUDA, and assists the National Immigrant Justice Center/Heartland Alliance on various projects, as well as speaking, lecturing, and writing in forums throughout the country on contemporary immigration issues, due process, and U.S. Immigration Court reform.

Here are links:

https://pws.transistor.fm/

https://feeds.transistor.fm/the-life-and-times-of-the-honorable-paul-wickham-schmidt

And here are some “Previews with links to each episode:”

APRIL 23, 2020 • 66 MINUTES

Concluding Remarks

So, what now? Will the intentional cruelty, “Dred Scottification,” false narratives, and demonization of “the other,” particularly women, children, and people of color, by presidential advisor Stephen Miller and his White Nationalists become the “future face” of America? Or, will “Our Better Angels” help us reclaim the vision of America as the “Shining City on the Hill,” welcoming immigrants and protecting refugees, in good times and bad, while “leading by example” toward a more just and equal world?

APRIL 22, 2020 • 48 MINUTES

The Mariel Boatlift Crisis

The Refugee Act of 1980 feels like a huge success…for a short amount of time. The first test of the act comes when Fidel Castro opens Cuba’s borders (and Cuba’s prisons) and hundreds of refugees arrive on Florida shores. The Mariel Boatlift Crisis forced the U.S. government to realize that not all asylum processing can happen abroad. Unfortunately, it also left the public with the impression that “Open arms and open hearts” leads only to crisis.

APRIL 22, 2020 • 25 MINUTES

The Refugee Act of 1980

The year is 1980 and the war in Vietnam has displaced hundreds and thousands of people. The system of presidential parole doesn’t seem like it can handle the growing global refugee crisis. What is the answer to this ballooning need? Process most refugees abroad to streamline their entrance to the U.S. Codify asylum in the U.S. in legislation that puts human rights first. Increase prestige, improve overall government coordination, provide a permanent source of funding, and institutionalize refugee resettlement programs and assimilation. Have Ted Kennedy be the face of the effort. For once, things are actually working out for humanity.

APRIL 22, 2020 • 54 MINUTES

The 1990s BIA

In the 1990s, Judge Schmidt was BIA Chairman Schmidt. With the support of then Attorney General Janel Reno, he aspired to “open up” appellate judgeships to all immigration experts, and to lead the BIA to much-needed progressive steps towards humane asylum law, better scholarship, improved public service, transparency, and streamlined efficiency to reduce the backlog. However, progress seemed to stall at several points and certain types of behavior tended to be rewarded. The Board sits at the intersection between a court and an agency within the administration, which means its hurdles come both from structural issues with the U.S. Justice System and with entrenched government bureaucracy.

APRIL 22, 2020 • 48 MINUTES

Creating EOIR

In the 1980s, critics claimed that the federal agency in charge of immigration enforcement, the “Legacy” Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”), could not process quasi-judicial cases in a fair and just manner due to limited autonomy, non-existent technology, insufficient resources, haphazard management, poor judicial selection processes, and backlogs. The solution? Create a sub-agency of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) just for the immigration courts, focused on “due process with efficiency” and organizationally separate from the agency charged with immigration enforcement. The Executive Office of Immigration Review (“EOIR”) was an ambitious and noble endeavor, meant to be an independent court system operating inside of a Federal Cabinet agency. Spoiler: despite significant initial progress it did not work out that way in the long run.

APRIL 21, 2020 • 36 MINUTES

The Immigration Reform and Control Act

In 1986, the United States was facing an immigration crisis with an overwhelmed INS and a record number of undocumented folks in the country. IRCA, a bipartisan bill, was created to solve the immigration crisis through a three-pronged approach: legalization, enforcement and employer accountability. However, it soon became apparent that some parts of IRCA were more successful than others. IRCA taught us relevant lessons for going forward. Because while pathways to citizenship are self-sustaining, enforcing borders is not.

APRIL 18, 2020 • 43 MINUTES

The Ashcroft Purge

Judges are meant to be impartial; but, U.S. Immigration Judges have political bosses who are willing and able to fire them while making little secret of their pro-enforcement, anti-immigrant political agenda. What are the public consequences of an Immigration Court with limited autonomy from the Executive Branch? We begin the podcast at one of the “turning points,” when Attorney General John Ashcroft fired almost all the most “liberal” Board Members of the BIA, all of whom were appointed during the Clinton Administration. What followed created havoc among the U.S. Courts of Appeals who review BIA decisions. The situation has continually deteriorated into the “worst ever,” with “rock bottom” morale, overwhelming backlogs, fading decisional quality, and the “weaponized”Immigration Courts now tasked with carrying out the Trump Administration’s extreme enforcement policies.

************************

Many, many thanks to Marica for persuading me to do this project and for doing all the “hard stuff.” I just “rambled on” — her questions and expert editing provided the context and “framework.” And, of course, Marica provided all the equipment (the day her brother “borrowed” her batteries) and the accompanying audio clips and written introductions.

Also, many thanks to my wife Cathy for the many hours that she and “Luna the Dog” (a huge “Marica fan”) spent trying not to listen to us working in the dining room, while adding many helpful suggestions to me, starting with “you sound too rehearsed” and “lose the ‘uhs’ and ‘you knows.’” She even put up with me playing some of the “original takes” while we were “on the road” to Wisconsin or Maine.

Happy listening!

Due Process Forever!

PWS😎

05-19-20

EOIR WRONG AGAIN: Split 6th Cir. Says BIA Screwed Up Corroboration, Nexus Requirements In Mexican PSG Withholding Case — GUZMAN-VAZQUEZ v. BARR!

Dan Kowalski report from LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca6-on-corroboration-social-group-guzman-vazquez-v-barr

CA6 on Corroboration, Social Group: Guzman-Vazquez v. Barr

Guzman-Vazquez v. Barr

“Manuel Guzman, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an immigration judge’s denial of his application for withholding of removal. Because the IJ and BIA erred in failing to give Guzman an opportunity to explain why he could not reasonably obtain certain corroborative evidence, because substantial evidence does not support the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) and BIA’s determinations regarding the unavailability of evidence to corroborate Guzman’s claim about abuse by his stepfather, and because the BIA incorrectly required Guzman to demonstrate that his membership in a particular social group was “at least one central reason” for his persecution, we GRANT the petition for review, VACATE the BIA’s order, and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

[Hats off to R. Andrew Free!]

*********************************

PANEL: MERRITT, MOORE, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

OPINION: Judge Moore

DISSENT: Judge Murphy

In looking for ways to deny protection, the BIA continues to “blow the basics.” That’s going to continue to happen as long as EOIR is allowed to operate as a branch of DHS Enforcement rather than a fair-minded, impartial court system with true expertise and which grants needed protection in meritorious cases, rather than searching for specious “reasons to deny.”

No wonder the EOIR backlog is mushrooming out of control when those responsible for doing justice waste countless time and resources “manufacturing denials,” rather than just promptly granting relief in many meritorious cases.

PWS

05-18-20

😎👍🏼🥂SHEEEEEEE’S BACK! TAL KOPAN @ SF CHRON RETURNS TO THE “IMMIGRATION BEAT” WITH A POWERFUL IN-DEPTH LOOK AT HOW AMERICA’S MOST DYSFUNCTIONAL “COURT SYSTEM” PREDICTABLY SCREWED UP THE COVID-19 RESPONSE WHILE DEEPENING HUMAN MISERY INFLICTED ON THE “BACKLOGGED” — “’There isn’t a day that goes by that there isn’t mass chaos behind this veil of business as usual,’ said Ashley Tabaddor, president of the National Association of Immigration Judges.”

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Immigration-courts-in-chaos-with-15276743.php

Immigration courts in ‘chaos,’ with coronavirus effects to last years

By Tal Kopan

WASHINGTON — Raquel and her sons fled gang threats in El Salvador, survived the weeks-long journey to the U.S., and then endured the Trump administration’s 2018 separations at the southern border.

This month, she was finally going to get her chance to convince an immigration judge in San Francisco that she should be granted permanent asylum in the U.S., ending the agony of having to prepare for her court date by reliving the danger in her native country and her weeks of detention at the border.

Thanks to the coronavirus, she will have to endure the wait for three more years.

“It’s really traumatizing, because I have to keep telling them the same thing,” Raquel said. “I thought I had gotten over everything that had happened to me … but every time I remember, I can’t help crying.”

Raquel’s case is one of hundreds of thousands in the immigration courts that are being delayed by the pandemic. The courts, run by the Justice Department, have been closed for health reasons in the same way that much of U.S. public life has been on hold. But many of those who work in the system say the Trump administration has handled the shutdown in an especially haphazard manner, increasing the stress on judges and attorneys in addition to immigrants and making it harder for the courts to bounce back.

“There isn’t a day that goes by that there isn’t mass chaos behind this veil of business as usual,” said Ashley Tabaddor, president of the National Association of Immigration Judges.

The Justice Department began postponing hearings for immigrants who are not in detention on March 18, and the delays have been extended every few weeks. Hearings are now set to resume June 15. But many courts technically remain open, including the one in San Francisco, with frequently changing statuses announced on social media and a website. It also took weeks for all judges to get laptops that would allow them to work remotely, said Tabaddor, who hears immigration cases in Los Angeles.

The scattershot communications make it difficult to prepare for if and when the hearings are held, immigrants say. And it’s worse for those who have no lawyer who can help navigate the changes. About one-third of immigrants with pending cases have no representation, according to Justice Department statistics, and missing a hearing is grounds for deportation.

The agency’s inspector general is investigating the handling of the courts during the pandemic.

The Justice Department says it is being proactive in balancing safety with immigrants’ rights. A spokeswoman said the agency is “deeply concerned” for the health of its staff and the public.

In a recent legal filing, the director of the immigration courts, James McHenry, said a “one size fits all” approach to court closures and procedures wouldn’t work, given varying situations at different locations.

With postponements happening on short notice, most immigrants fighting deportation feel they must prepare for court even if pandemic-caused delays seem likely. But doing so can force them to revisit the terrifying situations they say they came to the U.S. to escape.

None who spoke with The Chronicle said they wanted to risk their health by keeping the courts open. But they and their attorneys said they wished the administration was doing more to take immigrants’ and staffers’ needs into account.

Because the immigration courts already have a backlog of more than 1 million cases, it can take years for an asylum applicant such as Raquel to go before a judge. In the meantime, they build lives here, knowing that can be yanked away if they’re ordered deported.

Raquel and others whose hearings have been postponed won’t go first when the courts reopen — they go to the back of the line. The alternative for the immigration courts would be a logistical nightmare of rescheduling everyone else’s hearings, which are now booked years in advance.

The Trump administration ended the practice of prioritizing cases of criminal immigrants or recent arrivals, and has curtailed judges’ ability to simply close the case of a low-risk migrant less deserving of deportation, which would clear court schedules for more serious cases.

The Justice Department declined to say how many hearings have been postponed because of the pandemic. But a nonprofit statistics clearinghouse estimated that the government shutdown of 2018-19 resulted in the cancellation of 15,000 to 20,000 cases per week.

Raquel’s case is emblematic of the thousands that are now in limbo. The Chronicle has agreed not to use her real name out of her concern for her safety, in accordance with its anonymous sourcing policy.

Raquel says she came to the U.S. in 2018 because a gang in the area of El Salvador where she lived threatened her family after her two sons refused to join.

She was among the immigrant families that were forcibly separated at the border. She spent a month and a half apart from her teenage son as she was shuffled between detention centers and jails. She says she endured numerous indignities, including having to shower in front of guards and being shackled by her wrists and ankles.

“It was the most bitter experience I’ve ever had,” she said in Spanish.

After finally being reunited with her son and released, Raquel rejoined her husband and other son who had come here previously, settling in San Francisco. She was ordered to wear an ankle monitor, which again made her feel like “a prisoner.”

“I had never felt so hurt like I did in this country, which hurt me so much just for crossing a border illegally,” Raquel said. “That was the sin and the crime that we committed, and we paid a high price.”

Raquel spoke with The Chronicle before receiving word that her May hearing was canceled. She and her attorney had felt forced to prepare despite a high likelihood of postponement, just in case the Justice Department forged ahead.

San Francisco attorneys who are working with immigrants during the pandemic say it is an acute challenge. Stay-at-home orders complicate preparing for cases that could have life-and-death consequences for those who fled violence back home.

Difficulties include trying to submit 1,000-page filings from home, needing to discuss traumatic stories of domestic and sexual violence with immigrants who are sharing one-bedroom apartments with 10 other people, and navigating courts’ changing status on Twitter.

“It’s taking an already not-user-friendly system and spinning it into chaos to the extent that even savvy practitioners don’t know how to get information, let alone the applicant,” said Erin Quinn, an attorney in San Francisco with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center.

She added, “The stakes are high, and at the same time, a comment I got yesterday from a practitioner was, ‘I’m tired of trying to figure out what to do with my practice based on tweets.’”

Judges and court staffers are also frustrated. On March 22, an unprecedented partnership was formed among the unions representing Immigration and Customs Enforcement attorneys who serve as prosecutors in the courts, judges and the association for attorneys who represent immigrants. They wrote a letter to the Justice Department demanding it close all the courts, not just postpone hearings for immigrants who are not in detention. The agency later expanded the ability of attorneys to appear by telephone and for some judges to work from home.

Even now, however, the Justice Department is requiring some judges and staff to come in to court to handle cases of immigrants who are being detained — those hearings have not been canceled — or to process filings.

“It is very, very upsetting. Employees do not feel like they are, No. 1, being protected and, No. 2, you don’t feel respected and valued,” said Immigration Judge Dana Leigh Marks, president emerita of the judges’ union.

Marks and Tabaddor say it’s part of a Trump administration pattern of stripping immigration judges of their independence at the expense of fair proceedings— an example of “haste makes waste,” Marks said. The Justice Department has set performance metrics to push judges to complete more cases, and Trump’s attorneys general have issued rulings that made it more difficult for judges to prioritize their caseloads.

The Justice Department, for its part, says it is making the courts more efficient. In November, McHenry testified before Congress that his agency had “made considerable progress in restoring (the courts’) reputation as a fully functioning, efficient and impartial administrative court system fully capable of rendering timely decisions consistent with due process.”

Quinn, the San Francisco attorney, said the Justice Department should work more closely with immigrants’ lawyers like Raquel’s to prioritize cases that are ready to move forward.

“Everything this administration has done to speed up or deal with the backlog are actually actions that limit the meting out of justice in the courts, which even before this crisis have been gumming up the system further,” Quinn said. “We will see the impact of that now as we try to come out of this crisis.”

Meanwhile, for immigrants like Raquel, the wait will continue. Even with the hardship, she says coming to the U.S. was worth the risks.

“It’s about protecting my children,” she said. “I’ve always told my sons, if God let us get here, they have to take advantage of it. … In my country, someone walks down the block and they get assaulted or kidnapped and nobody ever finds them. But not here. Here you feel safe.”

San Francisco Chronicle staff writer Alexei Koseff contributed to this report.

Tal Kopan is The San Francisco Chronicle’s Washington correspondent. Email: tal.kopan@sfchronicle.com Twitter:@talkopan

**************************************

It’s great to have you back, Tal! We’ve missed you!

It’s well worth going to the link to read Tal’s full article! Also, you’ll see some great pictures from the “home chambers” of my good friend and colleague Judge Dana Leigh Marks of the San Francisco Immigration Court, a Past President of the NAIJ.

What also would be great is if the dire situation in the U.S. Immigration Courts had actually improved over the past few months. But, predictably, the “downward spiral” has only accelerated.

Tal’s article brings to life the “human trauma” inflicted not only on those poor souls whose constitutional due process rights have been “sold down the river” by this “maliciously incompetent” regime, but also the unnecessary trauma inflicted on everyone touched by this disgraceful system: private and pro bono counsel, judges, interpreters, clerical staff, government counsel, and their families all get to partake of the unnecessary pain and suffering.

While it undoubtedly would take years to restore due process, fundamental fairness, and some measure of efficiency to this dysfunctional mess, the starting points aren’t “rocket science” – they are deceptively simple. One was eloquently stated by Erin Quinn, an attorney with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center in San Francisco who “said the Justice Department should work more closely with immigrants’ lawyers like Raquel’s to prioritize cases that are ready to move forward.” That’s actually how it used to be done in places like Arlington.

As Judge Marks points out, a host of “haste makes waste” gimmicks and enforcement schemes by this Administration (and to a lesser extent by the Obama Administration) have resulted in massive “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and total chaos as politicos in at the DOJ and bureaucrats in EOIR HQ “redesign and reshuffle” dockets to achieve political objectives and “send messages” without any meaningful input from the Immigration Judges and attorneys (on both sides) who actually do the work and understand the dynamics of a particular docket.

In particular, under a fair and unbiased application of legal standards there are thousands of well-documented meritorious asylum and cancellation of removal cases that could be handled in “short hearings.” Other individuals could be removed from the docket to pursue U and T nonimmigrant visas or “stateside processing” permanent immigration with USCIS. Still others have documentation establishing that they are productive, law-abiding tax-paying members of their communities, often with U.S. citizen family, who should be removed from the dockets through the type of sensible, mutually beneficial “prosecutorial discretion” (“PD”) programs that were beginning to show meaningful results before being arbitrarily terminated by this Administration.

This is just the “tip of the iceberg.” There are many more improvements in efficiency, without sacrificing due process, and “best practices” that could be made if this were operated as a fair and impartial court system, rather than an appendage of DHS Enforcement committed to Stephen Miller’s nativist agenda.

The other necessary piece is the one promoted by Judge Tabaddor and the NAIJ and endorsed by nearly all “non-restrictionist” experts in the field: establishing an independent Immigration Court outside of the Executive Branch. That’s not likely to happen without “regime change.”

Moreover, it’s clear from his recent actions that Billy Barr, who is currently running the Immigration Courts into the ground, actually aspires to “kneecap” the Article III Judiciary in behalf of his lord and master, Trump. Barr would be delighted if all Federal,Courts, including the Article IIIs, were functionaries of the all powerful “Unitary Executive.” Given the Supremes’ failure to stand up for immigrants’ and asylum seekers’ legal rights as they are systematically dismantled by the regime, Barr is already a ways down that road!

Tal’s article also highlights another glaring deficiency: the lack of a diverse, merit-based Immigration Judiciary committed solely to “due process with efficiency” and fair and impartial adjudications under the law, particularly the asylum laws. Experts like Erin Quinn, folks with a deep scholarly understanding of immigration and asylum laws and experience representing the individuals whose lives are caught up in this system, should be on the Immigration Bench. They are the ones with the knowledge and experience in making “hard but fair” choices and how to achieve “practical efficiency” without sacrificing due process.

Rather than actively recruiting those outstanding candidates from the private, academic, and NGO sectors with asylum experience and knowledge, so that they could interact and share their expertise and practical experiences with other judicial colleagues, the current system draws almost exclusively from the ranks of “insiders” and government prosecutors. They apparently are hired with the expectation that they will churn out orders of removals in support of DHS Enforcement without “rocking the boat.” To some extent this was also true under the Obama Administration, which also hired lopsidedly from among government attorneys.

Indeed, prior immigration experience is not even a job requirement right now. The hiring tends to favor those with high volume litigation skills, primarily gained through prosecution. That doesn’t necessarily translate into fair and scholarly judging, although it might and has in some instances.

Of course, a few do defy expectations and stand up for the legal and due process rights of respondents. But, that’s not the expectation of the politicos and bureaucrats who do the hiring. And the two-year probation period for newly hired Immigration Judges gives Administration politicos and their EOIR subordinates “leverage” on the new judges that they might not have on those who are more established in the system, particularly those who are “retirement eligible.”

Moreover, the BIA has now been “stocked” with judges with reputations for favoring enforcement and ruling against asylum seekers in an unusually high percentage of cases. The design appears to be to insure that even those who “beat the odds” and are granted asylum by an Immigration Judge get “zapped” when the DHS appeals. Even if the BIA dared not to enforce the “restrictionist party line,” the Attorney General can and does intervene in individual cases to change the result to favor DHS and then to make it a “precedent” for future cases. Could there be a clearer violation of due process and judicial ethics? I doubt it. But, the Courts of Appeals largely pretend not to see or understand the reality of what’s happening in the Immigration Courts.

Beyond that, the Immigration Judge job, intentionally in my view, has been made so unattractive for those who believe in due process for individuals and a fair application of asylum laws, that few would want to serve in the current environment. Indeed, a number of fine Immigration Judges have resigned or retired as matters of conscience because they felt unable to square “system expectations” with their oaths of office.

To state the obvious, the current version of Congress has become a feckless bystander to this ongoing human rights, constitutional, ethical, and fiscal disaster. But, the real question is whatever happened to the existing independent Article III Judiciary? They continue to remain largely above the fray and look the other way as the Constitution they are sworn to uphold is further ground into the turf every day and the screams of the abused and dehumanized (“Dred-Scottified”) emanating from this charade of a “court system” get louder and louder. Will they ever get loud enough to reach the refined ears of those ensconced in the “ivory tower” of the Article III Judiciary?

Someday! But, the impetus for the necessary changes to make Due Process, fundamental fairness, and equal justice for all a reality rather than a cruel, intellectually dishonest, and unfulfilled promise is going to have to come from outside the current broken and intentionally unfair system and those complicit in its continuing and worsening abuses of the law and humanity!

Due Process Forever! Complicit Courts Never!

PWS

05-18-20

🏴‍☠️CHILD ABUSE/“CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY”☠️ – Scofflaw DHS Officials Scheme to Avoid Flores, Separate Kids, Put Families in New American Gulag (“NAG”) – Julia Edwards Ainsley Reports for NBC News!

Julia Ainsley — Julia Edwards Ainsley
Investigative Reporter, NBC News

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/family-separation-back-migrants-u-s-mexican-border-say-advocates-n1208186

Julia writes:

WASHINGTON — Several immigrant rights organizations are outraged by a new choice U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is presenting to migrant parents: Separate from your child or stay together in detention indefinitely.

Starting on Thursday, the groups claim, ICE began distributing a form in all three of its family detention centers that would allow parents to apply for their minor children to be released. The form, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, states that it is in compliance with the Flores court agreement, which prohibits ICE from holding minors for more than 20 days.

The released children are placed with family members, sponsors or placed in the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services.

The Trump administration faced intense criticism for a Zero Tolerance policy in 2018 in which undocumented migrant children were separated from parents who had illegally crossed the order. The policy was implemented in May 2018 but reversed after an outcry in June.

Click here to see the form.

The current, “voluntary” concept was previously termed “binary choice,” but has never been fully implemented. Now, lawyers representing clients in ICE family detention say parents may be persuaded to separate from their children if they are worried about exposing them to COVID-19 in detention.

The timing is no coincidence, said Shayln Fluharty, director of the Dilley Pro Bono Project, which provides legal services for families in detention in Dilley, Texas. A federal judge recently told ICE it was not in compliance with the Flores agreement, and the forms, said Fluharty, are a way for ICE to show that these parents have chosen to keep their children in detention.

. . . .

********************************

Read the rest of Julia’s article at the link.

Just another “in your face” unlawful move by DHS officials sending a strong message of contempt to the Federal Judges handling various aspects of the regime’s intentional child abuse, family separation, and punishing asylum seeking families by needless imprisonment in the New American Gulag (“NAG”).

Yes, the District Court Judges handling these matters have ordered the Government to take various forms of corrective action. But, even where the judges use forceful language, it’s largely ineffective to change illegal policies. The regime and its officials just play “hide the ball” and develop schemes and “work arounds” to violate the law and court orders in other ways. That they continue to do this over and over – a strategy known as “malicious compliance” – shows their total disrespect for the Federal Courts and that they share Trump and Miller’s belief that they are above the law.

So far, particularly in the immigration and refugee area, the scofflaws have largely prevailed. They have dismembered immigration and asylum laws with neither legislative enactments nor meaningful judicial consequences. They have publicly and arrogantly “thumbed their noses” at court orders they don’t like. Unless and until the Federal Judges back up their orders by holding Chad Wolf and other scofflaw officials in contempt – real contempt – jail time not just meaningless fines – the abuse and the open disregard for the rule of law and for the authority of Federal Judges will continue.

The law, our Constitution, and human rights will continue to be mocked. Even the best of Federal Judges will appear feckless unless and until they start treating immigration officials as the lawless criminals they actually are!

Undoubtedly, some of the children and families intentionally being abused, dehumanized, and punished by the Trump regime as Federal Courts play bystander won’t survive long enough to tell their stories. But, some will. While those officials, legislators, and judges enabling, or in some cases masterminding and encouraging, these abuses appear likely to escape “temporal” legal accountability for their actions, moral and historical accountability are a different matter altogether. Lots of folks who believe they are “operating under the radar screen” are going to look very bad when the light of history shines on the grotesque human rights, moral, and constitutional violations at our borders and in our Gulags and those who carried them out or failed to effectively halt them.

Due Process Forever. Feckless Courts Never!

PWS

05-18-20

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE ON GULAG: “Under the circumstances, Galan-Reyes’ detention at Pulaski – where he shares dormitory-style living quarters with up to 50 other detainees – which obviously places him at risk for contracting this serious and potentially deadly illness, is tantamount to punishment.” — Galen-Reyes v. Acoff, S.D. IL

Honl. Staci M. Yandle — Honorable Staci M. Yandle
U.S. District Judge
S.D. IL

Galen-Reyes v. Acoff, 05-14-20, S.D. IL, U.S. District Judge Staci Yandle

Galan-Reyes v. Acoff

KEY QUOTE:

For the foregoing reasons, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence that his release would endanger the public or that he is a flight risk, coupled with the known risks associated with the presence of COVID-19 at Pulaski, this Court concludes that Galan-Reyes’ continued indefinite detention violates his Fifth Amendment right to due process. The government’s interests in continuing his detention must therefore yield to his liberty and safety interests.6

Disposition

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED.

Respondents are ORDERED to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE Omar Galan-Reyes, pursuant to the following conditions:

1. Petitioner will reside at a certain residence, will provide his address and telephone contact information to Respondents, and will quarantine there for at least the first 14 days of his release;

2. If Department of Homeland Security (DHS) determines that Petitioner is an appropriate candidate for Alternatives to Detention (ATD), then Petitioner will comply with DHS instructions as to any ATD conditions;

3. Petitioner will comply with national, state, and local guidance regarding staying at home, sheltering in place, and social distancing and shall be placed on home detention;

4. The Court’s order for release from detention shall be revoked should Petitioner fail to comply with this order of release;

5. This Order does not prevent Respondents from taking Petitioner back into custody should Petitioner commit any crimes that render him a threat to public safety or otherwise violate the terms of release;
6. Petitioner will be transported from Pulaski County Detention Center to his home by identified third persons;
7. Petitioner will not violate any federal, state, or local laws; and
8. At the discretion of DHS and/or ICE, to enforce the above restrictions, Petitioner’s whereabouts will be monitored by telephonic and/or electronic and/or GPS monitoring and/or location verification system and/or an automated identification system.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case and enter judgment accordingly.

6 In light of the Court’s conclusion on Petitioner’s due process claim, it is not necessary to address his Administrative Procedures Act claim.

********************************

Many thanks to Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis for passing this along. And congrats to NDPA members A. Ross Cunningham, Esquire, and Jake Briskman, Esquire, for their representation of the prisoner rotting in the New American Gulag (“NAG”) in this case!

This decision reads like an indictment of the entire badly failed and fundamentally unfair DHS Enforcement and Immigration Court systems as mismanaged, weaponized, and politicized by the Trump regime Politicos and their toadies:

Abuse of detention system by detaining non-dangerous individuals who are not flight risks;
Uselessness of bond determinations by Immigration Judges who are functioning like enforcement officers, not independent judicial decision-makers;
Extraordinarily poor judgment by DHS Detention officials;
Delays caused by backlogged dockets driven by failure of DHS Enforcement to exercise prioritization and reasonable prosecutorial discretion compounded by the Immigration Judges who lack the authority, and in some cases the will, to control their dockets — dockets structured by politicos for political, rather than practical or legal, reasons (see, e.g., “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” or “ADR”);
A dangerously useless BIA that fails to set reasonable national bond criteria and fails to properly and competently consider Due Process interests in bond cases;
The importance of placing the burden of proof in bond cases where it constitutionally belongs: on DHS, rather than on the individual as is done in Immigration Court;
In this case, the US District Judge had to do the careful analytical work of individual decision making that should have been done by the Immigration Court, and which the Immigration Court should have, but has failed to, require DHS to adopt;
Leaving the big question: Why have Immigration Courts at all if the meaningful work has to be done by the U.S. Courts and U.S. Magistrates?
- Why not “cut out the useless middleman” and just have U.S. Magistrate Judges under the supervision of U.S. District Judges conduct all removal and bond proceedings in accordance with the law, Due Process, and the Eighth Amendment until Congress replaces the current constitutionally flawed Immigration Courts with an independent immigration judiciary that can do the job and that functions as a “real court” rather than an arm of DHS Enforcement thinly disguised as a “court?”

Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-15-20

🏴‍☠️SCOFFLAW NATION, SCOFFLAW REGIME: Asylum Law Dies ☠︎ At The Border, Asylum Seekers Will Also ⚰️ , As Congress, Article III Courts Abandon Rule of Law In Face of White Nationalist Push – Trump To Declare Bogus “Emergency Extension” of Border Closings Even As He Urges Americans to Return to Daily Activities!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/border-refuge-trump-records/2020/05/13/93ea9ed6-951c-11ea-8107-acde2f7a8d6e_story.html?utm_campaign=wp_the_daily_202&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_daily202

Nick Miroff reports for the WashPost:

The Trump administration’s emergency coronavirus restrictions have shut the U.S. immigration system so tight that since March 21 just two people seeking humanitarian protection at the southern border have been allowed to stay, according to unpublished U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services data obtained by The Washington Post.

Citing the threat to public health from the coronavirus, the Trump administration has suspended most due-process rights for migrants, including children and asylum seekers, while “expelling” more than 20,000 unauthorized border-crossers to Mexico under a provision of U.S. code known as Title 42.

Illegal border crossings fell dramatically in April

Department of Homeland Security officials say the emergency protocols are needed to protect Americans — and migrants — by reducing the number of detainees in U.S. Border Patrol holding cells and immigration jails where infection spreads easily. But the administration has yet to publish statistics showing the impact of the measures on the thousands of migrants who arrive in the United States each year as they flee religious, political or ethnic persecution, gang violence or other urgent threats.

AD

The statistics show that USCIS conducted just 59 screening interviews between March 21 and Wednesday under the Convention Against Torture, effectively the only category of protection in the United States that is still available to those who express a fear of grave harm if rejected. USCIS rejected 54 applicants and three cases are pending, according to the data, which does not indicate the nationality of those screened or other demographic information.

U.S. deportees go through ‘disinfection tunnel’ in Mexico

Mexican authorities sent U.S. deportees through “disinfection tunnels” on April 16 at a border crossing in Reynosa, Mexico. (Tamaulipas Migrant Institute)

Lucas Guttentag, an immigration-law scholar who served in the Obama administration and now teaches at Stanford and Yale universities, said the border measures “are designed to pay lip service” to U.S. law and international treaty obligations “without providing any actual protection or screening.”

“The whole purpose of asylum law is to give exhausted, traumatized and uninformed individuals a chance to get to a full hearing in U.S. immigration courts, and this makes that almost impossible,” Guttentag said. “It’s a shameful farce.”

U.S. is deporting infected migrants back to vulnerable countries

Among migrants who sought protection to avoid being deported, U.S. immigration courts granted asylum to 13,248 in 2018, according to the most recent DHS statistics.

. . . .

*********************************

Read the rest of Nick’s article at the link.

A “shameful farce” to be sure, as Lucas Guttentag says. But, with those whose job it is to protect the rule of law from a corrupt Executive’s overreach having largely “fled the field,” or “buried their heads in the sand,” it’s a farce that isn’t likely to abate until we get “regime change.”

This November, vote like your life depends on it! Because it does!

PWS

05-14-20

ROUND TABLE MEMBER & FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY, JUDGE (RET.) GEORGE PROCTOR SPEAKS OUT AGAINST BARR’S FLYNN DECISION IN THE SF CHRON!

Honorable George Proctor
U.S. Immigration Judge (Ret.j)
Member, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

San Francisco Chronicle published my Letter to the Editor this AM:

“Regarding the Chronicle’s Editorial on DOJ (May 11), I was in the Department of Justice under five presidents, and Bill Barr when he first served as attorney general. For the second time, I joined some two thousand fellow alumni of the Department in seeking Bill Barr’s resignation. We share shock and sadness over the Department under Bill Barr. As a United States Attorney, initially appointed by President Carter, I served President Reagan’s attorney general, William

French Smith, as his chairman of the advisory committee of US Attorneys. In today’s partisan climate, my role of advising an attorney general of the Republican Party as a Democrat would never happen. Each chapter of Barr’s tenure is more shoddy than the last. My hat is off to those career Justice attorneys who declined to lend their names to the motion to dismiss charges against General Flynn.”

George Proctor

San Francisco

***************

My friend and colleague George is a true American hero and one of the most dedicated public servants I have known. We actually go back to my days as the Deputy General Counsel of the “Legacy” INS during the Carter and Reagan Administrations. George is also a Veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps. I remember that George and I were in the same “New Judge Training Class” at the National Judicial College in Reno after Ashcroft “exiled” me from the BIA in 2003!

George is a prime example of the nonpartisan career lawyers and civil servants being “ground into the dust” by the shenanigans of the politicized, unethical, and biased DOJ under Sessions and Barr.

Thanks for speaking out, George!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-14-20

Due Process Forever, Captive & Complicit Courts, Never!

UPDATE:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Captive Courts, Never!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Complicit Courts Never!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever. Feckless Courts Never!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

This November, vote like your life depends on it! Because it does!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts: