EOIR – Page 85 – immigrationcourtside.com

DUE PROCESS/GENDER-BASED ASYLUM WINS: 1st Cir. Slams BIA, Sessions’s Matter of A-B- Atrocity – Remands For Competent Adjudication of Gender-Based Asylum Claim — DE PENA-PANIAGUA v. BARR

DE PENA-PANIAGUA v. BARR, 1^st Cir., 04-24-20, published

PANEL: Howard, Chief Judge, Kayatta and Barron, Circuit Judges.

OPINION BY: Judge Kayetta

KEY EXCERPTS (Courtesy of Amer S. Ahmed, Esquire, Gibson Dunn, Pro Bono Counsel for the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges as Amici):

[The BIA] added, however, that “[e]ven if [De Pena] had

suffered harm rising to the level of past persecution,” De Pena’s

proposed particular social groups are analogous to those in Matter

of A-R-C-G, 26 I. & N. Dec. 388 (BIA 2014), which the BIA

understood to have been “overruled” by the Attorney General in

Matter of A-B, 27 I. & N. Dec. 316, 319 (A.G. 2018). The BIA read

A-B as “determin[ing] that the particular social group of ‘married

women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship’ did

not meet the legal standards to qualify as a valid particular

social group.”

…

That conclusion poses two questions to be resolved on

this appeal: First, does A-B categorically reject any social group

defined in material part by its members’ “inability to leave” the

relationships in which they are being persecuted; and, second, if

so, is A-B to that extent consistent with the law?

…

Is it reasonable to read the law as supporting such a categorical

rejection of any group defined by its members’ inability to leave

relationships with their abusers? A-B itself cites only fiat to

support its affirmative answer to this question. It presumes that

the inability to leave is always caused by the persecution from

which the noncitizen seeks haven, and it presumes that no type of

persecution can do double duty, both helping to define the

particular social group and providing the harm blocking the pathway

to that haven. These presumptions strike us as arbitrary on at

least two grounds.

….

First, a woman’s inability to leave a relationship may

be the product of forces other than physical abuse. In

Perez-Rabanales v. Sessions, we distinguished a putative group of

women defined by their attempt “to escape systemic and severe

violence” from a group defined as “married women in Guatemala who

are unable to leave their relationship,” describing only the former

as defined by the persecution of its members. 881 F.3d 61, 67

(1st Cir. 2018). In fact, the combination of several cultural,

societal, religious, economic, or other factors may in some cases

explain why a woman is unable to leave a relationship.

…

We therefore do not see any basis other

than arbitrary and unexamined fiat for categorically decreeing

without examination that there are no women in Guatemala who

reasonably feel unable to leave domestic relationships as a result

of forces other than physical abuse. In such cases, physical abuse

might be visited upon women because they are among those unable to

leave, even though such abuse does not define membership in the group

of women who are unable to leave.

…

Second, threatened physical abuse that precludes

departure from a domestic relationship may not always be the same

in type or quality as the physical abuse visited upon a woman

within the relationship. More importantly, we see no logic or

reason behind the assertion that abuse cannot do double duty, both

helping to define the group, and providing the basis for a finding

of persecution. An unfreed slave in first century Rome might well

have been persecuted precisely because he had been enslaved (making

him all the same unable to leave his master). Yet we see no reason

why such a person could not seek asylum merely because the threat

of abuse maintained his enslaved status. As DHS itself once

observed, the “sustained physical abuse of [a] slave undoubtedly

could constitute persecution independently of the condition of

slavery.” Brief of DHS at 34 n.10, Matter of R-A, 23 I. & N. Dec.

694 (A.G. 2005).

For these reasons, we reject as arbitrary and unexamined

the BIA holding in this case that De Pena’s claim necessarily fails

because the groups to which she claims to belong are necessarily

deficient. Rather, the BIA need consider, at least, whether the

proffered groups exist and in fact satisfy the requirements for

constituting a particular social group to which De Pena belongs.

Amer S. Ahmed

GIBSON DUNN

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

Read the full opinion at the link above.

While Judge Kayetta does not specifically cite our Round Table’s brief, a number of our arguments are reflected in the opinion. Undoubtedly, with lots of help from Amer and our other superstar friends over at Gibson Dunn, we’re continuing to make a difference and hopefully save some deserving lives of the refugees intentionally screwed by our dysfunctional Immigration Court system under a politicized DOJ.

I’ve heard of the bogus rationale used by the BIA in this case reflected in a number of wrongly decided unpublished asylum denials by both the BIA and Immigration Judges. This should make for plenty of remands, slowing down the “Deportation Railroad,” jacking up the backlog, and once again showing the “substantial downside” of idiotic “haste makes waste shenanigans” at EOIR and allowing biased, unqualified White Nationalist hacks like Sessions and Barr improperly to interfere with what are supposed to be fair and impartial adjudications consistent with Due Process and fundamental fairness.

Great as this decision is, it begs the overriding issue: Why is a non-judicial political official, particularly one with as strong a prosecutorial bias as Sessions or Barr, allowed to intervene in a quasi-judicial decision involving an individual and not only reverse the result of that quasi-judicial tribunal, but also claim to set a “precedent” that is binding in other quasi-judicial proceedings? Clearly, neither Ms. De Pena-Paniagua nor any other respondent subject to a final order of removal under this system received the “fair and impartial decision by an unbiased decision-maker” which is a minimum requirement under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Let’s put it in terms that an Article III Circuit Court Judge should understand. Suppose Jane Q. Public sues the United States in U.S. District Court in Boston and wins a judgment. Unhappy with the result, Attorney General Billy Barr orders the U.S. District Judge to send the case to him for review. He enters a decision reversing the U.S. District Judge and dismissing Public’s claim against the United States. Then, he orders all U.S. District Judges in the District of Massachusetts to follow his decision and threatens to have them removed from their positions or demoted to non-judicial positions if they refuse.

The First Circuit or any other Court of Appeals would be outraged by this result and invalidate it as unconstitutional in a heartbeat! They likely would also find Barr in contempt and refer him to state bar authorities with a recommendation that his law license be revoked or suspended.

Yet this is precisely what happened to Ms. A-B-, Ms. De Pena Paniagua, and thousands of other asylum applicants in Immigration Court. It happens every working day in Immigration Courts throughout the nation. It will continue to happen until Article III Appellate Judges live up to their oaths of fealty to the Constitution and stop the outrageous, life-threatening miscarriages of justice and human dignity going on in our unconstitutional, illegal, fundamentally unfair, and dysfunctional Immigration Courts.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-24-20

SUPREME WIN FOR THE REGIME: “J.R. Five” Interprets Statute Broadly To Narrow Eligibility For Deportation Waiver — Justice Sotomayor + 3 Dissent — Barton v. Barr (5-4)

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/supreme-court-on-cancellation-barton-v-barr-5-4

Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration Community:

Supreme Court on Cancellation: Barton v. Barr (5-4)

Barton v. BarrMr.

[Maj. Op.] “Barton argues that the BIA and the Eleventh Circuit misinterpreted the statute. He contends that the §1182(a)(2) offense that precludes cancellation of removal must be one of the offenses of removal. We disagree with Barton, and we affirm the judgment of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.”

[Dissent] “At bottom, the Court’s interpretation is at odds with the express words of the statute, with the statute’s overall structure, and with pertinent canons of statutory construction. It is also at odds with common sense. With virtually every other provision of the INA, Congress granted preferential treatment to lawfully admitted noncitizens—and most of all to LPRs like Barton. But because of the Court’s opinion today, noncitizens who were already admitted to the country are treated, for the purposes of the stop-time rule, identically to those who were not—despite Congress’ express references to inadmissibility and deportability. The result is that, under the Court’s interpretation, an immigration judge may not even consider whether Barton is entitled to cancellation of removal—because of an offense that Congress deemed too trivial to allow for Barton’s removal in the first instance. Because the Court’s opinion does no justice to the INA, let alone to longtime LPRs like Barton, I respectfully dissent.”

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

Thanks Dan.

Justice Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion.

As a frequent critic of the “J.R. Five” and their general predisposition to stretch to reward the regime over individuals seeking Due Process and fundamental fairness, I wasn’t surprised by this result.

As compared with trashing the legal rights of asylum seekers and those seeking legal status as “The Five” have done in other cases, this decision on waivers has a much more limited impact. Nevertheless, it does unnecessarily “screw” long-time members of our society with potential equities to offset their misconduct.

The vote should have been 9-0 in favor of Mr. Barton. The “GOP majority,” supposedly made up of “strict constructionists,” “torqued” the actual language of the statute to reach their preferred result — “stiffing” Mr. Barton who has resided in the U.S. since age 10.

By contrast, reading the statutory language at its face value, Justice Sotomayor and her dissenting colleagues also reached a practical, common sense result that would have allowed Immigration Judges to “weigh the equities” in deciding whether to grant the waiver to long-time green card holders. It by no means guarantees them a “win.” It just allows them and their families to to “make their case” on the merits.

Perhaps, effectively denying individuals a meaningful “day in court” on relief from deportation speeds up the “deportation railroad” a bit. But, at what cost?

Read the full decision at the above link.

PWS

04-23-20

TWO-FER: Billy Barr Assaults First & Fifth Amendments In Frivolous Attack On NAIJ — Seeks To Harass, Silence Immigration Judges’ Union For Fearlessly Speaking Out Against Demise Of Due Process, Improper Political Influence, Gross Mismanagement In America’s Most Unfair & Dysfunctional “Courts!”

Judge Amiena Khan is the executive vice president of the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) — Judge Amiena Khan Executive Vice President National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ)

Judge Dorothy Harbeck, an immigration judge in New York City, is the secretary/treasurer of the NAIJ — Judge Dorothy Harbeck Secretary/Treasurer of the NAIJ

Immigration TFL_Mar-Apr2020

Judge Amiena Khan and Judge Dorothy Harbeck (in their capacities as NAIJ Officers) write in the Federal Lawyer:

DOJ Tries to Silence the Voice of the Immigration Judges—Again!

The Second Attempt to Decertify the National Association of Immigration Judges

by Judge Amiena Khan and Judge Dorothy Harbeck

Immigration Law

Judge Amiena Khan is the executive vice president of the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) and serves as the co-chair of the NAIJ Vulnerable Populations Committee. Judge Khan was appointed by Attorney General Eric Holder in December 2010. She is seated at the New York Immigration Court and is a member of the New York State Bar. Judge Khan is the programs chair of the FBA Immigration Law Section and is also a member of the National Association of Women Judges.

Judge Dorothy Harbeck, an immigration judge in New York City, is the secretary/treasurer of the NAIJ. She is also an adjunct professor of law at Columbia and Rutgers. She
is a fellow of the Federal Bar Foundation, is on the Executive Board of the FBA Immigration Law Section, and is a member of the bar in New Jersey and New York.

The 2019 DOJ Petition for Decertification
In August 2019, the Department of Justice (DOJ), in a veiled attempt to silence the voice of the immigration judges (IJs), filed a petition with the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) to decertify the Nation- al Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ).1 The NAIJ—origi

The 2019 DOJ Petition for Decertification

In August 2019, the Department of Justice (DOJ), in a veiled attempt to silence the voice of the immigration judges (IJs), filed a petition with the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) to decertify the Nation- al Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ).1 The NAIJ—originally certified in 1979 as the recognized representative for collective bargaining for all U.S. IJs—is a voluntary association that represents and speaks for the interests of the nation’s 440 IJs. The NAIJ was formed with the objectives of promoting independence and enhancing the professionalism, dignity, and efficiency of the immigration courts. DOJ asserts that IJs should be reclassified as “management officials.” This would mean IJs could no longer union- ize, be part of a collective bargaining unit, or speak independently.

NAIJ serves as the only voice of the IJs who cannot speak out without prior express permission of DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).2 NAIJ serves to afford transparency and accountability. The immigration courts are not independent courts under Article I or Article III of the Constitution. They are wholly contained within DOJ. Without a union,

IJs have no protection against the politicization of the process and their decisions. Without transparency,

the integrity of the process is in jeopardy. Without a union, the IJs cannot protest policy measures, such as the imposition of quotas and performance measures; the IJs cannot contest the numerous policies enacted by EOIR that encroach upon and undermine the inde- pendent decision-making ability of the IJs; and the IJs will not be able to rally against the effective speedup of the workforce, placing due process and fundamental fairness of the proceedings at risk.

How the Process Works

The burden to show that IJs are management officials is on the moving party (i.e., DOJ). The FLRA regional director (RD) has opened an investigation into the

NAIJ, seeking information about its responsibilities. DOJ can submit factual and legal arguments in support of its petition. The RD can then issue a decision or request a hearing to solicit more information. Either party can appeal the RD’s decision to the full FLRA board.

The Unsuccessful 2000 Attempt to Decertify

the Immigration Judges’ Union

This current effort follows a similar, and unsuccessful, strategy pursued by DOJ to decertify the immigration judges’ union approximately 20 years ago. In Septem- ber 2000, the FLRA’s RD rejected DOJ’s argument, and the full FLRA upheld the RD’s decision on appeal. In that prior decertification attempt,3 the FLRA reject- ed DOJ’s argument that IJs make policy through the issuance of decisions, noting that the trial court level IJs do not set precedent and that their rulings are often appealed and reviewed. The FLRA also said that the immigration court system was established specifically so that IJs do not maintain any management duties to enable them to focus on hearings.

The FLRA also ruled that there is a distinct differ- ence between the trial level IJs and the appellate level Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) members.4 The description of the duties of the IJ were described in the 2000 decertification attempt:

The daily routine of an Immigration Judge involves hearing and deciding cases that arise from the operation of the INS.5 A court’s juris- diction to decide these cases is determined at the time a case is filed. After filing, the cases are randomly assigned by the court administrator to an individual Judge and placed on a Judge’s calendar on his or her master calendar day. At that time, the Judge hears presentations from the parties and their attorneys, identifies the is- sues, and advises individuals as to their right to

March/April 2020 • THE FEDERAL LAWYER • 9

representation. The Judge also sets time frames and briefing schedules, as well as the date for trial.6

The nature of the IJs’ decisions and their position in the hierarchy of binding the EOIR was also set forth:

During a trial, the parties are represented by counsel and the rules of evidence are observed. Thereafter, in arriving at their decisions, Immigration Judges are required to apply immigra- tion statutes, applicable regulations, published decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals and federal appellate courts, and other foreign and state laws. After the trial, the Judge issues his or her decision, almost always orally, and advises the parties of their appeal rights. Oral decisions are not tran- scribed unless they are appealed; are not published; and are final and binding only with respect to the parties to the case. With limited exception, decisions of the Immigration Judges may be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals and review of their decisions is de novo. Certain cases may also be appealed to the appropriate U.S. circuit court.7

Citing its precedential case on the managerial status of BIA members (hereinafter “the BIA Management Case”),8 the FLRA specifically stated that the BIA appellate judges were management officials within the meaning of section 7103(a)(11) of the statute and, therefore, could not be included in the existing bargaining unit. In particular, it concluded that “the incumbent Board Member directly influences activity policy through his participation in the interpreta- tion of immigration laws and the issuance of decisions and, thereby, meets the definition of a management official set forth in section 7103(a)(11) of the Statute.”9

In the 2000 decertification attempt, the RD applied the BIA Management Case and concluded that “unlike decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the decisions of Immigration Judges are

not published, do not constitute precedent, are binding only on the parties to the proceedings, and are subject to de novo review.”10 The RD accordingly concluded that the decisions of the judges do not in- fluence and determine the Agency’s immigration policy, in contrast to the decisions of the BIA.

The FLRA concurred that the RD’s definition of a management official is defined as “an individual employed by an agency in a posi- tion the duties and responsibilities of which require or authorize the individual to formulate, determine, or influence the policies of the agency.”11

Critically, the full FLRA also found that management officials are individuals who: “(1) create, establish or prescribe general princi- ples, plans or courses of action for an agency; (2) decide upon or settle upon general principles, plans or courses of action for an agen- cy; or (3) bring about or obtain a result as to the adoption of general principles, plans or courses of action for an agency.”12

The FLRA distinguished the trial court IJs from the BIA appellate judges by specifically holding that IJs do not “make policy through the issuance of their decisions … that in arriving at their decisions, Immigration Judges are required to apply immigration laws and reg- ulations, that their decisions are not published and do not constitute precedent.” Finally, the RD observed that the decisions are binding only on the parties to the case, are “routinely” appealed, and are subject to de novo review.13 There is no difference in this now.

The FLRA specifically agreed with the RD’s rejection of the EOIR’s claims that “the sheer volume of decisions issued by the [immigration] Judges and the finality of their decisions, unless they are appealed,” affect the EOIR’s policy. This is because “no matter the volume of decisions issued, or number of appeals filed, the fact remains that when an Immigration Judge issues a decision [,] he or she is applying and following established Agency law and policy.”14 Again, there is no difference in this now.

While IJs have some authority to control practice in their own courtrooms, they have no authority to set overall policy as to how the courts as a whole will operate. Nor, critically, do they have the authority to direct or commit the EOIR to any policy or course of action. The IJs are highly trained professionals with the extremely important job of adjudicating cases.15 This organizational structure and supervisory delegation was established specifically so that the IJs are unencumbered by any supervisory and management obligations and are free to concentrate on hearings.16 Aspirationally, this is still the position of the IJs.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of the article at the link. Many thanks to Judge Khan and Judge Harbeck for courageously speaking out and informing us in such a well-documented and scholarly manner.

It’s disgraceful that political leaders who are supposed to be committed to our Constitution and the rule of law instead misuse government funds and abuse their authority to cover up their wrongdoing and mismanagement. In a functional government, Barr and his toadies would be facing impeachment or referral for criminal investigation from Congress for their abuses of authority and attacks on our Constitution. Most certainly, a competent Congress would long ago have removed EOIR from the clutches of the DOJ politicos and placed it where it belongs: as an independent court system under either Article I or Article III.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-23-20

🏴‍☠️🆘 AMERICAN NIGHTMARE: THIS DEADLY ☠️🤮 “CLOWN SHOW” 🤡 IS A “COURT” SYSTEM? — You’ve GOT To Be Kidding! — “’Everyone feels the message is, nobody cares if you die as long as we get our numbers,’ said one worker in the office. . . . ‘I feel like half the time, I’m working on Trump’s reelection,’ said an employee in the office who spoke anonymously because of concerns about retaliation. ‘This is just a piece for him to tout when reelection time comes up about how much he’s getting done.’” — Politico’s Betsy Woodruff Swan Takes Us Inside “HQ” In America’s Most Morally Corrupt Court System, Where “Trumpian” Contempt For Due Process & Human Lives ☠️ Extends To Its Own Employees, Many Of Them Lower-Paid Clerical Staff!

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/23/doj-union-immigration-deportation-coronavirus-202075

Betsy Woodruff Swan reports for Politico:

The union for lawyers and support staff who handle Justice Department immigration appeals says their office’s working conditions put workers’ lives in danger. And employees in the DOJ office handling those immigration appeals said many suspect it’s because the department prioritizes high deportation numbers over worker safety.

“I feel like half the time, I’m working on Trump’s reelection,” said an employee in the office who spoke anonymously because of concerns about retaliation. “This is just a piece for him to tout when reelection time comes up about how much he’s getting done.”

It’s an accusation a spokesperson for the office vehemently denied. But the conflict is no longer being kept in the DOJ family; the president of that union recently filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), saying management requires too many people to come into the office, putting workers at risk of contracting Covid-19, the sickness caused by the novel coronavirus. Concerns in the office about worker safety were first reported by Government Executive.

At issue are working conditions in DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). The office oversees America’s immigration courts––which are part of the Justice Department––and lawyers there handle appeals from immigrants fighting deportation orders. Those courts face a mammoth backlog of more than one million cases, by Syracuse University’s count. Despite hiring more immigration judges, the backlog has doubled under the Trump administration.

EOIR leaders have maximized how much telework employees there can do, the spokesperson said, adding that the office “takes the safety, health, and well-being of its employees very seriously.”

But the OSHA complaint, which Politico reviewed, says the office is violating a federal law mandating workplaces be free of “hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm.”

“The agency’s actions described below are proliferating the spread of a known and deadly contagion both within our building and to our surrounding communities,” the complaint reads. The office policies “are expected to result in death and severe health complications and/or possible life-long disabilities,” it says.

The office requires most support staff to come in, rather than telework, as they deal with physical pieces of paper and files as part of their work, per the complaint. The few who can work from home can only do so once a week, and on rotating days because they share the same laptop, the complaint reads. At work, support staff sit in cubicles in a shared area, “in direct breathing paths of each other,” it says.

Nancy Sykes, the president of American Federation of Government Employees Local 3525, filed the complaint on behalf of the union. It represents non-managerial Board of Immigration Appeals employees in the office, including attorneys, paralegals, clerks, and legal assistants.

The EOIR spokesperson, meanwhile, said the office is working to implement coronavirus guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Office of Personnel Management, and the General Services Administration.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of Betsy’s report at the link. Long a superstar at The Daily Beast, and an articulate “repeat panelist” on “Meet the Press” with Chuck Todd, it’s great to have Betsy “back on the immigration beat” as a part of her “new portfolio” over at Politico. I’ve always found Betsy’s clear prose and insightful analysis enlightening!

Typically within the Trump immigration kakistocracy, the harshest consequences fall jump-on the most vulnerable. In Immigration Court, it’s often unrepresented asylum seekers, some of them mere children, being railroaded through the system with regard to neither due process nor a legally correct application of asylum law. Here, the brunt of the latest EOIR assault on human dignity during the pandemic appears to fall on the support staff at the “bottom of the totem pole” of EOIR’s “bloated at the top,” yet astoundingly misdirected and consequently inefficient, bureaucracy. What a way to run the railroad — even a “Deportation Railroad!” 🚂

As my good friend and Round Table colleague, Judge Jeffrey Chase said: “In spite of having very genuine concerns, the BIA staff are generally off the radar. Thanks to Betsy for spotlighting them. The BIA staff union and the NAIJ put out a joint statement yesterday; let’s hope this begins a period of increased communication and cooperation.”

Many of us “old timers” remember a bygone era when the BIA staff was considered one of the premier places for career attorneys to work at the DOJ. This was largely because staff were treated “like family.” The BIA, in cooperation with the union, actually “pioneered” things like “flexible work schedules” and “work from home” at the DOJ. That union (of which I actually was among the “founding members” back in the 1970’s) was perhaps the first one at the DOJ to represent the interests of both attorneys and support staff. Those times sadly are long gone.

As I’ve mentioned before, under the Trump regime, EOIR “non-management” employees at all levels levels are treated with a disrespect, intentional demeaning, and callous disregard for health and welfare usually reserved for those poor souls trapped in what passes for an immigration justice system under the White Nationalist driven Trump regime. Risking employees’ lives to promote Trump’s reelection agenda? That’s actually illegal on a number of accounts. But, don’t expect any corrective actions in an era where the “rule of law” has been willfully distorted and undermined as Congress and the Article IIIs simply melt away under Trump’s contemptuous scofflaw onslaught.

Unhappily, as Betsy’s article highlights, there appears to be little chance of meaningful change unless and until enough employees actually start dropping dead, by which time it will be too late.

But, as I keep pointing out, there are “other villains” here. Despite DOJ/EOIR efforts to suppress truth, all of this basically is happening in “plain sight,” as we know from folks like Judge Ashley Tabaddor, the NAIJ, the BIA union, former Judges on the Round Table who are speaking out, courageous employees willing to “blow the whistle” anonymously, as well as reporters like Betsy, Erich Wagner at Government Executive (who “broke” this story), and Malathi Nayak at Bloomberg News, to name just a few. The unconstitutional mockery of Due Process, immigration, and asylum laws in Immigration Court hearings is documented in verbatim transcripts available to the Article III Courts and the Congress.

Yet, Congress and the Article III Courts let these grotesque abuses within our justice system go on largely unabated. It’s a disgusting and disturbing saga of the breakdown of America’s democratic institutions and their replacement by an authoritarian, “Third-World style” kakistocracy, headed by a dangerously incompetent and unrestrained clown 🤡 whom those charged with protecting us and our institutions refuse to hold accountable.

This November, vote like your life depends on it! Because it does!🇺🇸 We need “regime change” at all levels. And, that certainly includes a better, more courageous, more scholarly Federal Judiciary that understands immigration and human rights, believes in Due Process and fundamental fairness for all under law, and will finally stand up and put an end to these gross abuses if Congress doesn’t act first. Obviously, it’s also essential to get a new Executive committed to advancing, rather than destroying, our Constitution and the rule of law and who will strive for best, rather than worst, practices in all phases of government.

Due Process Forever! Clown Courts 🤡☠️ Never!

PWS

04-23-20

INSANITY ALWAYS ON THE DOCKET @ EOIR: Court Cleaners In Hazmat Suits Add To The “Clown Court” 🤡 Atmosphere — But, Those Forced To Risk Their Lives ☠️ To Keep The Deportation Railroad 🚂 Rolling Aren’t Laughing 😰!

Hon. A. Ashlley Tabaddor — Hon. A. Ashley Tabaddor
President, National
Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”)

Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase
Jeffrey S. Chase Blog
Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Retired Immigration Judges

Trump’s ‘Deportation Machine’ Keeps Growing Despite Pandemic – Bloomberg

Malathi Nayak reports for Bloomberg News:

As President Donald Trump prepares to pause immigration into the U.S., the court system that handles the removal of immigrants is projected to issue nearly 60% more deportation orders than last year.

With the rest of the U.S. legal system grinding to a near halt amid the pandemic, at the nation’s 69 federal immigration courts cleaning crews clad in hazmat suits are regularly used to make sure in-person hearings can continue. The courts are moving at speed to reduce a massive backlog of cases despite outdated technology and criticism from advocacy groups and a union representing most of the nation’s 460 immigration judges, who say the pace is putting people at risk of infection.

“The deportation machine has not stopped,” said Florida immigration lawyer Ira Kurzban. “It’s somewhat outrageous given the current circumstances.”

While the number of people deported from the U.S. fell in March, one research group predicts that the total number of deportation orders will rise for the 2020 fiscal year, despite the pandemic. The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a Syracuse University group that tracks government enforcement actions, estimates there will be 340,500 deportation orders in the year ending Sept. 30, 2020, up from 215,535 for the prior year. A spokeswoman for the Justice Department, which oversees immigration courts, declined to comment on the projection, saying it doesn’t certify third-party statistics.

The National Association of Immigration Judges says the continued operation of the courts is unsafe and has called for them to be closed. The Trump administration in 2018 set a quota for each immigration judge to close 700 cases a year, a requirement that remains in force during the pandemic, said Ashley Tabaddor, president of the union.

‘Hobbesian Choice’

U.S. immigration judges are “being forced into this Hobbesian choice of risking their health and having to keep their jobs,” said Tabaddor. She cites a colleague who is trying to meet his quota while minimizing his health risk as a throat cancer survivor.

Along with the judges, 1,200 support staff work in the nation’s immigration courts. Those courts are taking precautionary steps similar to those elsewhere in the federal system “to reduce the likelihood of exposure to Covid-19,” including holding hearings via phone or video conference whenever possible, according to Kathryn Mattingly, a Justice Department spokeswoman. Hearings involving people not in custody have also been suspended until May 15.

But judges and lawyers said it is harder for the immigration courts to operate remotely than other federal courts. While electronic document filing is routine in other federal courts, the immigration courts have struggled to introduce it, leaving most documents in paper form. Though some filings are now accepted by email, the many court employees without laptops need to come into the office to access them.

“The immigration courts are probably 20 years behind federal courts in terms of technology,” said Jeff Chase, a former immigration judge. Moreover, some immigration courts have rules where opting for a phone hearing means giving up the right to object to documents submitted by ICE, he said.

The current situation has immigration lawyers choosing between their personal well-being and a client’s future, Chase said. “Lawyers should not be put in this position.”

. . . .

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

Read the rest of the article at the link.

Nice quotes from Judges Tabaddor and Chase!

Actually, when the “off docket”cases are factored in, the backlog exceeds 1.4 million cases. Even with artificially accelerated production, and if no new cases were filed by DHS (reality check — receipts have been exceeding completions for years) it would take until 2024 to “clear” the existing backlog. But, the reality is that even by speeding up the “Deportation Railroad,” adding new often inadequately trained judges largely from the ranks of prosecutors, eliminating Due Process, demeaning their own employees, and unethically skewing the law against migrants, EOIR has been unable to reduce the backlog by even one case under the Trump regime!

Indeed, when all of the pending and “off docket” cases are considered, the already large backlog left behind by the Obama Administration has more than doubled, and is well on its way to tripling, under the Trump regime’s “malicious incompetence” and pattern of often illegal and irrational behavior. Many of the “final orders of deportation” being cranked out by EOIR are either legally wrong or counterproductive — deporting harmless individuals who actually are productive members of our society, often with U.S. citizen family members. This system, including the mindless abuse of docket space by DHS Enforcement and “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” by EOIR, is broken! Yet, it’s allowed to continue grinding away, putting lives in danger in more ways than one.

And, speaking of incompetence, whether malicious or not, I was on the initial “E-Filing Group” that submitted comprehensive recommendations and a detailed plan for implementing e-filing to ”EOIR management” back in 2001 or 2002. Since then, successive waves of EOIR “management” have squandered time, money, and public trust without producing a usable product. Meanwhile, almost every other court in America has designed and implemented e-filing systems. This catastrophic failure in and of itself would more than justify eliminating EOIR and replacing it with a judicially-managed, independent, professionally administered court system that would guarantee due process, efficiency, and fundamental fairness for all.

But, that’s by no means the only problem at EOIR. It’s unconstitutional, unfair, dysfunctional, unprofessional, and downright dangerous. I have posted recently about how Courts of Appeals continue to find that the BIA has grossly misinterpreted, distorted, and/or misapplied both law and facts in “life or death cases.” Is “good enough for government work” really OK for human lives? That neither Congress nor the Article III Courts have had the guts and decency to put an end to this life-threatening farce staining our justice system is an unforgivable national disgrace.

Those of us who understand exactly what’s happening at EOIR under the Trump kakistocracy might at the moment be powerless to change it. But, we’re continuing to challenge the unacceptable status quo and making a public record of this grotesque malfeasance and of those in all three branches of Government who are “papering over” (and by doing so enabling) EOIR’s abuses. Eventually, positive change will come. The only question is how many lives and futures will unnecessarily be lost before it does?

Due Process Forever! Deadly ☠️ Clown Courts, 🤡 Never!

PWS

04-23-20

LAURA LYNCH @ AILA REPORTS: 1) NAIJ Takes Unprecedented Step Of Filing Amicus Brief In Pending USDC Litigation On Immigration Courts; 2) The Dangerous Clown Show 🤡 Continues At EOIR! ☠️⚰️

Flagging the following updates:

(1) Last evening, NAIJ filed an amicus brief in NIPNLG et. al. vs. EOIR et. al..

Hon. A. Ashley Tabaddor
President, National
Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”)

(2) Also see Government Executive article below.

Erich Wagner
Staff Writer
Government Executive

Despite Coronavirus, ‘The Machinery Continues’ at Immigration Courts – April 20, 2020

Immigration judges and employees at the Executive Office of Immigration Review said the agency’s informal policy to keep offices and courts open puts deportations over workers’ safety.

APRIL 20, 2020 05:31 PM ET

For weeks, employees at the Executive Office of Immigration Review’s immigration courts and offices have noticed a trend: whenever someone exhibits coronavirus symptoms, the agency quietly shuts the facility down for a day or two, cleans the office, and then reopens.

The frequency of these incidents, combined with the apparent refusal by management to take more proactive steps, like temporarily closing immigration courts altogether or instituting telework for EOIR support staff, have employees and judges fearing that the Trump administration is more concerned with keeping up the volume of immigration case decisions than the health of its own workforce.

Since Government Executive first reported on an instance of an employee with COVID-19 symptoms at a Falls Church, Virginia, EOIR office last week, there have been three additional incidents at that facility, including one where the person eventually tested positive for coronavirus. An office in the Dallas-Fort Worth area also was closed for two days in March after someone exhibited symptoms of the virus.

Additionally, the agency has announced on its official Twitter account more than 30 immigration court closures, most only for one or two days, across the country. Although in most instances officials do not explain the closures, National Association of Immigration Judges President Ashley Tabaddor said that if there is no reason listed, “you can be sure” it is a result of coronavirus exposure.

“Everything is reactive,” Tabbador said. “They put everyone at risk, and then when there’s an incident reported, they shut down the court for a day and then force people to come back to work. At Otay Mesa [in San Diego] there’s a huge outbreak, but they still haven’t shared that information . . . Sometimes we get the info and sometimes we don’t, so we don’t know how accurate or complete it is. There’s no faith that everyone who needs to be notified has been notified.”

Nancy Sykes, president of the American Federation of Government Employees Local 2525, which represents staff at EOIR’s office in Falls Church said the amount of information provided to employees about coronavirus-related incidents has actually decreased in recent weeks. Although after the first incident, EOIR Director James McHenry emailed staff and provided information about when the employee was symptomatic and in the office, subsequent notifications were sent out by Acting Board of Immigration Appeals Chairman Garry Malphrus and omitted key information about when symptomatic individuals were in the building.

“Employees are scared, they’re concerned,” Sykes said. “They don’t really trust what’s coming from management just because of the lack of details being shared. There’s a lag in information: by the time something is revealed, so much time has passed, so nobody’s clear how that process works and why it takes so long to get notice out to employees.”

In a statement, EOIR spokeswoman Kathryn Mattingly said that the agency “takes the safety, health and well-being of employees very seriously,” but that the workforce is critical to ensuring the due process of detained suspected undocumented immigrants.

“Accordingly, EOIR’s current operational status is largely in line with that of most courts across the country, which have continued to receive and process filings and to hold critical hearings, while deferring others as appropriate,” Mattingly wrote. “Recognizing that cases of detained individuals may implicate unique constitutional concerns and raise particular issues of public safety, personal liberty, and due process, few courts have closed completely.”

A Series of Half Measures

Agency management has taken some steps to mitigate employees’ exposure to COVID-19. On March 30, the agency postponed all hearings related to individuals who are not being detained while they await adjudication. The agency is also encouraging the use of teleconferencing, video-teleconferencing and the filing of documents by mail or electronically, and some attorneys, paralegals and judges have been able to make use of telework to reduce the amount of time they spend in the office.

But thus far, the agency has refused to postpone hearings for detained individuals, a matter that is now the subject of a federal lawsuit brought by immigration advocates and attorney groups. And the agency has denied telework opportunities to support staff in EOIR offices and immigration courts across the country.

Sykes said the lack of telework is in part a capacity issue—the agency does not have the amount of laptops on hand to distribute to employees. But she suggested that local management may be prohibited from encouraging workplace flexibilities by agency or department leadership.

“We’ve asked management about doing something where you could have employees come in shifts every other day, or over a week’s time in rotation to pick up and drop off work materials, so that there’s less exposure when coming into the office,” she said. “But they said they have not been authorized to make those types of changes to our business. When my board management says they don’t have the authority, that means it’s over their heads.”

Tabaddor said she has heard similar stories that everything judges and supervisors authorize regarding coronavirus response must be “cleared” by someone up the chain of command.

“Supervisory judges, our first line of supervisory contact, they were told that they cannot put anything in writing about the pandemic or COVID,” she said. “Anything they want to do related to that has to be cleared by HQ and, essentially, the White House. So, to date, they haven’t been told what standards and protocols are to be used. The only thing they’ve been told is if there’s a report of any incident, they are to kick it up to HQ and wait for instructions.”

On Monday, McHenry sent an email to EOIR employees announcing that the agency has ordered face masks for employees to wear when they report to the office, and said they would be available “next week.”

“Once delivered, supervisors will provide their staff with information regarding distribution to employees who are not telework eligible and are working in the office,” McHenry wrote. “Even while using face coverings, however, please continue to be vigilant in maintaining social distancing measures to the maximum extent practicable and in following CDC guidance.”

Production Over People

Agency employees said what they have seen over the last month suggests that the agency is prioritizing working on its more than 1 million case backlog, and enabling the Homeland Security Department to continue to apprehend suspected undocumented immigrants, at the expense of the wellbeing of its workforce.

“Everything is designed under the rubric that the show must go on,” Tabbador said. “While we’ve been focused on public health first . . . the department says, ‘Nope, we need to make sure that the machinery continues. To the extent that we can acknowledge social distancing as long as business continues, we can do it. But between business and health considerations, business as usual supersedes health.”

Sykes said the agency’s resistance to making basic changes to protect its employees is troubling.

“To me, the only other explanation is the immense backlog that we have of immigration appellate cases building up, and the need to continue working on that backlog even in light of the current pandemic,” she said. “It’s very unnerving, because I believe this will continue, and I don’t have any other indication that we’re not going to just continue operations as is. We now finally have a confirmed case [in the building] and there’s still no change.”

In an affidavit filed in response to the lawsuit seeking to postpone immigration court hearings for detained individuals, McHenry said he has given individual immigration courts leeway to respond as needed to the COVID-19 outbreak in their communities.

“Because COVID-19 has not affected all communities nationwide in the same manner and because EOIR’s dockets vary considerably from court to court, the challenges presented by COVID-19 are not the same for every immigration court,” McHenry wrote. “In recognition of these variances and of the fact that local immigration judges and court staff are often in the best position to address challenges tailored to the specifics of their court’s practices, EOIR has not adopted a ‘one size fits all’ policy for every immigration court, though it has issued generally-applicable guidance regarding access to EOIR space, the promotion of practices that reduce the need for hearings, and the maximization of the use of telephonic and means through which to hold hearings.”

But he also suggested it could hamper the work of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the ability of the Border Patrol to keep arresting suspected undocumented immigrants.

“The blanket postponement of all detained cases in removal proceedings, including initial master calendar hearings for aliens recently detained by DHS, would make it extremely difficult for DHS to arrest and detain aliens prospectively, even aliens with significant criminal histories or national security concerns, because of the uncertainty of how long an alien would have to remain in custody before being able to obtain a hearing in front of an [immigration judge] that may lead to the alien’s release,” he wrote.

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

Thanks, Laura, for “packaging” this so neatly for further distribution! And many thanks to Erich Wagner over at Government Executive for “keeping on” this story he originally reported and that I also posted @ Courtside. https://wp.me/p8eeJm-5mO

Nice to know that someone is looking out for the public interest here, even if EOIR isn’t.

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

Wow, these self-serving “GrimGrams” ☠️⚰️ from McHenry must be very comforting to the EOIR employees 😰🧫 whose health 🤮 and safety ☠️ is on the line, not to mention the possibility that they will eventually infect their own families.😰

Deportations over safety, sanity and public health at EOIR. It’s just “business as usual” in the Clown Courts! 🤡

We should also take McHenry’s claims that he’s anxious to get folks out on bond with a big grain of salt. 🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥 Just recently, the BIA went out of its way to insure that even asylum seekers who had established “credible fear” of persecution would be unlikely to get released on bond. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/04/06/hon-jeffrey-s-chase-matter-of-r-a-v-p-bond-denial-maximo-cruelty-minimal-rationality-idiotic-timing-bonus-my-monday-mini-essay-how-eoir/

After all, we must remember that the only function of these bogus “courts” at EOIR under the Trump regime is to serve the supposed needs of their “partners” and overlords at DHS Enforcement 👮🏼. But, it’s fair to point out that many ICE employees also don’t see the need to put their lives and the lives of others at risk merely to “punch one more ticket” for the Deportation Railroad. 🚂 See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/04/04/as-u-s-district-judges-dither-dysfunctional-immigration-courts-threaten-nations-health-safety-i-think-its-about-time-the-american-people-woke-up-to-the-fact-that-eoir/

Due Process Forever! Clown Courts 🤡 Never!

PWS

04-21-20

FORCED ENVIRONMENTAL MIGRATION: The Next Global Crisis Is Coming – Walls, Gulags, Weaponized Courts, & Institutionalized Cruelty Won’t Stop It! – “The benefits of accepting more migrants goes far beyond economics. Studies show that increasing immigration quotas improves both economic innovation and community resilience, proving that diversity and inclusion make the United States stronger.”

https://apple.news/AEhIK_rMuTuussVUz0LMm9w

Rosemary Dent writes for International Policy Digest:

“Pacific Island states do not need to be underwater before triggering human rights obligations to protect the right to life.” – Kate Schuetze, Pacific Researcher with Amnesty International

This is a quote in reference to a landmark human rights case brought to the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) in February 2016. Ioane Teitiota of the island nation of Kiribati was originally refused asylum as a ‘climate refugee’ by New Zealand’s authorities and was subsequently deported. While the HRC did not rule this action unlawful, the committee did set a global precedent in recognizing the serious threat to the right to life that climate change poses on many communities globally. Furthermore, the HRC urged governments to consider the broader effects of climate change in future cases, essentially validating the concept of a ‘climate refugee’ outside the context of a natural disaster.

As the impacts of climate change become more severe and widespread, the United States must prepare for the resulting surge of human migration. Climate scientists are currently predicting that both primary and secondary impacts of climate change will collectively produce 140–200 million climate refugees by 2050. This sharp increase, if mismanaged, would likely overwhelm refugee processing systems, flood points of entry to the United States and strain both society and the economy. In order to protect the United States from these potential shocks, the government must begin to prepare the appropriate infrastructure, processes, and funding for integrating climate refugees into the population. As the coronavirus ravages the country, it is highlighting many of the systemic failures that occur when the government is not adequately prepared or pro-active.

In 1990, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recognized human migration as the biggest impact of climate change. The IPCC predicted that primary impacts like shoreline erosion, coastal flooding, and agricultural disruptions would create massive disruptions to the livelihoods of millions. The resulting secondary impacts relate to the effects on society globally; such as political unrest, food insecurity, and mass migrations. As four out of five refugees flee on foot to nations bordering their home country, most human migration is localized to areas affected by conflict. However, as climate change affects communities globally, the flows of refugees will no longer be concentrated to conflict zones and their surrounding nations, bringing the issue to U.S. borders. The sheer scale of migration that the IPCC is predicting renders any previous methods of dealing with refugees unsuitable for this impending crisis.

In terms of physical processing capacity, the United States is currently severely unprepared. Presently, it takes between eighteen to twenty-four months for a refugee to be screened and vetted before being approved to be resettled. This process involves in-person interviews, ongoing vetting by various intelligence agencies, health screening, and application reviews. These are all important and necessary steps to take in order to safeguard domestic security and safety of American citizens. However, expanding the capacity of these processes is necessary to prevent overwhelmed systems and employees, as it can result in errors or oversights. The administration must begin to work with sector experts and employees to determine the most efficient and effective way to expand these services.

These initial consultations are a necessary first step to creating a cohesive plan of action for the imminent refugee crisis. It would be irresponsible to simply increase the refugee intake limit without first establishing an effective process, as this would generate fragmented and disjointed state-level responses. A unified federal approach to intake climate refugees will standardize the procedure for smooth resettlement and promote economic growth.

Ensuring a legal framework is in place, with clear and inclusive classifications and resettlement plans will allow migrants to fully participate and enrich society. Unpreparedness will strain the U.S. economy, systems and society. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), admitting migrants is beneficial for a domestic economy because they add human capital and boost the working-age population. The United States has an aging population, as people over the age of sixty-five are projected to outnumber children in the United States population by 2030. If this gap continues to grow, it will cause the number of dependent individuals to be greater than those contributing to the economy. Accepting more migrants into the United States can alleviate this problem, provided that sufficient processing and resettlement programs exist to direct migrants into the workforce effectively.

The benefits of accepting more migrants goes far beyond economics. Studies show that increasing immigration quotas improves both economic innovation and community resilience, proving that diversity and inclusion make the United States stronger. In view of the abundant challenges ahead for the United States, as highlighted by the current pandemic, uniting communities and reinforcing the economy to maintain employment levels will be key to survival. As a global leader in developing methods for climate change adaptation, the United States must be prepared to take these first steps.

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

Needless to say, we’re not going to get the necessary enlightened humanitarian leadership and careful expert planning necessary to deal with such a global crisis from the Trump kakistocracy. That’s why regime change in November is essential for both the future of our nation and the future of our world.

Due Process Forever! Kakistocracy Never!

PWS

04-20-20

BLOWING THE BASICS: THE CONTINUING UGLINESS OF THE BIA’S FAILURE OF LEGAL EXPERTISE, JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE, AND DECISIONAL INTEGRITY IS A “LICENSE TO KILL” MOST VULNERABLE AMONG US ☠️⚰️😰👎 — 3rd Cir. Says BIA Gets PSG Test Wrong, Fails To Apply Binding CAT Precedent, Distorts Facts to Engineer Wrongful Denial of Protection – “[W]e are troubled by the BIA’s apparent distortion of evidence favorable to Guzman in this case.” – Guzman Orellana v. Attorney General***

Dan Kowakski reports from LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca3-on-asylum-social-group-el-salvador-guzman-orellana-v-barr

CA3 on Asylum, Social Group, El Salvador: Guzman Orellana v. Barr

Guzman Orellana v. Barr

“We must now decide three issues: (1) whether persons who publicly provide assistance to law enforcement against major Salvadoran gangs constitute a cognizable particular social group for purposes of asylum and withholding of removal under the INA, (2) whether Guzman has established that he suffered past persecution on account of anti-gang political opinion imputed to him, and (3) whether the BIA correctly applied the framework we enunciated in Myrie v. Attorney General1 in denying Guzman relief under the CAT. For the reasons that follow, we hold that persons who publicly provide assistance against major Salvadoran gangs do constitute a particular social group, that Guzman has failed to meet his burden to show that imputed anti-gang political opinion was a central reason for the treatment he received, and that the BIA erred in its application of Myrie to Guzman’s application. Accordingly, we will vacate the BIA’s decision and remand this case for further proceedings on Guzman’s petition for relief from removal.”

[Hats off to J. Wesley Earnhardt Troy C. Homesley, III Brian Maida (ARGUED) Cravath, Swaine & Moore!]

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

*** I believe that the Third Circuit uses “Attorney General” rather than the name of the particular Attorney General in their immigration citation.

Before: RESTREPO, ROTH and FISHER, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Roth.

Distortion of evidence and law happens all the time in this dysfunctional system now operated to deny basic due process and fundamental fairness to endangered individuals. Frankly, the Judges of the Third Circuit and other Courts of Appeals should be more than just “troubled” by the BIA’s legal incompetence and anti-immigrant decision-making. This isn’t just some “academic exercise.” The lives of innocent individuals are being put at risk by the ongoing fraud at EOIR under Barr!

This one-sided politically and prosecutorially-dominated charade of a “court system” is clearly unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to our Constitution. Not everyone has the ability to appeal to the Circuit Courts and be fortunate enough to get a panel that actually looks critically at the case, rather than just “rubber stamping” the BIA’s decisions or giving them “undue deference” like all too many Article III Judges do. Most asylum seekers aren’t represented by Cravath, Swaine & Moore, one of America’s top law firms.

Indeed, many asylum applicants are forced by the Government to proceed without any counsel and don’t have the foggiest notion of what’s happening in Immigration Court. How would an unrepresented individual or a child challenge the Immigration Judge’s or the BIA’s misapplication of the “three-part test” for “particular social group?” How would they go about raising failure to apply the applicable Circuit precedent in Myrie v. Attorney General?

Even with the best representation, as was present in this case, under pressure from political bosses like Sessions, Whitaker, and Barr, Immigration Judges and BIA Appellate Judges constantly look for “reasons to deny” relief even where the case clearly has merit, as this one does! If against these odds, the respondent “wins,” or achieves something other than an outright “loss,” Barr can merely reach in and change the result to favor DHS Enforcement.

More outrageously, he can make that improper and unethical decision a so-called “precedent” for other cases. How totally unfair can a system get? Is there any other “court system” in America where the prosecutor or the opposing party gets to select the judges, evaluate their performance under criteria that allow for no public input whatsoever, and then change results at both the trial and appellate level? How is this consistent with Due Process or basic judicial ethics, both of which require a “fair, impartial, and unbiased decision-maker.” In the “real world,” the mere “appearance” of impropriety or bias is enough to disqualify a judge from acting. Here “actual (not apparent) bias” is institutionalized and actively promoted!

The ongoing legal, ethical, and Constitutional problems at EOIR are quite obvious. For the Article III Courts to merely “tisk tisk” without requiring that immigration adjudications comply with basic Constitutional, statutory, and ethical requirements is a disservice to the public that continues to demean and undermine the role of the Article III Courts as an independent judiciary.

Due Process Forever! Captive Courts & Complicit Judges, Never!

PWS

04-18-20

BLOWING THE BASICS: 4th Cir. Says BIA Got Nexus & Political Opinion Wrong in Guatemalan Asylum Case — Lopez-Ordonez v. Barr — The Facts Were Compelling, But The BIA Worked Hard to Wrongfully Deny Protection!

Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca4-on-;-nexus-political-opinion-guatemala-lopez-ordonez-v-barr

CA4 on Asylum, Nexus, Political Opinion, Guatemala: Lopez Ordonez v. Barr

Lopez Ordonez v. Barr

“Hector Daniel Lopez Ordonez was conscripted into the Guatemalan military when he was 15 years old. As part of the G-2 intelligence unit, Lopez Ordonez was ordered— and repeatedly refused—to torture and kill people. After a particularly horrific incident in which Lopez Ordonez refused to murder a five-month-old baby and threatened to report the G-2’s abuses to human rights organizations, the G-2 confined him to a hole in the ground for ten months. Upon his release, he fled to the United States. Lopez Ordonez now petitions this Court to review an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his asylum application and ordering his removal to Guatemala. The BIA determined that Lopez Ordonez did not meet the nexus requirement to establish his eligibility for asylum—that is, he did not show past persecution on account of a statutorily protected ground. The record in this case, however, compels us to conclude that Lopez Ordonez has demonstrated that one central reason for his persecution by the Guatemalan military was his political opinion, a protected ground under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). Accordingly, we vacate the BIA’s nexus determination and remand for further proceedings.”

[Hats off to Samuel B. Hartzell!]

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

“Chief Judge Gregory wrote the opinion, in which Judge Wilkinson and Judge Wynn joined.”

Beneath the smokescreens of the uncontrolled backlog and gross mismanagement at EOIR lies an uglier truth. The BIA is a politically motivated tool of the Trump regime that puts reaching preconceived denials of protection ahead of Due Process and the fair application of asylum law.

This case should have been an easy grant, probably a precedent. By requiring the DHS, the Asylum Office, and Immigration Judges to follow a properly fair and generous interpretation of asylum law that would achieve its overriding purpose of protection, an intellectually honest BIA with actual legal expertise in applying asylum laws would force an end to the racially-driven intentional perversion of asylum laws and Due Process by the Trump regime.

More cases granted at a lower level would discourage the largely frivolous attempts to deny asylum engaged in by the DHS here. It would reduce the backlog by returning asylum and other protection grants to the more appropriate 60%+ levels they were at before first the Obama Administration and now the Trump regime twisted the laws and employed various coercive methods to encourage improper denials to “deter” legitimate refugees from Central America and elsewhere from seeking protection.

With fair access to legal counsel, many more asylum cases could be well-documented and granted either by the USCIS Asylum Office (without going to Immigration Court) or in “short hearings” using party stipulations. The ability to project with consistency favorable outcomes allows and encourages ICE Assistant Chief Counsel to be more selective in the cases that they choose to fully litigate. That encourages the use of stipulations, pre-trial agreements, and prosecutorial discretion that allows almost all other courts in America, save for Immigration Courts, to control dockets without stomping on individual rights.

It would also force all Administrations to establish robust, realistic refugee programs for screening individuals nearer to the Northern Triangle to obviate the need for the journey to the Southern border. Additionally, compliance with the law would pressure our Government to work with the international community to solve the issues causing the refugee flow at their roots, in the refugee-sending countries, rather than misusing the U.S. legal system and abusing civil detention as “deterrents.”

Due Process Forever! Captive “Courts” Never!

PWS

04-18-20

IDIOCY WATCH: “Clown Courts’” 🤡🤡🤡 Refusal To Follow COVID-19 Guidelines Is Top Headline In Today’s National Law Journal — “Congress should not have believed to have adopted … a suicide pact or a death trap.”☠️⚰️😰🆘😉

Jacqueline Thomsen
Courts Reporter
National Law Journal

DOJ Said Judges Can’t Stop Immigration Hearings Over COVID-19. Cleary Gottlieb Called That a ‘Death Trap.’

Immigration lawyers and detained immigrants want U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols to temporarily stop all in-person immigration proceedings during the COVID-19 pandemic.

By Jacqueline Thomsen | April 15, 2020 at 06:35 PM

Justice Department attorneys told a federal judge in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday that he lacks the authority to temporarily halt in-person court proceedings for detained immigrants during the COVID-19 pandemic.

. . . .

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

Those will full access can go over to the NLJ for Jacqueline’s complete article.

With DOJ lawyers arguing that folks have to “exhaust their administrative remedies” (basically by risking death or serious illness) you get the general tenor of the argument before U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols in D.C.

I’d be tempted to say that during the pandemic ethical rules have been suspended for DOJ attorneys. But, in my view, that was true even before the pandemic.

And, in their defense, some of their misleading narratives and insane arguments actually WIN in Federal Court, as some Federal Judges are used to deferring to the DOJ and giving their lawyers a pass on both ethical rules and acceptable arguments that generally wouldn’t be extended to private attorneys acting in the same irresponsible manner.

What would be an acceptable response in a better functioning, ethics-biased DOJ: for the lawyers to go back to their “agency clients,” tell them that they won’t defend the indefensible, and advise them to start working immediately with the plaintiffs to develop methods for hearing only the most pressing cases under appropriate health safeguards.

Interestingly, the positions argued by DOJ lawyers are actually putting the lives of their colleagues at EOIR and their fellow Government attorneys at ICE at risk! Perhaps if they “win,” they should be given a chance to risk their lives to represent ICE in Immigration Court! Wonder how their nifty little “exhaustion arguments” would help them ward off the virus.

With 1.4 million cases already in the backlog, it’s not like any one removal more or less during the pandemic is going to make much of a difference. Unlike, perhaps, some other courts built with sufficient space and electronic support, the poorly designed “brandbox” Immigration Courts with marginal, at best, technology, are unhealthy in the best of times. Certainly, it’s difficult to imagine that there are very many cases other than perhaps bonds or stipulated “grant and release” cases that need to go forward right now.

How many lawyers (on both sides) and Immigration Judges are going to have to die before the Article IIIs finally take notice and put the brakes on the nonsense going on at EOIR?☠️⚰️☠️⚰️☠️⚰️

Due Process Forever. Clown Courts Never!🤡

PWS

04-16-20

NDPA RESOURCES: “Law You Can Use” From All-Star Practitioners Jason Dzubow and David Cleveland – How To Use The COVID-19 “Lull” To Improve Your Client’s Chances of Winning Asylum! ⚖️⚖︎ 😎

https://www.asylumist.com/2020/04/16/what-you-can-do-while-courts-are-closed-get-a-copy-of-your-file/

From The Asylumist:

Have an asylum case in Immigration Court and wondering what to do while the courts are closed? My friend David L. Cleveland has a suggestion: Get a copy of your file from the Asylum Office. David is a lawyer in Washington, DC. He has secured asylum or withholding for people from 48 countries. He can be reached at 1949.david@gmail.com.

In most cases, when an asylum applicant has their case denied at the Asylum Office, the case is referred to Immigration Court. There, Immigration Judges sometimes deny asylum because the applicant is deemed incredible. The applicant has told the Asylum Officer one thing, but then tells the Judge something different. There are many examples of Judges being annoyed by inconsistent asylum applicants–

In a New York case, the applicant was inconsistent concerning the location of children and where she was raped. Kalala v. Barr,2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 8320 (2nd Cir. 2020).

in a California case, the applicant was inconsistent concerning the name of a police station. In this case, the Asylum Officer’s notes were shown to applicant for the first time during the Individual Hearing. Sun v. Barr, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 5397 (9th Cir. 2020).

In an Ohio case, the applicant testified to being beaten inside a church. When she asked about how many members of the church were present at the time, she first said 15. Later, she testified that six church members were present. Onoori v. Barr,2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 21310 (6th Cir. 2019).

David Cleveland ESQUIRE

Now that he has a copy of his client’s file, David Cleveland is finally able to relax.

More generally, Immigration Judges are very interested in what Asylum Officers do and write. In a case decided in 2019, the phrase “Asylum Officer” is used 32 times. Qiu v. Barr,944 F.3d 837 (9th Cir. 2019). In a 2018 case, the phrase “Asylum Officer” is mentioned 57 times, and “notes” (referring to the Officer’s notes from the asylum interview) was mentioned several times. Dai v. Sessions,884 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2018). In another case, from 2014, an Asylum Officer named “Kuriakose” is mentioned 15 times. Li v. Holder,745 F.3d 336 (8th Cir. 2014).

In these cases, asylum applicant’s were deemed not credible because their Court testimony was inconsistent with their testimony at the Asylum Office. Most likely, the applicants did not have a record of what they told the Asylum Officer, and of course, since years pass between an asylum interview and an Individual Hearing, it is difficult to remember what transpired at the Asylum Office.

How can I prevent surprise in Immigration Court?

When an Asylum Officer interviews an applicant, the Officer takes detailed notes. Often, these run to 10 pages or more. Later, in consultation with his supervisor, the Officer writes an “Assessment to Refer” or an “Assessment to Grant.” This document is usually three or four pages long. If the case is referred to Court, these notes do not go to the Immigration Judge. However, they are sent to the DHS attorney (the prosecutor), who can review them and look for inconsistencies. At the Individual Hearing, the DHS attorney can use the notes to impeach an applicant’s credibility (“At the asylum interview, you testified that there were 15 people present in the church when you were beaten, but now you say there were only six. Were you lying then, or are you lying now?”).

Asylum Officers sometimes make mistakes or include unexpected information in their notes. They find some sources of information important and ignore other sources. In short, there is a subjective element to these notes that can sometimes work against the applicant and cause surprises in Immigration Court. And, as any attorney will tell you, surprises in Court are usually bad news.

To avoid a surprise in Court, and to find out what the officer wrote, the advocate should make a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request for the notes and the Assessment. Asylum Officer notes are easily available via FOIA. To obtain this information, type your request on a single piece of paper: “Give me the notes and assessment of the asylum officer.” State your name, date of birth, place of birth, address, Alien number, and sign under penalty of perjury. You do not need a lawyer; you do not need Form G-639, although you are allowed to use that form. Send your request via email to: uscis.foia@uscis.dhs.gov

In January 2020, I received the entire Asylum Officer assessment for an asylum applicant from Congo. The client and I are now more relaxed and confident about the case. We will not be surprised in Immigration Court. You can read this assessment at the FOIA page of the Louise Trauma Center. A model FOIA request can also be found at the same page.

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

Take it from me, as someone who has presided over hundreds of asylum hearings, this is great advice from two of the best to set foot in my courtroom!

As I always said in my my “mini lectures” on “Presenting an Asylum Case in Immigraton Court:” “Beware and Be Prepared!” Preparation, preparation, preparation! It’s what wins cases (and appreciation from “the bench”).

Thanks, guys!😎👍

PWS

04-16-20

BIA DENIES DUE PROCESS TO VISA PETITIONER, SAYS 9TH CIR. — Zerezghi v. USCIS

Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Immigration Community forwards this report:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca9-on-due-process-standard-of-proof-zerezghi-v-uscis

CA9 on Due Process, Standard of Proof: Zerezghi v. USCIS

Zerezghi v. USCIS

“We hold that the BIA violated due process by relying on undisclosed evidence that Zerezghi and Meskel did not have an opportunity to rebut. In making its initial determination of marriage fraud, the BIA also violated due process by applying too low a standard of proof. On remand, it must establish marriage fraud by at least a preponderance of the evidence before it can deny any subsequent immigration petition based on such a finding.”

[Hats way off to Robert Pauw!]

Robert Pauw
Founding Partner
Gibbs, Houston & Pauw
Seattle, WA

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

How totally perverse has the EOIR system become?

Well, the BIA’s sole function is to insure Due Process for individuals and to apply top-flight expertise and scholarship to keep the Immigration Courts, ICE, CBP, and USCIS in line and following the law and best practices.

Instead, the BIA has become a corner-cutting, sloppy, “rubber stamp” on DHS Enforcement and USCIS “enforcement wannabes.” Remember, early on, the Trump regime made it clear that service to the public, i.e., immigrants, their families, and their communities, was no longer “part of the mission” at USCIS. Instead, the mission is to help ICE & CBP institute politically-driven White Nationalist xenophobic enforcement initiatives.

USCIS was created as a separate agency under DHS specifically to allow service to the immigrant community to flourish without the subservience to law enforcement often present and institutionalized at the “Legacy INS.” However, this regime and its toadies in DHS “Management” have seen fit to recreate the very same conflicts of interest and enforcement dominance that USCIS was created to overcome. In most ways, things are far worse than they ever were at the “Legacy INS.” And, let’s remember that USCIS is funded largely by user fees collected from the public on the now largely fictional rationale that they are getting valuable and professionalized services. What a complete mess and abuse of public funding!

Moreover, given the BIA’s lousy performance, rather than assisting the Article III Courts, it now all too often falls to the Article IIIs to keep the BIA in line and do its job for it. But, given the wide disparity in interest levels, expertise, and integrity among the Article IIIs, the results have been spotty.

Some Article III Judges step up and do the job; others sweep the chronic problems under the table and look the other way as rights are trampled and service to the public mocked. And, no Article III to date has been courageous and scholarly enough to take on the real problem: the glaring unconstitutionality under the Due Process Clause of a so-called “court” controlled, staffed, and evaluated by a highly biased prosecutor empowered to reverse individual case outcomes that don’t match his political agenda!

A glimpse of future horrors to come: Emboldened by Article III complicity, and egged on by the White Nationalist nativists, EOIR now outrageously proposes to charge astronomically higher fees for its shabby, biased, and ever deteriorating “work product.” This is a transparent attempt to further restrict access to justice for the most vulnerable among us. Another clear denial of Due Process!

Yes, Congress is responsible. Yes, Congress is largely in failure. But, that doesn’t absolve the Article IIIs of their duty to the Constitution, the rule of law, and human decency. Will they finally wake up, act with some courage, and do their jobs? Or, will they engage in further “judicial task avoidance” until it’s too late for all of us?

Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-16-20

INSPIRING NEWS FROM THE NDPA: LATEST FIFTH CIRCUIT DECISION SHOWS WHY TODAY’S BIA NOT ENTITLED TO “DEFERENCE” AS AN “EXPERT TRIBUNAL” — Read Professor Geoffrey Hoffman’s Outstanding Analysis of Latest Rap on BIA’s Skewed Jurisprudence — Inestroza-Antonelli v. Barr — @ ImmigrationProf Blog

nhttps://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2020/04/geoffrey-hoffman-a-stunning-fifth-circuit-asylum-decision-an-analysis-of-inestroza-antonelli-v-barr.html

Professor Geoffrey Hoffman
Immigraton Clinic Director
University of Houston Law Center

Geoffrey writeS in ImmigrationProf Blog.

A Stunning Fifth Circuit Asylum Decision: An Analysis of Inestroza-Antonelli v. Barr by Geoffrey Hoffman, Clinical Professor, University of Houston Law Center

I was moved this morning to write about a recent decision from the Fifth Circuit. This is an insightful and sensitive decision from the 2-person panel’s majority, Judges Dennis and King, with Judge Jones dissenting. The April 9th decision is Inestroza-Antonelli v. Barr.

In the very first paragraph, the essence of the decision is announced: “Without addressing the coup, the BIA found that any change in gender based violence was incremental or incidental and not material. Because this conclusion is not supported by the record, we grant the petition and remand.” Id. at 1.

Procedurally, the case involved an in absentia order of removal from 2005. In 2017, the petitioner moved to reopen proceedings outside the 90-day deadline for such motions based on a change in country conditions in Honduras. The petitioner argued that in Honduras since the time of her original removal order there had been “a 263.4 percent increase in violence against women since 2005.” She submitted a trove of documents to support her motion. The Immigration Judge, and Board on appeal denied her motion to reopen.

As recounted in the panel’s decision, there had been a military coup in Honduras in 2009. Specifically, there were several principal changes in the country as a result: “(1) the Gender Unit of the Honduran National Police, established between 2004 and 2005, has been restricted in its operations, and access to the Unit is now limited or nonexistent; (2) the power of the Municipal Offices for Women to address domestic violence has been severely diluted, and officials have been removed from their positions for responding to women’s needs, especially those related to domestic violence; (3) institutional actors have targeted women for violence, including sexual violence, and threatened the legal status of over 5,000 nongovernmental women’s, feminist, and human rights organizations that have opposed the post-coup government’s policies; (4) the rate of homicides of women more than doubled in the year after the coup and has continued to steadily increase, ultimately becoming the second highest cause of death for women of reproductive age; and (5) in 2014, the status of the National Institute for Women was downgraded and other resources for female victims of violence were eliminated….”

The crux of the Immigration Judge’s decision in denying her motion to reopen was that the violence suffered by women in Honduras is an “ongoing problem” and the increase allegedly did not represent a “change in country conditions.” The Board, in its decision, did not even mention the coup, finding instead that the IJ had not clearly erred” because the evidence reflected only an “incremental or incidental,” rather than a “material” change in country conditions.

I would like to point out several noteworthy and instructive aspects of this excellent decision.

First, in analyzing her claim, the Fifth Circuit’s majority noted, as is usual, that the government had introduced “no conflicting evidence.” Indeed, they did not introduce any evidence of country conditions in Honduras at all. Instead, on appeal they “cherry-pick[ed]” excerpts from the evidence introduced by the petitioner. Most typically, the relied on a 2014 Department of State report describing the availability of “domestic violence shelters and municipal women’s offices.”

This first point is important because it accurately describes what is typical of these asylum proceedings. The government often relies on little beyond the State report, and introduces no other evidence of its own. The result sometimes leads to tortured arguments on appeal, nitpicking before the Board, or unfair conclusions before the immigration judge.

It is frustrating sometimes when we litigate these cases and we see parties attempt to shoehorn their conclusions into preconceived molds. This selective reasoning should be called out more often. Many times when confronted with a record that contains a treasure trove of material that is largely favorable to the immigrant, the government is at a loss about how to respond on appeal. Instead of agreeing to a remand, they are faced with defending a sparse record with support for their position. As such, they have to (assuming they do not agree to a remand) cull through the record to find anything to shore up the precarious reasoning in the administrative decisions below.

Second, the majority rejects reliance on a prior case where a petitioner had not presented sufficient evidence of changed country conditions. As astutely pointed out by the majority, it makes no sense to hold that the current petitioner is unable to meet her evidentiary burden merely because a prior petitioner had failed to do so. In the words of the majority, “to hold that Inestroza-Antonelli is precluded from proving that conditions changed as a factual matter during this period simply because a previous petitioner failed to do so would violate the ‘basic premise of preclusion’—i.e., ‘that parties to a prior action are bound and nonparties are not bound.’ Id. at 7 (citing 18A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4449 (3d ed. 2019)). It is refreshing to see a panel rely on the famous federal practice and procedure treatise.

Third, the decision does a wonderful job of elucidating the “substantial evidence” standard, which is used so often against the immigrant-petitioner. Here, the majority explains that this standard does not mean that the Court of Appeals reviews the BIA decision to determine whether “there theoretically could have been some unevidenced occurrence that would make its findings correct.” Id. at 5 (emphasis added). Instead, the “substantial evidence” standard just means what it says: whether a party has produced substantial evidence in support of their position. Here, the government – as noted – provided no evidence against the petitioner’s position. In fact, the record “compels” the conclusion that conditions have “significantly changed,” according to the majority.

Fourth, the decision takes to task the BIA’s lack of analysis in its decision, specifically the failure on the part of the agency even to mention the “coup” in Honduras. Instead, there was nothing but a conclusory statement that the Board had “considered [the petitioner’s] arguments.” We have seen, for example, other courts of appeals such as the Seventh Circuit, take to task the BIA in recent months. See Baez-Sanchez v. Barr (7th Cir. 2020) (Easterbrook, J.) . It is a very good sign that circuit courts are making searching inquiries, demanding compliance from the Board and EOIR, and not engaging in mere cursory review.

There was a frustration shown in that, as they noted, the Board evidenced a “complete failure” to address the “uncontroverted evidence” of a clear significant “turning point” in Honduras’ history. The majority characterized this failure as an abuse of discretion by the BIA. On a separate point concerning the Board’s rejection of an argument about her abusive husband’s return to Honduras in 2009, as a changed in country conditions, the majority stopped short of calling that argument’s rejection an “abuse of discretion.” In a footnote, the majority noted several sister circuits that agreed that such a change should be characterized as a change in “personal circumstances.”

The most notable thing about the panel’s 2-1 decision besides its well thought-out reasoning is the lack of any discussion involving Matter of A-B-, 27 I & N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018), anywhere in either the majority’s or dissent’s decisions. Arguably, A-B- is related and has been used (routinely) by the government to argue against relief for women who are similarly situated. Because this case turned on a denial of a motion to reopen in 2017, and there was no Attorney General’s decision until 2018, there was no occasion for the IJ and, later, the BIA rely on the AG’s A-B- decision. To the extent that AG Sessions in A-B- did not rule out all gender-based violence claims, the more important take away here is this: Matter of A-B- can be overcome and is no prohibition on relief, despite what a number of judges and BIA members may believe, so long as the petitioner can produce substantial evidence in support of his or her claims, as the petitioner did so well here. (Note, since this decision relates to a motion to reopen, the case will now be remanded to the BIA and IJ and the petitioner’s fight will continue on remand.)

Judge Edith Jones in her dissent, while never relying outright on A-B-, still takes affront at the perceived failure to “defer” to the BIA. In a telling passage, she states: “The majority has failed to defer to the BIA, which, hearing no doubt hundreds (or thousands) of cases from Honduras, must be far more familiar with country conditions than judges working from our isolated perch . . . . .” This is a scary position. While it is true the BIA has heard thousands of cases from Honduras, this cannot and should not form the basis for any rationale to blindly “defer” to the Board.

This type of deference and the attempted “rubber-stamping” that it engenders was exactly what Justice Kennedy warned about in his short but biting concurrence in Pereira v. Sessions. To quote Justice Kennedy, the “type of reflexive deference exhibited in some of these cases is troubling…it seems necessary and appropriate to reconsider, in an appropriate case, the premises that underlie Chevron and how courts have implemented that decision.” Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105, 2121 (2018), Kennedy, J., concurring (emphasis added). Justice Kennedy was right. The dissent’s transparent and clearly forthright encapsulation of the arguments in favor of “deference” highlights the dangers inherent in such a position and shows just why Chevron must (and will) be reconsidered.

Geoffrey Hoffman, Clinical Professor, University of Houston Law Center, Immigration Clinic Director

(Individual capacity; Institution for identification only)

KJ

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

Judge Jones’s dissent ignores the clear evidence that the BIA is no longer anything approaching an “expert tribunal,” and that it’s jurisprudence has swung sharply in an anti-immigrant, and specifically anti-asylum, direction under Sessions, Whitaker, and Barr.

How long can the Article IIIs keep “papering over” not only the all too often deficient work-product produced by today’s BIA, but, more significantly, the glaring unconstitutionality of a system constructed and run by prosecutors and politicos that purports to function like a “court.” I doubt that Judge Jones would be willing to trust her life to a “court” that was composed and run like EOIR. So, why aren’t other “persons” entitled to the same Constitutional treatment and human dignity that she would expect if their positions were reversed?

In the meantime, I wholeheartedly endorse Geoffrey’s observation that even in the “Age of A-B-,” and in the normally “asylum-unfriendly” Fifth Circuit, great scholarship, persistence, and good lawyering can save lives! We just need more “good lawyers” out there in th NDPA to keep pressing the fight until all of the Article III’s stop “going along to get along” with the charade currently unfolding at EOIR and we also get the “regime change” necessary to establish an Article I Immigration Court that functions like a “real court” rather than a surreal vision of a court.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-13-20

HEAR IT FROM AN EXPERT: Trump’s Illegal Obliteration of Asylum Law Part of The Demise of The Rule of Law In America! — Professor Lucas Guttentag Eviscerates Trump’s Scofflaw Action!

https://www.justsecurity.org/69640/coronavirus-border-expulsions-cdcs-assault-on-asylum-seekers-and-unaccompanied-minors/

Lucas writes in Just Security:

The Trump administration’s novel COVID-19 border ban invokes public health authority to erect a shadow immigration enforcement power in violation of the Refugee Act, legal safeguards for unaccompanied minors, and fundamental procedural rights. Relying on an obscure 1944 provision that provides no authority for immigration removals, the Centers for Disease Control purports to authorize summary Border Patrol expulsions of asylum seekers.

On March 20, the Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”) issued a largely unnoticed but sweeping order authorizing the summary expulsion of noncitizens arriving at the border without valid documents. The Order operates wholly outside the normal immigration removal process and provides no opportunity for hearings or assertion of asylum claims. It deploys a medical quarantine authorization to override the protections of the immigration and refugee laws through the use of an unreviewable Border Patrol health “expulsion” mechanism unrelated to any finding of disease or contagion.

How the COVID-19 Expulsion Policy Works

The CDC Order is based on an emergency Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Interim Final Rule issued simultaneously with the Order under the authority of an obscure provision of the 1944 Public Health Service Act. Section 362 of that Act authorizes the Surgeon General to suspend “introduction of persons or goods” into the United States on public health grounds. Based on an unprecedented interpretation of the 1944 Act, the CDC regulation invokes the COVID-19 pandemic to redefine what constitutes “introduction of persons” and “introduction of communicable diseases” into the United States. It establishes a summary immigration expulsion process that ignores the statutory regime governing border arrivals and disregards the protections and procedures mandated by the 1980 Refugee Act and Refugee Convention as well as the special safeguards for unaccompanied minors under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (“TVPRA”).

The CDC Order “suspending introduction of certain persons” applies to land travel from two countries, Mexico and Canada, and only to those noncitizens defined as “covered aliens.” That definition is unrelated to infection or disease. It includes only those who arrive by land without valid travel documents and immediately “suspends” their “introduction” for a renewable period of 30 days. In actuality the Order singles out those who seek asylum – and children – to order them removed to the country from which they entered or their home country “as rapidly as possible.” A recently leaked Customs and Border Protection directive makes clear that expulsion is the goal and that no process is provided.

The Order’s stated rationale is the risk alleged from “covered aliens” being crowded in “congregate settings.” The apparent justification for bypassing all legal protections and procedures is the CBP’s assertion that Border Patrol officers are “not operating pursuant to” their authority under the immigration laws.

This shadow immigration expulsion regime is not part of some coherent public health or safety plan to seal our borders or to diminish the risk of COVID-19’s introduction into the U.S. A web of other proclamations and restrictions leave open many avenues for other travelers to enter the United States. The risk of processing in congregate settings is a function of DHS’s own practices and policies; it is also not unique to land borders.

The CDC order is designed to accomplish under the guise of public health a dismantling of legal protections governing border arrivals that the Trump administration has been unable to achieve under the immigration laws. For more than a year, the administration has sought unsuccessfully to undo the asylum system at the southern border claiming that exigencies and limited government resources compel abrogating rights and protections for refugees and other noncitizens. The courts have rebuffed those attempts in critical respects. Now the administration has seized on a public health crisis to impose all it has been seeking – and more.

Unquestionably, the United States faces a pandemic of unknown scope and duration that has led to the greatest social and economic disruption and restrictions on personal movement in our lifetime. The hospital and healthcare system is under siege and threatened with collapse in some areas. Infected persons can be asymptomatic and may not be detected. The addition of contagious individuals can exacerbate spread of the virus, place additional strains on hospitals, pose dangers to healthcare workers and law enforcement officers, and increase the risk of infection for others.

But the COVID-19 ban is an act of medical gerrymandering. It is crafted to override critical legal rights and safeguards in singling out only those arriving at the border without authorization and deeming that class of people a unique and unmitigable public health threat. It tries to justify an end-run around congressionally mandated procedural rights and protections essential for refugees and unaccompanied minors and it does so to achieve an impermissible goal. What’s additionally shocking here: the statutory provision does not actually give the executive branch expulsion authority.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of Lucas’s “mini treatise” at the above link.

The law is clearly against Trump here, as Lucas so eloquently and cogently sets forth. But, that doesn’t necessarily mean much in an era of a feckless GOP-stymied Congress and an authoritarian-coddling righty Supremes’ majority led by Roberts and his four sidekicks.

The Supremes have delivered a strong message to the lower Federal Courts that Trump can do just about anything he wants to migrants. He just has to invoke some transparently bogus “national security” or “emergency” rationale for ignoring the Constitution and statutes.

It’s “Dred Scottification” in full force. Largely the same way the courts buried the rights and humanity of African Americans to enable a century plus of “Jim Crow” following the end of the Civil War. The “law of the land” just became meaningless for certain people and in certain jurisdictions. “Any ol’ justification” — states’ rights, separate but equal, no jurisdiction, etc. — was more than enough to read Africans-American citizens out of their Constitutional and other legal protections.

Don’t kid yourself. That’s exactly what Trump, the GOP, and the Supremes’ majority are up to here.

And, the amazing thing, here in 21st Century America, they are getting alway with it! In plain sight!

This November, Vote Like Your Life Depends On It! Because It Does!

PWS

04-13-20

“MALICIOUS INCOMPETENCE” IS COSTLY: In a Functioning System, DHS Would Release As Many Detainees As Possible Applying “Best Health Guidance” & EOIR Judges Would Insure Prompt, Uniform Compliance By DHS – Under Today’s Totally Dysfunctional System, It Rests With Private Attorneys & U.S. District Judges Across America To Do The Job That DHS & EOIR Won’t – Not Surprisingly, The Results Are Expensive, Time-Consuming, & Uneven!

Andrea Castillo
Immigration Reporter
LA Times

https://edition.pagesuite.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?guid=910bd5e6-d0d0-4291-af81-af2ba51ed37d&v=sdk

Andrea Castillo and Brittny Mejia report for the LA Times:

For weeks, as the coronavirus spread, Jose Hernandez Velasquez worried about the dangers of being detained inside the Adelanto ICE Processing Center 80 miles east of Los Angeles.

The 19-year-old Guatemalan immigrant listened uneasily as other men called their families, begging them to do everything possible to get them released so as to reduce their odds of contracting the deadly illness.

Ultimately, in light of the pandemic, a federal judge ordered immigration authorities to release Hernandez, an asylum seeker with hypertension who had spent nearly 21/2 years at the facility. When a guard came to tell him the news, Hernandez was speechless. Other detainees burst into applause.

“I was really worried,” he said in a phone call after his release. “It was so difficult to be inside.”

As an increasing number of Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainees across the country test positive for COVID-19, California lawyers are working to free as many clients as they can by invoking constitutional rights and arguing on humanitarian grounds. In the last two weeks, U.S. District Judge Terry Hatter Jr. ordered at least 10 people released from Adelanto, one of the country’s largest detention centers, holding nearly 2,000 people.

It’s unclear how many detainees have been released nationwide because of coronavirus concerns. In recent weeks, federal judges across the country have ordered the release of more than 40 detainees.

Like Hernandez, most have been released after lawyers petitioned federal courts on their behalf. Others have been released on bond or through humanitarian parole, which is free to people with a compelling emergency.

In response to the pandemic, ICE has instructed field offices to assess and consider for release those deemed to be at greater risk of exposure, reviewing cases of individuals age 60 and older, as well as those who are pregnant.

In court filings, ICE has argued that concern about detainees contracting COVID-19 is “based on mere speculation” and that releasing large numbers of them would set a precedent that would persist even after the virus subsides.

Until ICE agrees to release more detainees, “you’re going to keep seeing petitions like this,” said Jessica Bansal, senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, which got Hernandez and others released from Adelanto. “Because people need to get out.”

The ACLU has sued ICE facilities in multiple states over coronavirus concerns.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of the article at the above link.

Empowering a regime that functions in such a contemptuous, cruel, and incompetent manner is insane and wasteful to boot. Everyone, including the legitimate needs of DHS enforcement (not much resemblance to the current racially-driven scofflaw mess) would benefit from a professionalized, accountable, and properly focused DHS and an independent, due process with efficiency-oriented U.S. Immigration Court.

Immigration enforcement could focus on priorities that actually relate to the safety and security of our nation, the private and NGO immigration bar could expand individual case representation before the Immigration Courts thus promoting efficiency with due process, and the U.S. District Courts could return to other cases. It would be a win-win-win, notwithstanding the bogus blather of the White Nationalist restrictionists who seek to use the pandemic as a weapon to “zero out” legal immigration and force all migration into the “black market” where it can more easily be exploited and abused by them and their cronies.

Due Process Forever! Malicious Incompetence Never!

PWS

04-13-20

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Clown Courts 🤡☠️ Never!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Deadly ☠️ Clown Courts, 🤡 Never!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Clown Courts 🤡 Never!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Kakistocracy Never!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Captive Courts & Complicit Judges, Never!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Captive “Courts” Never!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever. Clown Courts Never!🤡

Related posts:

As I always said in my my “mini lectures” on “Presenting an Asylum Case in Immigraton Court:” “Beware and Be Prepared!” Preparation, preparation, preparation! It’s what wins cases (and appreciation from “the bench”).

Related posts:

CA9 on Due Process, Standard of Proof: Zerezghi v. USCIS

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

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

This November, Vote Like Your Life Depends On It! Because It Does!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Malicious Incompetence Never!

Related posts: