"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
“Singh experienced multiple physical attacks and death threats over an eight-month period, from November of 2014 to June of 2015. No reasonable factfinder would conclude that Singh did not experience serious harm rising to the level of persecution. … For all these reasons we find that the record compels a finding that Singh suffered harm rising to the level of persecution. … [T]he BIA did not independently analyze relocation and determine that the government met its burden. Rather, the BIA expressly adopted the IJ’s reasons for finding that internal relocation was safe and reasonable. In doing so, the BIA adopted the IJ’s flawed relocation analysis, which did not afford Singh the presumption of past persecution or shift the burden to the government to prove that Singh can safely and reasonably relocate within India. … In sum, because the BIA erred in its relocation analysis, we grant Singh’s petition to review his claim for asylum and remand to the BIA for consideration in light of Singh v. Whitaker, 914 F.3d 654. … For the reasons set forth above, we GRANT Singh’s petition in part and REMAND to the BIA to consider (1) whether Singh is eligible for asylum because he suffered past persecution on account of statutorily protected grounds by the government or individuals whom the government was unable or unwilling to control; (2) if so, whether the DHS rebutted the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution; and (3) whether Singh is entitled to withholding of removal.”
“The agency entirely overlooked evidence material to the hardship determination in this case: evidence regarding Mendez’s serious back injury and its implications for his ability to support his qualifying relatives through work in El Salvador. … The BIA’s decision is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this order.”
H. Raymond Fasano, Esquire PHOTO: Super Lawyers Profile
—Daniel M. KowalskiEditor-in-ChiefBender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)
******************
What if a brain surgeon or a heart surgeon were routinely engaging in “surgical malpractice?” Wouldn’t it be a cause for grave concern?🤯
Almost every week, sometimes multiple times, the BIA mishandles the basics in potential “life or death” cases. Yet, Garland somehow shrugs it off! This not only adds to the “dehumanization” of migrants (their lives don’t count), but also badly skews the statistical profile that undergirds much of the misguided immigration (non) dialogue.
If the anti-immigrant, anti-asylum, huge “over-denial” problem at EOIR were addressed with better qualified judges and adjudicators, it would become apparent that many more, probably a majority, of those caught up in the dysfunction at EOIR and the Asylum Office are qualified to remain in the U.S. in some status. And, proper positive precedents would guide practitioners, ICE Counsel, Immigration Judges, and Asylum Officers to correct results without protracted litigation that eventually burdens the Courts of Appeals, causes avoidable remands, fuels “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” and contributes mightily to the mushrooming EOIR backlog!
As a result, these cases could be prepared, prioritized, granted, and individuals could get on with their lives and maximize their human potential to help our nation — just as generations before them have done including the ancestors of almost all Americans! How soon some of us forget!
The real, largely self-created, “immigration crisis,” is NOT insufficient “deterrence, detention, and cruelty” at the border! It’s the grotesque failure of all three branches of Government to insist on a fair, timely, well-staffed, professionally-managed, due-process-compliant adjudication, review, and resettlement system for asylum seekers and other immigrants. It’s also the ongoing attempt to “cover up” and minimize our Government’s mistreatment of asylum seekers, particularly those asserting their legal right to apply at our borders and in the interior regardless of status!
The racially-driven “targeting” of asylum seekers at the border is a ruse designed to deflect attention from the realities of human migration, what drives it, and the failure of governments across the board to come to grips with them and to fulfill their legal responsibilities to treat all persons fairly, humanely, and in accordance with correct interpretations and applications of the law!
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
Here’s additional commentary on Singh from my Round Table ⚖️⚔️ colleague “Sir Jeffrey” Chase:
The IJ was really determined to deny on this one. And I guess Vandyke had filled his quota of once in a lifetime for finding fault with the government, and thus had no choice but to dissent.
How would YOU like to face a system “determined to deny” with your life on the line? How would Garland like it?
Actually, under the generous “well-founded fear” standard applicable to asylum (Cardoza-Fonseca/Mogharrabi) and the authoritative guidance in the U.N. Handbook on adjudication, applicants like Singh who testify credibly are supposed to be given “the benefit of the doubt.” Garland has, quite improperly, like his immediate predecessors, allowed this key humanitarian legal principle to be mocked at EOIR! Instead, as cogently pointed out by “Sir Jeffrey,” here the IJ and the BIA actually went the “extra mile” to think of “any reason to deny” — even totally specious ones!
Also, half-baked, legally deficient “reasonably available internal relocation analysis”is a long-standing, chronic problem at EOIR, despite a regulation setting forth analytical factors that should be evaluated. Few, if any, such legitimate opportunities are “reasonably available” in most countries sending asylum applicants!
Moreover, once past persecution is established, the DHS has the burden of showing that there is a reasonably available internal relocation alternative, something that they almost never can prove by a preponderance of the evidence! Indeed, in my experience, the DHS almost never put in such evidence beyond rote citations to generalized language in DOS Country Reports!
The “judicial competency/bias” problems plaguing EOIR are large and well documented. Yet, Garland pretends like they don’t exist!
Has Alfred E. Neumann been “reborn” as Judge Merrick Garland? “Not my friends or relatives whose lives as being destroyed by my ‘Kangaroo Courts.’ Just ‘the others’ and their immigration lawyers, so who cares, why worry about professionalism, ethics, and due process in Immigration Court?” PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
BIA panel gets ready to “gun down” — in “cold blood” — another meritorious appeal by immigrant! Court orders are no match for this gang that “shoots from the hip.” PHOTO: Republic Pictures (1957), Public Domain
Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration Community:
“For the second time, petitioner Irma Aguilar-Escoto, a native and citizen of Honduras, asks us to vacate the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA” or the “Board”) rejection of her claim for withholding of removal. When this case was last before us, we vacated the BIA’s prior order and instructed the Board to consider the potentially significant documentary evidence submitted in support of Aguilar’s claim. See Aguilar-Escoto v. Sessions, 874 F.3d 334, 335 (1st Cir. 2017). Today, we conclude that the BIA again failed to properly consider significant documentary evidence. Consequently, we vacate the Board’s removal order and remand for further proceedings.”
[Hats off to Kenyon C. Hall, with whom Jack W. Pirozzolo, Sidley Austin, LLP, Charles G. Roth, National Immigrant Justice Center, and Carlos E. Estrada were on brief, for petitioner!]
*******************
This case is a microcosm of everything that’s wrong about EOIR, a “captive,” denial-biased “court” system operating within the DOJ, an enforcement agency within the Executive Branch, over three different Administrations — two Dem and one GOP! But, there is more to this story!
THE REST OF THE STORY:
In 2013, this respondent appeared before an IJ and presented a well-documented claim for withholding of removal to Honduras based on domestic violence. Among the respondent’s documentation were a psychological report, three police reports, a medical report from Honduras, a protection order from a Honduran court, the respondent’s declaration, and affidavits from family members. In the first flawed decision, in 2014, the IJ denied the claim.
The respondent appealed to the BIA. In another flawed decision, entered in 2016, the BIA denied the appeal. In doing so, the BIA denied an asylum claim that the respondent did not make and ignored key documentary evidence that went to the heart of the respondent’s claim. This suggests that the BIA merely slapped a “form denial” on the case which reflected neither the nature of the case below nor the actual record before them. Immigration practitioners say this type of performance is all too common in the dystopian world of EOIR.
Consequently, the respondent, represented pro bono by NDPA stalwart Carlos E. Estrada, a solo practitioner, sought review in the First Circuit. That petition succeeded! In 2017, the First Circuit vacated the BIA’s erroneous decision and directed the BIA to redo the case, this time considering the material, independent evidence of persecution that the BIA had previously ignored.
At this point, the respondent and her attorney had every reason to believe that their ordeal was over and that justice, and potentially life-saving protection, was “just around the corner.” But, alas, those hopes were dashed!
The BIA botched it again! In 2018, in what appeared to be one of the BIA’s “standard any reason to deny” opinions, the BIA purported to “affirm” the 2014 flawed decision of the IJ. In doing so, “the BIA erred by failing to follow this Court’s [1st Circuit’s] instruction to independently consider on remand the documentary evidence and to determine whether that evidence sufficed to establish past persecution.” Basically a “polite description” of “contempt of court” by the BIA.
Among the problems, the BIA failed to mention or evaluate one of the police reports that went directly to the basis for the BIA’s denial. Indeed, in a rather brutal example example of just how un-seriously the BIA took the court’s order, they erroneously stated that there were only two police reports. Actually, the record contained THREE such reports — since 2013!
Faced with the need for yet a second trip to the First Circuit, pro bono solo practitioner Carlos Estrada was “stretched to his pro bono limits.” Fortunately, the amazing pro bono lawyers at Sidley Austin LLP and National Immigrant Justice Center (“NIJC”) heeded the call and assisted Estrada and his client in their second petition for review.
With help from this “team of experts,” for the second time, the respondent “bested” EOIR and DOJ in the Circuit! While conceding that the BIA had errored in not complying with the court order, OIL, now under the direction of Dem A.G. Merrick Garland, advanced specious “alternative reasons” for upholding the BIA’s second flawed decision. These were emphatically rejected by the First Circuit! That court also noted that the (supposedly “expert”) BIA had applied the wrong legal standard in the case!
A rational person might think that after nearly a decade, this “charade of justice” would finally end, and the respondent would get her long-delayed, thrice-erroneously-denied relief. But, that’s not the way this dysfunctional and disreputable system works (or, in too many cases, doesn’t).
The First Circuit “remanded” the case to EOIR a second time, thus giving the BIA a totally undeserved THIRD CHANCE to improperly deny relief. Who knows if they will, or when they might get around to acting.
But, within Garland’s dystopian system, which lacks quality control, doesn’t require recognized expertise in human rights from its “judges,” and tolerates a BIA dominated by Trump-appointed appellate judges known for their records of hostility to asylum and related forms of protection from persecution and/or torture, a result favorable to the respondent, within her lifetime, is far from guaranteed.
As Attorney Carlos Estrada summed it up to me, “I just couldn’t do it [the second petition for review] pro bono by myself. I’m a solo practitioner. Such a waste of time and effort.”
Indeed, Garland’s failure to institute even minimal standards of due process, fundamental fairness, impartiality, expertise in his EOIR “court” system is unfairly stretching scarce pro bono resources beyond the limits, as well as denying timely, often life-saving or life-determining justice to individuals.
In a fair, functional, professional system, Estrada, Sidley Austin, and NIJC could be helping others in dire need of pro bono assistance. The respondent could have been enjoying for the last decade a “durable” grant of protection from persecution instead of having her life “up in the air” because of defective decision-making at EOIR and ill-advised “defenses” by OIL. The system could be adjudicating new cases and claims, instead of doing the same cases over and over, for a decade, at three levels of our justice system, without getting them right.
If you wonder why Garland’s broken EOIR is running an astounding 2.1 million case backlog, it’s NOT primarily because of the actions of respondents and their lawyers, if any! It has much to do with “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” in “full swing” under Garland, incredibly poor judicial administration by DOJ/EOIR, poor judging by too many incumbents who lack the necessary expertise and demonstrated commitment to due process and fundamental fairness, poor administrative and judicial practices, inadequate training, and a toxic “culture of denial and disrespect for immigrants’ rights” that has been festering for years!
Do YOU think that sagas like this represent a proper approach to “justice in America at the retail level.” I don’t! But, incidents like this occur on a daily basis at EOIR, even if most escape the public spotlight!
“Out of sight, out of mind!” But, sadly, not so for the individuals whose lives are damaged by this system and their long-suffering attorneys, whose plights continue to be studiously ignored by Garland and his lieutenants. (Has Garland EVER offered to meet with the private, pro bono bar to find out what really is happening in “his” courts and how he might fix it? Not to my knowledge!)
Hats way off to Carlos E. Estrada, Esquire; Kenyon C. Hall, Jack W. Pirozzolo, and the rest of the folks at Sidley Austin, LLP (I note that Sidley generously has provided outstanding pro bono briefing assistance to our “Round Table” in the past); and Charles G. Roth and his team at the National Immigrant Justice Center for this favorable outcome and for insuring that justice is done. Garland and the Dems might not care about justice for persons in the U.S. who happen to be migrants, but YOU do! That, my friends, makes all the difference in human lives and in our nation’s as yet unfulfilled promise of “equal justice for all.”
What kind of “judges” would “defy” the evidence of record to wrongfully deny asylum? https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
Read the 3rd Circuit’s (unfortunately) unpublished decision here:
The IJ credited Bimpong’s testimony, and the BIA did not disturb this finding. Yet the BIA concluded that Bimpong’s persecution was a personal land dispute that lacked any nexus to his membership in the Ashanti tribe. In doing so, the BIA deferred to the IJ’s conclusion that “the record is devoid of any evidence indicating that the [Enzema] Tribe targeted the applicant because of membership in the Ashanti Tribe.” AR 97 (emphasis added). That conclusion defies the record, which is replete with evidence that Bimpong’s tribal affiliation was a central reason for his persecution. See, e.g., AR 157, 162-63, 167–68, 185, 596, 598. For example, Bimpong testified that members of
the Enzema “did not want the land that [he] possessed to be owned by non-members of 4
the Enzema tribe,” AR 596, and that he “was a target of persecution because of [an] intertribal dispute between the Enzema tribe and Ashanti tribe.” AR 598.
****************
Typical BIA BS prejudged, form denial “boilerplate.” “Devoid of evidence” — gimmie a break! We tried (obviously unsuccessfully) to eliminate this type of non-analytical nonsense several decades ago. It’s indicative of a totally broken system that is unfair and biased against migrants! Why is Garland allowing this continuing systemic injustice?
Demand that Garland replace his inept, unprofessional, unconstitutional, “Trump holdover” BIA with real judges who are experts in immigration, asylum, human rights, and fully committed to due process and fundamental fairness!
To quote my good friend and Round Table 🛡 colleague, Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase:
At the IJ level, the ACIJs have to be charged with determining if the IJ actually doesn’t know the law, or if they are choosing not to follow it. Of course, you need ACIJs who actually know immigration law, which isn’t always the case anymore. If it’s the former, you schedule additional training; if it’s the latter, they may need to suspend or remove the IJ. That should be a priority for the next Chief IJ.
But why isn’t this being caught at the BIA level? They continue to act as a rubber stamp. There have been a few cases just in the past couple of weeks where the errors were really major and apparent.
A BIA that would “rubber stamp” denials without question or meaningful analysis so that OIL could then argue “deference” to railroad refugees and other individuals entitled to relief out of the country is precisely what Barr and Sessions intended to create. In other words, a “parody of justice” that would carry out the White Nationalist restrictionist agenda without giving it any thought. And, it’s no coincidence that this unconstitutional agenda falls hardest on the backs of asylum seekers and other migrants of color. It also serves to reinforce the vile concept that individuals of color in the U.S. are not equal under the law.
The real question here is why Garland hasn’t effectively changed the system by bringing in real judges who are experts in immigration and human rights and who would be fair to all coming before his Immigration Courts regardless of race or status? “Gradual change” is unacceptable when individuals (and their conscientious representatives) are being subjected to deadly quasi-judicial incompetence on a daily basis. Tell Garland you’ve had enough!
“EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept
Clinicians affiliated with medical human rights programs throughout the United States perform forensic evaluations of asylum seekers. Much of the best practice literature reflects the perspectives of clinicians and attorneys, rather than the viewpoints of immigration judges who incorporate forensic reports into their decision-making. The purpose of this study was to assess former immigration judges’ perspectives on forensic mental health evaluations of asylum seekers. We examined the factors that immigration judges use to assess the affidavits resulting from mental health evaluations and explored their attitudes toward telehealth evaluations. We conducted semistructured interviews in April and May 2020 with nine former judges and systematically analyzed them using consensual qualitative research methodology. Our findings were grouped in five domains: general preferences for affidavits; roles of affidavits in current legal climate; appraisal and comparison of sample affidavits; attitudes toward telephonic evaluations; and recommendations for telephonic evaluations. Forensic evaluators should consider the practice recommendations of judges, both for telephonic and in-person evaluations, which can bolster the usefulness of their evaluations in the adjudication process. To our knowledge, this is the first published study to incorporate immigration judges’ perceptions of forensic mental health evaluations, and the first to assess judges’ attitudes toward telephonic evaluations.
Across the United States, clinicians working in collaboration with medical asylum clinics and torture treatment programs conduct forensic evaluations of asylum seekers.1,–,5 In such evaluations, clinicians investigate the physical and psychiatric sequelae of human rights abuses and document their findings in medico-legal affidavits that are submitted to the immigration judge as part of an individual’s application for immigration relief.1,6,7 The affidavits provide the evaluators’ written testimony explaining to a judge the relevance of their findings (e.g., the impact of trauma on memory). Medical providers experienced in conducting forensic evaluations have worked in consultation with attorneys to establish and disseminate best-practice guidelines for evaluations.6,–,10 Much of the best-practice literature reflects the perspectives of clinicians and attorneys, rather than the viewpoints of immigration judges who apply forensic reports in their decision-making. (One notable exception was a presentation of suggestions for writing medico-legal affidavits based on a qualitative study of a sample that included immigration judges, clinicians, and attorneys.11) As a result, forensic medical evaluators have limited insight into how immigration judges view the content of affidavits or how the documentation of forensic evaluations affects asylum cases.
In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, medical human rights programs have transitioned to conducting forensic evaluations by telephone or video.12,13 Forensic clinicians have also been using telehealth modalities to evaluate asylum seekers who have poor access to forensic services because they live in geographically remote areas of the United States, immigration detention centers, or Mexico border cities.14 Mental health practitioners have reported both comfort with and concerns about the limitations of telehealth forensic evaluations.15 Most literature on telehealth forensic evaluations has focused on evaluators’ perceptions of video-teleconference, applied across multiple dimensions of forensic mental health.16,–,20 Assessing the acceptability of remote evaluations to adjudicators of immigration claims and incorporating their perspectives into broader practice recommendations is particularly critical at this time, given that telehealth visits and telephonic interviews of asylum seekers have become standard as a result of both the COVID-19 pandemic and the increased number of asylum seekers in immigration detention facilities.
This study was to explore former immigration judges’ perspectives on forensic mental health evaluations of asylum seekers. We examined the factors that immigration judges use to assess the medico-legal documents resulting from mental health evaluations. We also specifically identified participants’ attitudes and perceptions toward telehealth evaluations. This study adds to existing literature by incorporating immigration judges’ perceptions of forensic mental health evaluations and by assessing judges’ attitudes toward telephonic evaluations. We specifically investigated telephonic rather than video-based evaluations because asylum seekers may have limited access to the internet, and immigration detention centers often restrict access to video conferencing platforms.14 This study was approved by the Mount Sinai Institutional Review Board.
************************
Full article at the above link.
This should be great information for practitioners, judges, ICE counsel, and administrators seeking a fairer, better functioning Immigration Court system.
This illustrates one of many “under-appreciated” aspects of modern immigration and human rights “practical scholarship:” Its virtually unmatched interdisciplinary usefulness and its “right off the shelf” ability to advance knowledge, fairness, 21st century efficiency, and best practices!
While EOIR might actually be “worse than your father’s and mother’s Immigration Courts,” not so the private bar, NGOs, and the academic (particularly the clinical) sectors! It’s where the action, upcoming talent, and quality is right now!
It’s a shame that more of those in charge of the Immigration Courts, the stumbling immigration bureaucracy, and the often behind the times “improperly above the fray” Article IIIs aren’t paying attention to both the types of individuals they should be hiring and the methods they should be using to improve the delivery of justice.
If change has to come from below, so be it! But, change and progress will eventually come to the broken and dysfunctional Immigration Courts and the bumbling bureaucracy surrounding and enabling this disgraceful systemic failure that is dragging down both our legal system and our democracy!
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
From our leader and spokesperson “Sir Jeffrey” Chase:
Round Table Brief cited today in Oral Argument
Hi all:To end the week on a positive note, in oral arguments today before the Second Circuit, one of the judges asked the OIL attorney the following:
“What are we to make of the amicus brief filed by so many former IJs who stress the importance of in person hearing in the special role of Immigration Judges in developing the facts before rendering an opinion, particularly in something as factually heavy as this, as undue hardship to the children?They emphasize the importance of hearing in person testimony and suggest that it is an abuse of discretion to not permit it when it is requested.How do you respond?”
The case is Martinez-Roman v. Garland.
. . . .
The IJ wouldn’t let two witnesses testify: the medical expert, and a 13-year-old child of the respondent.So when the judge asked that question, the OIL attorney claimed that the IJ was trying to protect the child from the psychological trauma of testifying.The judges pointed out that the IJ had actually said he wouldn’t allow the testimony only because it would be duplicative.In the child’s case, it was supposedly “duplicative” of a one-page handwritten statement written by the child.In the expert’s case, the IJ admitted that he hadn’t actually read the expert’s written statement, causing the circuit judges to ask how the IJ could have known the testimony would be duplicative of a statement he hadn’t read.
Wishing all a great, safe, and healthy weekend! – Jeff
*************
Garland’s “amazing” EOIR “judges” can divine the content of statements they never read, while Prelogar’s “equally amazing” DOJ lawyers just “make it up as they go along” when arguing before Article IIIs! https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
So, Merrick, it’s an “A-OK” judicial practice for your judges to deem live testimony “duplicative” of a statements they never read! That’s some feat of clairvoyance!
“Clairvoyance” appears to be more of a qualification for your “judges” than actual expertise and experience vindicating due process in Immigration Court!
Also, when your attorneys are confronted with the defects in your judges’ performance by Article IIIs who have actually read the record and familiarized themselves with the evidence, (something you apparently deem “optional” for both your IJs and the attorneys defending them) it’s also “A-OK” for your attorneys to fabricate any bogus pretextual excuse, even one that is clearly refuted by the record.
Perhaps, SG Liz Prelogar should take a break from losing cases before the Supremes and pay attention to what nonsense DOJ attorneys are arguing before the lower Federal Courts.What, Liz, is the legality and the morality of defending a broken system, wholly owned and operated by your “boss,” that dishonestly denies due process to the most vulnerable among us?
Harvard Law might have spared Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar from having to work in the “legal trenches” of Immigration Court, unlike the lawyers who have been fighting to keep democracy alive over that past five years! Apparently, she took a pass on the Ethics class too, as DOJ lawyers under her overall direction “make it up as they go along” in defending the dysfunctional Immigration Courts before the Article IIIs! PHOTO: Twitter
Is this what they taught you at Harvard law? Did you miss the required course on ethics and professional responsibility? Why is the Round Table doing the work YOU should be doing as a supposedly responsible Government official who took an oath to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law?
Yeah, I know that Prelogar, like her other elitist political appointee colleagues, operates in the “legal stratosphere,” has clerked for two liberal Supremes, and otherwise “punched all the right tickets” in Dem politics. But, the problem here is that like it or not, Immigration Courts are the “retail level” of American justice that affects everything else! Right now, that effect is stunningly and unacceptably adverse!
The GOP White Nationalist nativists, like Sessions, Barr, and their hand-selected toadies, “got that.” That’s why they used their time in office to weaponize EOIR and degrade due process and humanity, while using “Dred Scottification” developed in immigration to diminish and degrade the rights of “the other” throughout our legal and political systems! The dots aren’t that hard to connect, unless, apparently, you’re a Dem Politico serving in the DOJ!
For whatever reason, perhaps because Dems keep appointing politicos who haven’t had to personally confront the mess in Immigration Court, folks like Garland, Monaco, Gupta, Clarke, and Prelogar entertain the elitist belief that standing up to the “nativist appeasers” in the Biden White House, getting rid of bad judges and incompetent administrators at EOIR, and bringing our dysfunctional (“killer”) Immigration Courts into conformity with Constitutional Due Process, international standards, and simple human dignity are “below their pay grade.” Not so!
Have to hope that the Chairman Lofgren and her staff are paying attention and will start throwing more light on Garland’s deficient handling of EOIR and the disgraceful, intellectually dishonest, arguments his attorneys are making before the Article IIIs!
This system is BROKEN, and going into the second year of the Biden Administration, Garland has NOT taken the necessary bold, decisive, yet quite obvious and realistically achievable, steps to FIX it! What gives?
Since Liz has never been a judge, let me provide an insight. No judge, life-tenured or “administrative,” liberal, conservative, or centrist, likes being played for a fool, misled, or “BS’ed” 💩 by counsel. (I actually remember “chewing out” attorneys in open court for failing to acknowledge controlling precedent in arguing before me.)
They particularly hate such conduct when it comes from lawyers representing the USG! Because Federal Judges often come from a bygone generation, many still retain the apparently now long outdated concept that DOJ attorneys should be held to a “higher standard.” Your predecessor, Trump shill Noel Francisco, certainly mocked that belief during his disgraceful tenure at the DOJ, particularly in his disingenuous and aggressive defense of the White Nationalist, anti-immigrant, anti-asylum agenda! Do you REALLY want to follow in HIS footsteps? Sadly, At this early point in time, that answer appears to be “yes.”
So, that leads to another question. Why do progressive human rights and immigration advocates continue to turn out the vote and loyally support a Dem Party that, once in office, considers them, their values, and the human souls they represent to be “expendable” — essentially “fungible political capital?” It’s something I often wondered when I was on the inside watching Dem Administrations screw up EOIR and immigration policy. I still don’t know the answer, and perhaps never will.
“Record, what record? Here at the BIA, we don’t need no stinkin’ record to deny asylum! The assembly line would break down if we took time to look at all the evidence and research the law! It’s about ‘numbers,’ not ‘justice!’” https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
“Tarlishi Emmanuel-Tata, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We GRANT the petition for review and REMAND for further consideration. … Emmanuel-Tata challenges both the BIA’s factual determinations and whether it gave his claims full and fair consideration. We begin by examining Emmanuel-Tata’s argument that the BIA failed to consider all the evidence. This argument relies on a BIA statement that the record “does not contain any country conditions evidence indicating that Anglophones are regularly subject to persecution,” and that “[t]he record does not contain any country conditions evidence indicating the type of punishment the respondent may face as a result of his criminal charges.” There is such evidence, though. … The significance of the overlooked evidence is clear. … Because the BIA erroneously found there was no record evidence about relevant country conditions, Emmanuel-Tata did not receive “meaningful consideration of the relevant substantial evidence supporting” his claims. See Abdel-Masieh, 73 F.3d at 585. We therefore reverse the BIA’s decision. We need not further consider the BIA’s factual determinations. The petition for review is GRANTED and we REMAND to the BIA for further consideration.”
[Hats off to Brian Plotts! Brian, make a motion to publish!]
*********************
As any “immigration pro” knows, the DOJ has to work hard to lose immigration cases in the “ultra-conservative” 5th Circuit. But, even judges not very sympathetic to migrants don’t like being “played for fools” by a DOJ where “quality, integrity, and due process” definitely are “NOT job one.”
Highlighting the constant stream of bogus findings, “canned” decisions, ignored records, and chronic contemptuous sloppiness is a great way to for the NDPA to make inroads with even the most unsympathetic Circuit panels. While some Article III judges are willing to overlook the BIA’s endemic shortcomings, hiding behind the “bogus deference” doctrine, they might be less willing to “do the BIA’s dirty work for them.”
“Cristian Josue Diaz Ortiz, a native of El Salvador, seeks review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial of his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) rejection of Diaz Ortiz’s petition for relief rested on an adverse credibility determination that primarily drew its support from a “Gang Assessment Database.” Flaws in that database, including its reliance on an erratic point system built on unsubstantiated inferences, compel us to conclude that the credibility judgment — and, in turn, the rejection of Diaz Ortiz’s request for relief — is not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we grant the petition for review and remand for new immigration proceedings.”
Nkemchap Nelvis Takwi seeks review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from a removal order entered by an Immigration Judge (IJ) and denying his motion to remand. Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, we grant the petition for review. We remand this matter to the BIA because the IJ did not make an explicit adverse credibility determination, and the BIA did not afford Mr. Takwi the required rebuttable presumption of credibility.
Just for a good measure, the 9th Circuit also “busted” Garland’s BIA on an agfel issue:
“Petitioner Longinos Togonon, a native and citizen of the Philippines, was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 2013. In 2015, he was convicted of arson in violation of California Penal Code § 451(b) and sentenced to three years of imprisonment. In 2018, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against Togonon, alleging (as relevant for our purposes) that his arson offense qualifies as an “aggravated felony.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) (“Any alien who is convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after admission is deportable.”). The Immigration and Nationality Act defines the term “aggravated felony” to include “an offense described in” 18 U.S.C. § 844(i). 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(E)(i). The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held that a conviction under California Penal Code § 451(b) is an offense described in 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) and that Togonon is therefore subject to removal from the United States. Reviewing that decision de novo, see Sandoval v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 986, 988 (9th Cir. 2017), we conclude that the BIA erred in so holding. We accordingly grant Togonon’s petition for review.”
[Hats off to pro bono publico appointed counsel Matthew N. Ball (argued), Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Denver, Colorado; Paul J. Collins, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Palo Alto, California; Andrew T. Brown and Matt Aiden Getz, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Los Angeles, California!]
*****************************
The First Circuit decision was 4-3. It appears that the respondent’s lawyers, experts, and the majority did the careful, critical analysis that the BIA failed to perform. Even the dissenters, who got it wrong, appear to have spent more time and thought on this issue than Garland’s BIA.
The Tenth Circuit decision highlights “Basic Asylum 101” failures by both the IJ and the BIA. It’s not that hard to make a specific credibility finding in every case. I did it in every contested asylum case I heard over 13 years on the bench. Nor is applying the presumption of credibility on appeal profound.
I’ll concede that the 9th Circuit agfel issue was more tricky. But, the BIA’s practice of almost always going with the most expansive, pro-DHS interpretations of the agfel definition to maximize deportation and minimize relief doesn’t help.
The Board of Immigration Appeals has issued a decision in the Matter of J-G-T-, 28 I&N Dec. 97 (BIA 2020)
(1) In assessing whether to admit the testimony of a witness as an expert, an Immigration Judge should consider whether it is sufficiently relevant and reliable for the expert to offer an informed opinion, and if it is admitted, the Immigration Judge should then consider how much weight the testimony should receive.
(2) In considering how much weight to give an expert’s testimony, the Immigration Judge should assess how probative and persuasive the testimony is regarding key issues in dispute for which the testimony is being offered.
PANEL:MALPHRUS, MULLANE, and CREPPY , Appellate Immigration Judges.
OPINION BY: MALPHRUS, Appellate Immigration Judge
*************
In this case, the BIA sent an asylum grant well-supported by expert opinion back to the IJ for no particular reason other than the DHS didn’t like the result.
The message: The IJ should always look for reasons to disallow, disbelieve, or diminish the weight of the asylum applicant’s persuasive evidence. The IJ should always be looking for “any reason to deny” asylum applications because that’s what Billy wants from his wholly-owned. “judges.”
To quote my friend and Round Table colleague retired IJ Jeffrey S. Chase:
[The BIA], McHenry, and Barr are engaging in tag-team destruction of asylum.So this gives the signal to ignore country experts when their opinions support grants of asylum.Which was stated more explicitly in the proposed 161-page asylum regs.And then if the IJ relies on the DOS report, the Board or AG will say the quoted passage was too vague and generalized to support a finding of social distinction or nexus.
The good news is that a number of brigades of the NDPA are hard at work on comprehensive alternative expert country reports that are much more accurate and well-documented than current DOS propaganda. A number of Courts of Appeals already have “called out” the BIA for routinely ignoring evidence and expert opinions favorable to asylum applicants.
I certainly hope they will see through and expose this rather transparent attempt to further “game the system” against asylum applicants. Actually, under the U.N. Handbook asylum seekers are supposed to receive the “benefit of the doubt.” But, not from this scofflaw regime and their toadies masquerading as “judges.”
It’s also worth noting that this case has already been pending for almost a decade. Obviously, time is no object for EOIR when it comes to looking for ways to deny asylum.
fl-undocumented-minors 2 – Judge Denise Slavin, executive vice president of the National Association of Immigration Judges in an immigration courtrrom in Miami. Mike Stocker, Sun Sentinel
Subject: Do’s and Don’ts for Demonstrative Evidence in Immigration Court – NITA’s studio71 March Webcast
Register for NITA’s upcoming free webcast
FREE LIVE WEBCAST
Do’s and Don’ts for Demonstrative Evidence in Immigration Court
Presented by:
Judge Denise Slavin
Retired Immigration Judge and President Emerita of the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ)
March
31
10:00am PDT / 1:00pm EDT
Demonstrative evidence – maps, drawings, photos, diagrams – to help demonstrate or illustrate the testimony of a witness is a vastly underutilized litigation tool in immigration court. But immigration court – where the pivotal events have occurred in another country and the witness might not have access to real evidence to corroborate his/her story – is the ideal place for the use of such evidence to assist the Immigration Judge by clarifying testimony and explaining the facts. This webcast will discuss various ways that demonstrative evidence may be useful in immigration court, provide the mechanics or “how to” for using such evidence, and address some special concerns in the for the use of such evidence in immigration court.
If you can’t make the live presentation, this webcast will be available to view on demand, beginning the next day.
The National Institute for Trial Advocacy
1685 38th Street, Suite 200
Boulder, CO 80301-2735Follow NITA’s social accountsTo view our non-discrimination policy, click here
*********************************
What a great chance to learn the “nitty gritty” from former DOJ litigator, labor negotiator, union executive, “Knightess of the Round Table,” and one of “America’s Best Judges”* — Hon. Denise Noonan Slavin. Don’t miss it!
Knightess of the Round Table
*As determined by Courtside’s “Panel of Judicial Experts.”
PANEL: LEVAL, LIVINGSTON, and CHIN, Circuit Judges.
OPINION BY: Judge Chin
KEY QUOTE/SUMMARY:
Petitioner Wei Sun (“Sun”) seeks review of a June 26, 2015 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying him asylum for religious persecution in China. Sun entered the United States on a visitor visa in 2007 and subsequently filed a timely application for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158 and 1231(b)(3), respectively, and for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), see 8 C.F.R. § 208.16. The IJ and the BIA denied Sun’s petition on the ground that he failed to meet his burden of proof because of an absence of corroborating evidence.
The BIA interpreted the corroboration provision of the REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231, 303 (2005), as not requiring an IJ to give a petitioner specific notice of the evidence needed to meet his burden of proof, or to grant a continuance before ruling to give a petitioner an opportunity to gather corroborating evidence. On appeal, Sun argues that an IJ must give a petitioner notice and an opportunity to submit additional evidence when the IJ concludes that corroborating evidence is required, relying on the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2011). We conclude that the REAL ID Act is ambiguous on this point, and that the BIA’s interpretation of the statute is reasonable and entitled to deference under Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.
ANOTHER KEY QUOTE:
Moreover, the test is not whether the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation is plausible or “better” than the agency’s, as Sun suggests. Pet. Br. at 21. Rather, the test is whether the statute is “silent or ambiguous” and if so, then whether “‘the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute,’ which is to say, one that is ‘reasonable,’ not ‘arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.'” Riverkeeper Inc. v. EPA, 358 F.3d 174, 184 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843-44).
**********************************************
So, here’s what Chevron really says:
“As long as the agency has a minimally plausible interpretation, we couldn’t care less if it’s the best interpretation of the law.”
But, why shouldn’t high-ranking Federal Judges who are being paid to tell us what the law is be required to opine on what is the “best” interpretation? What are they being paid for? Sure sounds to me like a “doctrine of judicial task avoidance.”
And, of course, given a choice of possible interpretations these days, the BIA almost invariably chooses that which is most favorable to DHS and least favorable to the respondent.
Why shouldn’t a respondent, particularly one seeking potentially life or death relief like asylum, have notice of what the Immigration Judge expects him to produce to corroborate his otherwise credible testimony? For Pete’s sake, even the “Legacy INS” and the USCIS, hardly bastions of due process, gave applicants for benefits the infamous “Notice of Intent to Deny” (“NID”) setting forth the evidentiary defects and giving the applicant an opportunity to remedy them before a final decision is made. Seems like a combination of fundamental fairness and common sense.
There now is a conflict between the Ninth and Second Circuits, both of which get lots of Petitions to Review final orders of removal. Consequently, the issue is likely to reach the Supremes, sooner or later. Interestingly, Justice Gorsuch was a critic of Chevron deference, specifically in immigration cases, when he was on the 10th Circuit. We’ll see how he treats Chevron now that he is in a position to vote to modify or overrule it.
Here’s my previous post on Justice Gorsuch and Chevron:
PANEL: Harry Pregerson, Richard A. Paez, and Morgan B. Christen, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Judge Pregerson; Concurrence by Judge Pregerson; Concurrence by Judge Christen
Here’s the Court Staff’s summary of the opinions. It’s NOT part of the Court’s opinion, but nevertheless quite informative.
“The panel granted, reversed, and remanded Luis Enrique Sanchez’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming an immigration judge’s decision denying Sanchez’s motion to suppress evidence of his alienage and ordering his removal.
The panel held that Coast Guard officers who detained Sanchez committed an egregious Fourth Amendment violation because they seized Sanchez based on his Latino ethnicity alone. Accordingly, the panel held that the immigration judge erred in failing to suppress the Form I- 213 (Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien), which was prepared after his immigration arrest and which the Government introduced to establish Sanchez’s alienage and entry without inspection.
The panel also concluded that Sanchez was not seized at the United States border, where Fourth Amendment protections are lower. The panel further held that, because Coast Guard officers detained Sanchez solely on the basis of his Latino ethnicity, the officers violated an immigration regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(b(2), which provides that an immigration officer may briefly detain an individual only if the officer has “reasonable suspicion, based on specific articulable facts” that the person is engaged in an offense or is an alien illegally in the United States. Accordingly, the panel held that Sanchez’s removal proceedings must be terminated based on the regulatory violation because the regulation is designed to benefit Sanchez, and Sanchez was prejudiced by the violation.
Because the panel concluded Sanchez’s proceedings should have been terminated based on the regulatory violation, the panel did not reach the question whether Sanchez’s previously-submitted Family Unity Benefits and Employment applications, which the Government also introduced to establish alienage, are indirect fruits of the poisonous tree. The panel granted Sanchez’s petition for review and remanded to the Board with instructions to terminate Sanchez’s removal proceedings.
Concurring, Judge Pregerson wrote separately to explain why it is unfair for the Government to encourage noncitizens to apply for immigration relief, and later use statements in those relief applications against them in removal proceedings. Judge Pregerson expressed concern about the Government’s argument that the exclusionary rule does not apply to Sanchez’s Family Unity Benefits and Employment Authorization applications because they predated the egregious constitutional violation. He wrote that categorically exempting pre-existing applications from the exclusionary rule in this way allows law enforcement to unconstitutionally round up migrant-looking individuals, elicit their names, and then search through Government databases to discover incriminating information in pre- existing immigration records.
Concurring, Judge Christen agreed that the case did not concern a border stop, noting that the Coast Guard did not seize Sanchez at a port of entry and that the evidence did not show that Sanchez’s boat had sailed from international waters. Judge Christen also agreed that Sanchez’s removal proceedings must be terminated based on the regulatory violation.”
***********************************
This egregious Fourth Amendment violation generated three thoughtful opinions from U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judges. Yet, it got a “free pass” from the BIA. Just another ho-hum day at the office. But, what about the BIA’s responsibility to “guarantee fairness and due process for all?” Doesn’t it extend to constitutional rights?
Judge Pregerson’s concurring opinion also suggests a line of legal attack for “Dreamers” if legislative protections are not enacted and they are thrown into removal proceedings. In most cases, the Dreamers came forward voluntarily, in fact were encouraged to do so by the USG, and applied to the USCIS for DACA and work authorization. In the process they furnished information about their lack of legal status in the U.S.
In many cases, that will be the sole evidence supporting a charge of removability. Dreamers’ counsel can argue, and some Federal Courts are likely to agree, that the use of that information to establish removability is “fundamentally unfair” and therefore a violation of constitutional due process.
