"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals PAUL WICKHAM SCHMIDT and DR. ALICIA TRICHE, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General
(1) Matter of A-C-A-A-, 28 I&N Dec. 84 (A.G. 2020) (“A-C-A-A- I”), is vacated in its entirety. Immigration judges and the Board should no longer follow A-C-A-A- I in pending or future cases and should conduct proceedings consistent with this opinion and the opinions in Matter of L-E-A-, 28 I&N Dec. 304 (A.G. 2021) (“L-E-A- III”), and Matter of A-B-, 28 I&N Dec. 307 (A.G. 2021) (“A-B- III”).
(2) The Board’s longstanding review practices that A-C-A-A- I apparently prohibited, including its case-by-case discretion to rely on immigration court stipulations, are restored.
***************
Way to go Judge Garland!
Yes, I feel good about this! This was one of the “Sessions-Barr follow-ons” to A-B-, L-E-A-, and Castro-Tum that had undermined due process and fundamental fairness while inhibiting sound case management. It was part of a virulent, racist, anti-asylum agenda promoted by Trump and Miller and unethically carried out by Sessions and Barr. It was a backlog-building, due-process-denying national disgrace to be sure! One that unethically targeted people of color and sought to improperly eradicate our legal (and moral) obligations to protect refugees — without any legislative authority!
Prohibiting an appellate body from accepting party stipulations below or honoring concessions on appeal is simply insane! Why would any party stipulate to an issue if it will simply be ignored on appeal?
Stipulations are a really important part of encouraging efficiency in litigation and reducing backlog. I used them all the time at both the BIA and the Arlington Immigration Court!
Why on earth would the BIA revisit an issue that was so well-established and logical that the parties had already agreed upon it below? Why would an already overwhelmed tribunal be required to decide issues that were uncontested by the litigants?
No wonder the Immigration Court system was completely out of control and counterproductive during the Trump Administration!
“Floaters — How The World’s Richest Country Responds To Asylum Seekers” — The Biden Administration still can’t get beyond this “vision” of appropriate treatment of legal asylum seekers. This is the “human face (down)” of “deterrence-only policies.” Six months in, and the Administration still has nobody in leadership who understands human rights, refugees, asylees, and the relationship of scenes like this one to the overall failure of equal justice and dimishment of the rule of law in America. EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT – The bodies of Salvadoran migrant Oscar Alberto Mart??nez Ram??rez and his nearly 2-year-old daughter Valeria lie on the bank of the Rio Grande in Matamoros, Mexico, Monday, June 24, 2019, after they drowned trying to cross the river to Brownsville, Texas. Martinez’ wife, Tania told Mexican authorities she watched her husband and child disappear in the strong current. (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)
However, lest we start thinking that the Biden Administration finally “gets it” on asylum policy, DHS immediately countered with a totally tone-deaf announcement on “punishing” asylum seekers for the Administration’s failure to live up to it’s campaign promises ands re-establish a viable legal asylum system at the border:
DHS Statement on the Resumption of Expedited Removal for Certain Family Units
Release Date:
July 26, 2021
Beginning today, certain family units who are not able to be expelled under Title 42 will be placed in expedited removal proceedings. Expedited removal provides a lawful, more accelerated procedure to remove those family units who do not have a basis under U.S. law to be in the United States.
Attempting to cross into the United States between ports of entry, or circumventing inspection at ports of entry, is the wrong way to come to the United States. These acts are dangerous and can carry long-term immigration consequences for individuals who attempt to do so. The Biden-Harris Administration is working to build a safe, orderly, and humane immigration system, and the Department of Homeland Security continues to take several steps to improve lawful processing at ports of entry and reforms to strengthen the asylum system.
Perhaps somebody needs to tell these DHS/Biden Administration scofflaws that: 1) we have no functioning legal asylum system at ports of entry right now; and 2) refugees and asylees can’t wait for the Administration to get its act together. As one asylum seeker from the Northern Triangle stated in a recent Courtside post: “Nobody wants to die.”
Deterrence always has been and always will be a failure, both in terms of legal policy and morality. We need some progressive experts with some guts and ability “on the inside” to fix this system before more lives are lost.
Enough with the inane “wait to die” deterrence statements that actually insult the intelligence of asylum seekers and demean their dire situations! Fixing this system is not rocket science! But, it requires some progressive human rights leadership and expertise now sadly lacking in the Biden Administration’s approach!
“Floaters — How The World’s Richest Country Responds To Asylum Seekers” — The Biden Administration’s continuation of the Trump regime’s illegal and deadly anti-asylum policies at the border is totally unacceptable! EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT – The bodies of Salvadoran migrant Oscar Alberto Mart??nez Ram??rez and his nearly 2-year-old daughter Valeria lie on the bank of the Rio Grande in Matamoros, Mexico, Monday, June 24, 2019, after they drowned trying to cross the river to Brownsville, Texas. Martinez’ wife, Tania told Mexican authorities she watched her husband and child disappear in the strong current. (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)
FROM SPLC:
The message was loud and clear: “Do not come.”
This would be the Biden administration’s initial attempt to deter migrants who fled danger in their home countries from seeking protection in the U.S.
First, President Biden in March discouraged migrants from trekking north to the U.S.-Mexico border to seek asylum. He suggested they stay in their home countries – where many face violence and persecution – as the administration addressed an increase in the number of unaccompanied migrant children crossing the southwestern border.
Then, the administration continued to rely on the contested Trump-era Title 42 order by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to reject migrants at ports of entry and expel those who cross the U.S.-Mexico border without authorization, thereby denying their legal right to seek asylum.
And in June, the administration delivered another warning to would-be asylum seekers from Guatemala: “Do not come,” said Vice President Kamala Harris during a news conference alongside Guatemalan President Alejandro Giammattei. “The United States will continue to enforce our laws and secure our borders. If you come to our border, you will be turned back.”
Sarah Rich, senior supervising attorney with the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Immigrant Justice Project, said the vice president’s comments were strikingly similar to rhetoric employed by the Trump administration.
“Seeking protection from violence and persecution is a fundamental human right, and the right to seek asylum is protected by U.S. and international law,” Rich said. “These remarks fly in the face of the right to seek asylum in the U.S. and indicate a disturbing continuity between the Trump administration and the Biden-Harris administration.”
For many migrants in peril, waiting in their home countries for a better time to seek asylum in the U.S. is not – nor could ever be – a viable option.
“I fled my country because I wanted to survive,” Emiliana Doe, whose name has been changed in this story to protect her identity, told the SPLC in Spanish. “I want to live. I want to be somebody. Nobody wants to die.”
Speak out against the Biden Administration’s continuation of Trump’s illegal, inhumane, anti-asylum policies at the border! Demand that AG Garland replace unqualified “Miller Lite” anti-asylum Immigration Judges, who happily furthered the past regime’s xenophobic, anti-due-process policies, with far better qualified progressive experts! Demand a BIA that will be a courageous leader in granting legal protection and reducing backlogs through best practices and full due process! Demand that Garland stop dragging his feet and finally fulfill the original EOIR vision of “guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” Demand an Attorney General with the backbone and integrity to tell Biden, Harris, & Mayorkas that their continued abrogation of asylum laws and international obligations, not to mention Constitutional protections, is grossly illegal and must end NOW!
By contrast with Garland’s timid, dilatory, and often apparently indifferent approach to the rule of law for migrants, not to mention human lives, Jeff Sessions had absolutely no problem intervening, without invitation, in any agency’s programs and policies to advance his White Nationalist, nativist, xenophobic mis-interpretations of the law!
“Today, a federal district court judge in Oakland, California, approved a final settlement in the case of Vangala v. USCIS, providing relief to over sixty thousand applicants for humanitarian immigration benefits. The lawsuit, filed on November 19, 2020, against U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), challenged an agency policy adopted under the Trump administration specifically targeting humanitarian benefits for survivors of domestic violence and human trafficking and asylum seekers. Under the policy, USCIS rejected applications that left any question in the application unanswered, even where the question was not applicable—for example where the applicant failed to include a response for middle name because they have no middle name. Additionally, USCIS rejected applications where the applicant wrote “none” or “not applicable” instead of “N/A.”
The lawsuit was filed by Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP), the National Immigration Litigation Alliance (NILA), and the Van Der Hout law firm, on behalf of three applicants who sought to represent a nationwide class of individuals whose applications were rejected under the policy. They alleged that the policy was nothing more than a pretextual basis for denying applicants the opportunity to obtain humanitarian benefits provided by Congress.
On December 22, 2020, the agency agreed to suspend the policy, and the parties then entered settlement discussions to address the tens of thousands of applications that USCIS previously rejected. The U.S. district court adopted and approved the final settlement agreement on July 20, 2021.
Under the settlement agreement, USCIS will accept the original submission date of the more than sixty thousand applications it has identified as having been rejected under the policy. USCIS will send notices to these applicants explaining the steps they can take to ensure that their applications for humanitarian benefits are recorded as having been filed as of the date they were originally submitted. Without this relief, these applicants not only would suffer the delays caused by USCIS’ rejection of their applications, but many applicants or their family members would be rendered ineligible because they were unable to file the required forms by timelines specified in the statute.
In addition, the settlement agreement prevents the agency from adopting a similar rejection policy with respect to other immigration forms unless authorized by statute or lawfully implemented through regulations.
“It was an outrageous policy clearly aimed to impede individuals from obtaining the humanitarian benefits that Congress has provided,” said Matt Adams, Legal Director for NWIRP. “It aptly demonstrates the Trump administrations’ utter disregard of the law.”
“USCIS’ rejection policy served no legitimate purpose,” said Mary Kenney, Deputy Director for NILA. “Tens of thousands of applicants will now, finally, be able to move forward with applications that the agency should have accepted in 2020.”
The settlement agreement is here and order approving the settlement agreement can be found here.
#####
Media contacts:
Trina Realmuto, National Immigration Litigation Alliance
Cruelty, stupidity, illegality, wasting Government resources! So, what else is new about the Trump kakistocracy’s immigration policies and procedures? Wonder why all immigration agencies are running out of control backlogs? Don’t blame the victims — the migrants exercising their legal rights!
In direct contravention of the intent of Congress in structuring DHS so that the “customer services” to migrants and their families would be separate, and no longer subordinate to, immigration enforcement, the Trump kakistocracy turned USCIS into a semi-useless branch of their corrupt, yet inept, White Nationalist enforcement agenda. So incompetent and inappropriate were Trump’s actions that his lackeys managed to “repurpose” USCIS, once one of the few self-sustaining independently funded agencies within Government, into a deficit promoting, bankrupt, money pit.
And, it was a cesspool that failed miserably in its primary mission of serving those seeking legal immigration status, their families, and their employers. A primary reason why the Biden Administration is having difficulties with immigration and human rights is the illegal eradication by the Trump regime of the U.S. legal immigration system, particularly our refugee and asylum systems.
That leaves those suffering from persecution and torture in need of legal protection with no choice but to use the “extralegal system.” Far from their stunningly false claim to have “enhanced” immigration enforcement, the GOP nativists have also destroyed rational, practical, targeted enforcement with their nonsense. Don’t let them get away with blaming the Biden Administration and the victims of their cruel and often illegal behavior which produced the results that many of us predicted!
The next time you hear Ted Cruz, Tom Cotton, or some other GOP nativist restrictionist disingenuously blabbering on about “rewarding lawbreakers” or “doing it the right way,” remember that largely because of them and the Trump regime, America has no functional immigration system for refugees, asylees, or any other type of legal immigrants, nor do we have a functioning Immigration Court system!
Elizabeth Gibson Attorney, NY Legal Assistance Group Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
THE GIBSON REPORT — 07-19-21 — Compiled By Elizabeth Gibson Esquire, NY Legal Assistance Group
ALERTS
Note: Policies are rapidly changing, so please verify information with the government and colleagues.
DACA: We are still waiting for more information on how USCIS will address the new decision freezing initial DACA applications (more details below), but it sounds like biometrics for pending applications have been canceled.
Telephonic & Video Hearings at Varick Immigration Court: See list of IJ preferences at the end of today’s briefing.
EOIR Portal: There is now a “View All” button that allows representatives to view a list of their cases in the EOIR portal. Also, the forms for entering appearances have been relocated to a tab at the top titled “Appearances.”
NYT: The judge, Andrew S. Hanen of the United States District Court in Houston, said President Barack Obama exceeded his authority when he created the program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, by executive order in 2012. But the judge wrote that current program recipients would not be immediately affected, and that the federal government should not “take any immigration, deportation or criminal action” against them that it “would not otherwise take.”
Reuters: Garland in a four-page opinion said Sessions’ 2018 ruling in Matter of Castro-Tum, which has been rejected by three federal appeals courts, improperly parted from decades of practice by concluding that no federal law or regulation authorized so-called “administrative closure.”
CGRS: On July 14, on stipulation of the parties, the Board of Immigration Appeals finally granted asylum to Ms. A.B., the Salvadoran woman at the center of the Trump administration’s assault on asylum for domestic violence survivors.
Appropriations Committee: The bill additionally includes further responsible and effective investments in state and local justice, including:… $50 million for legal representation of immigrant children and families
AP: On immigration alone, the party will need solid support from vulnerable swing-district Democrats and moderates, whom Republicans are certain to accuse of favoring amnesty and open borders in next year’s elections for congressional control.
Law360: President Joe Biden’s nominee to lead U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement told lawmakers on Thursday that he won’t end collaboration between the agency and local law enforcement officials, despite having done so as sheriff in Texas’ most populous county.
NYT: About 2,500 Afghan interpreters, drivers and others who worked with American forces will be sent to Fort Lee, Va., south of Richmond, to complete their processing for formal entry into the United States, the officials said.
WaPo: The government’s tally of individual people stopped at the border, as opposed to total apprehensions, shows 455,000 have been taken into custody so far this fiscal year, compared with nearly 490,000 at this time in 2019.
WaPo: Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas on Tuesday warned citizens of Cuba and Haiti against trying to flee to the United States amid unrest in those nations, saying they would be repatriated or referred to other countries for resettlement.
WaPo: The exodus has picked up pace this month, with net outflows of residents regularly exceeding 1,000 a day, according to government figures compiled by activist investor David Webb, even as the pandemic continues to disrupt travel.
Intercept: Under council rules, bills with supermajority support are guaranteed a public hearing within 60 days. No hearing is yet scheduled, but activists say they’re working to get something on the calendar.
Vice: One in five surveyed individuals reported getting electric shocks from the ICE-mandated shackles, according to a new report by Freedom for Immigrants, the Immigrant Defense Project, and the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. The finding is “alarming and worrisome,” according to Layla Razavi, Deputy Executive Director of Freedom For Immigrants.
The Attorney General stated that while the rulemaking proceeds and except when a court of appeals has held otherwise, IJs and the BIA should apply the standard for administrative closure set out in Avetisyan and W-Y-U-. Matter of Cruz-Valdez, 28 I&N Dec. 326 (A.G. 2021) AILA Doc. No. 21071534
The court upheld the BIA’s denial of the petitioner’s withholding of removal claim, finding that the IJ sua sponte considered the social groups now identified by petitioner, and that the IJ’s decision to deny withholding was supported by substantial evidence. (Quintanilla v. Garland, 7/9/21) AILA Doc. No. 21071432
Lexisnexis: Valarezo-Tirado v. A.G. “We have previously granted a petition for review in which the alleged basis for the BIA’s denial of relief was that “the evidence is insufficient” and “the arguments made by the [government] on appeal . . . are persua[sive]” because we could not “perform meaningful review of [such an] order.” Here, we have even less to work with.
The court held that the BIA and IJ erred in concluding that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate that she was persecuted in Honduras on account of her membership in her proposed particular social group, namely her nuclear family. (Perez Vasquez v. Garland, 7/9/21) AILA Doc. No. 21071434
The court found that the IJ’s incredibly high denial rate for asylum applications, along with her noncompliance with Matter of R-K-K-, presented a substantial likelihood that petitioner would be entitled to relief upon full consideration by a merits panel. (Singh v. Garland, 7/12/21) AILA Doc. No. 21071435
The court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s conclusion that the petitioner’s experience in Ukraine did not rise to the level of persecution, and that she had failed to show that the new Ukrainian government would persecute her if she returned. (Chuchman v. Garland, 7/12/21) AILA Doc. No. 21071436
The court upheld the BIA’s affirmance of the IJ’s denial of asylum, finding that the IJ had articulated specific, cogent reasons for concluding that the petitioner’s testimony was not credible, and that those reasons were supported by substantial evidence. (Coto-Albarenga v. Garland, 7/12/21) AILA Doc. No. 21071437
Granting in part the petition for review, the court held that the IJ erred by failing to credit evidence showing that proof of the petitioner’s alienage was tainted because it was obtained from his juvenile court records in violation of California privacy laws. (B.R. v. Garland, 7/12/21) AILA Doc. No. 21071439
The court held that petitioner’s forgery conviction under section 470a of the California Penal Code categorically constituted an aggravated felony offense “relating to forgery” under INA §101(a)(43)(R), thus rendering him ineligible for voluntary departure. (Escobar Santos v. Garland, 7/9/21) AILA Doc. No. 21071438
Law360: The Ninth Circuit doubled back on a previous order that reactivated a policy requiring green card applicants to prove they had health insurance within 30 days of arriving in the U.S., vacating its earlier decision as moot Friday.
A district court found that DHS violated the APA with the creation of DACA and its continued operation, stating that the DACA memo and the DACA program that created it are hereby vacated and remanded to DHS for further consideration. (Texas v. United States, 7/16/21) AILA Doc. No. 21071636
A district court granted final approval of a settlement agreement in Saravia v. Barr, which applies to a class of unaccompanied minors, who were detained by HHS or ORR, and have a removability warrant based in whole or in part on allegations of gang affiliation. AILA Doc. No. 21071539
Law360: A U.S. citizen and a green card holder separately sued U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, accusing the agency of unlawfully delaying their foreign spouses’ green card applications for over 17 months.
AIC: The American Immigration Council filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against DHS and its two primary immigration enforcement agencies requesting information about the obscure network of databases, information systems, and data sharing methods that are largely shielded from public view.
DHS announced an 18-month extension and re-designation of Somalia for TPS, effective from 8/18/21 through 3/17/23. A Federal Register notice explaining the procedures necessary to re-register or submit an initial registration application and apply for an EAD will be published soon. AILA Doc. No. 21071935
EOIR: Attorney General Merrick B. Garland appointed Megan R. Jackler, Justin S. Dinsdale, Alexander H. Lee, Loi L. McCleskey, Edwin E. Pieters, Artie R. Pobjecky, Jodie A. Schwab, Kenneth S. Sogabe, Lydia G. Tamez, and Romaine L. White.
Varick IJ Motion for Remote Accommodation Preferences
Judge Auh (for NYV cases): No motion required. Parties may appear via Open Voice.
Judge Burnham: No motion required. Parties may appear via Open Voice.
Judge Conroy: Motion required, with evidence, indicating specific reasons party is requesting remote accommodation. If motion is granted, the party may appear via Open Voice.
Judge Drucker: Motion required, with evidence, indicating specific reasons party is requesting remote accommodation. If motion is granted, the party may appear via Open Voice.
Judge Haq: No motion required for UAC docket. Parties may appear via WebEx. To the extent Judge Haq covers any other judge’s docket, he will follow that judge’s practice.
Judge Henderson: No motion required. Parties may appear via WebEx or Open Voice.
Judge Hoover: Motion required, with evidence, indicating specific reasons party is requesting remote accommodation. If motion is granted, the party may appear via Open Voice.
Judge Kolbe: Motion required, with evidence, indicating specific reasons party is requesting remote accommodation. If motion is granted, the party may appear via Open Voice or other technical means, such as WebEx, as appropriate.
Judge Ling: Motion required, with evidence, indicating specific reasons party is requesting remote accommodation. If motion is granted, the party may appear via WebEx.
Judge Mulligan: Motion required, with evidence, indicating specific reasons party is requesting remote accommodation. If motion is granted, the party may appear via WebEx.
Judge Mungoven: Motion required, with evidence, indicating specific reasons party is requesting remote accommodation. If motion is granted, the party may appear via Open Voice.
Judge Norkin: Motion required, with evidence, indicating specific reasons party is requesting remote accommodation. If motion is granted, the party may appear via Open Voice.
Judge Prieto: No motion required. Parties may appear via Open Voice.
Judge Reid: No motion required. Parties may appear via Open Voice.
Judge Sagerman (for NYV cases): No motion required. Parties may appear via Open Voice.
GW Law Immigration Clinic Director Professor Alberto Benítez & Co-Director Paulina Vera
Many congrats to my friends Professor Alberto Benitez, Professrial Lecturer Paulina Vera, and the GW Immigration Clinic on all of their achievements and the well-deserved recognition!
STUDENT-ATTORNEYS RISE TO CHALLENGES, INNOVATE ALONG THE WAY
Public Justice Advocacy Clinic (PJAC)
“[I]t really felt like we were first-year associates!” Laura Saini, JD ’21, a student-attorney in the Public Justice Advocacy Clinic (PJAC) commented about her clinic experience. A student team represented the Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless and filed a lawsuit under D.C.’s Freedom of Information Act to retrieve emails and other documents reflecting concerns with the Department of Human Services’s (DHS) homeless shelter service program. The lawsuit prompted DHS to locate over 20,000 pages of documents, but DHS was not going down without a fight.
“We were researching, drafting, and editing legal arguments under tight deadlines,” the student further explained. DHS refused to disclose most of the documents on the ground that they contained personal and private information. When Judge Puig-Lugo of D.C. Superior Court ordered DHS to redact information and release the documents, DHS countered with a motion to reconsider and a motion for an in-camera review. When denied, DHS filed another motion to stay the production of the emails pending appeal. Under the supervision of Professor Jeffrey Gutman, the student-attorneys drafted a brief urging the court to deny DHS’s motions. Based on their brief, the court ultimately rejected both DHS motions to reconsider and to allow an in-camera review. During a particularly challenging time for D.C.’s homeless population, this was a first step in creating accountability and ensuring programs are benefiting those who need them most.
Vaccine Injury Litigation Clinic (VILC)
For the first time in the history of the Vaccine Injury Litigation Clinic (VILC), every student was assigned to the same case. A case that had been pending for eight long years finally culminated in a three-day trial. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the case presented unique logistical and technical challenges. The trial was conducted entirely online. The student-attorneys were in their homes, and experts were worldwide, from Delaware to California to Israel. Alexandra Marshall, Class of ’22, commented, “The breadth of matters that we had a chance to work on is more than some lawyers experience in a decade.” Each student rose to the challenge admirably.
Ms. Marshall worked on literature research, the prehearing brief, and the technical glossary for the court. Rebecca Wolfe, Class of ’22, delivered opening statements. Giavana Behnamian, Class of ’22, and Alfonso Nazarro, Class of ’22, conducted the direct examination of VILC’s expert. Ms. Wolfe and Kimberly Henrickson, Class of ’22, conducted the direct examination of VILC’s client. Ji Young Ahn, Class of ’22, delivered the closing argument, reminding the court of the human element. Ms. Behnamian expressed her gratitude for having this experience “with a great team of other GW student-attorneys.”
Though each student appreciated the learning experience, what meant the most to them was the difference they could make. Ms. Wolfe remarked, “After I gave the opening statement at [our client’s] hearing, she sent me a text telling me that she appreciated it.” Ms. Henrickson added, “Hearing her describe her experience in her own words was a salient reminder that beyond the briefs, motions, medical records, and filings that make up our everyday tasks are the real people for whom we advocate.”
Family Justice Litigation Clinic
The COVID-19 pandemic has thrown the world—and by extension the courts—into some chaos. The D.C. Superior Court estimates that 25 percent of all family law filings are currently stalled for lack of service, while hundreds of litigants are awaiting resolution of custody and divorce filings. To combat the backlog of cases this year, the Family Justice Litigation Clinic (FJLC) launched an innovative partnership with D.C. Superior Court to train student-attorneys to become mediators. The goal of this partnership was to help litigants resolve cases by consent and short-circuit the lengthy process of waiting for a court date. Using the court’s Webex technology, student-mediators met with pro se parties and mediated their matters in breakout rooms. Though mediation could not resolve some cases, the initiative successfully helped reduce the backlog of cases and facilitated access to justice for litigants.
The partnership allowed students to explore how they could use new technologies to resolve issues in the modern age. The project also allowed students to collaborate across law schools and train with student-mediators in Catholic University’s Families and the Law Clinic, led by Professor Catherine Klein. The clinic’s efforts did not end with the school year, however. Dean Laurie Kohn, Director of the FJLC, in collaboration with Professor Andrew Budzinski, Co-Director of the General Practice Clinic at University of the District of Columbia (UDC) Clarke School of Law, continued working with the court and local law schools to look for solutions for pro se litigants. Out of these efforts, the Family Law Access to Justice Project was born, a collaborative effort between GW Law, UDC Clarke School of Law, and Catholic University Columbus School of Law. Through this program, students will continue consulting with litigants about their options and provide them with required paperwork and support to navigate the court system in this trying time. (Pictured: Top: (left to right) Dean Laurie Kohn and Moheb Keddis, Class of ‘22; Bottom: Dana Gibson, Class of ‘22)
Immigration Clinic
Student-attorneys in the Immigration Clinic were hard at work this academic year, helping clients seeking asylum and improving services for asylum-seekers. Educational efforts came from a team of two student-attorneys, Tessa Pulaski, JD ’21, and Sarah Husk, JD ’21. The students addressed residents at the George Washington University Medical School. They taught residents in the psychiatric program about asylum law and the role psychiatric evaluations play for asylum seekers in the United States. It was a meaningful opportunity to teach physicians how they can help fight for justice and create a dialogue between schools and disciplines.
Thanks to the efforts of the clinic, a family of five will get to stay in the United States. When the mother, P.M., was a child, her stepfather worked for an African country’s embassy. At age 11, her stepfather brought P.M. and her mother to live in the United States. P.M.’s stepfather began isolating P.M. and sexually abusing her in their home and even inside the embassy. He would threaten to send P.M. back to Africa to live by herself if she told anyone what he was doing. The abuse continued for two years.
As a result of the sexual abuse P.M. faced as a child, she suffered from eating disorders and suicidal ideation as an adult. In 2019, with the support of her husband, A.M., P.M. reported her stepfather to the police. As a result, he was sentenced to eight years in prison. With her stepfather finally facing judgment and with the assistance of the Immigration Clinic, P.M. was granted a T-visa as a victim of trafficking.
The fight does not end here, however. A.M. is currently facing removal proceedings of his own. The clinic will move to terminate these proceedings based on A.M.’s derivative T-visa status. If successful, this will mean P.M., A.M., and their three small children will all get to stay in the United States together. (Pictured front row: Professorial Lecturer in Law Paulina Vera and Ann Nicholas, JD ’21. Back row: Sebastian Weinmann, JD ’21; Colleen Ward, JD ’21; Rachel Sims, JD ’21; and Professor Alberto Benitez)
In the spring semester, Professor Benitez received the Silver Anniversary Faculty Award. The award is given to those professors in the George Washington University community who have completed 25 years of continuous full-time service.
Professor Gutman’s article, “Are Federal Exonerees Paid?: Lessons for the Drafting and Interpretation of Wrongful Conviction Compensation Statutes,” was published in the Cleveland State Law Review. Professor Gutman also was involved in two significant cases this semester. The first was Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless v. D.C. Department of Human Services, where the court in a D.C. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case ordered the disclosure of thousands of 2019 emails reflecting complaints and concerns with the D.C. shelter housing program. The other was Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, where a federal court denied the government’s motion for summary judgment in a federal FOIA case seeking records related to the Trump administration’s defunding of organizations fighting white nationalism. The court also ordered two new searches for potentially responsive documents.
Director, Small Business and Community Economic Development Clinic
n February 2021, Professor Jones presented her paper “The Case for
Leadership Coaching in Law Schools: A New Way to Support Professional Identity Formation” (48 Hofstra Law Review 659 2020) at the Santa Clara University School of Law Symposium “Lawyers, Leadership, and Change: Addressing Challenges and Opportunities in Unprecedented Times.” The symposium was co-sponsored with the Association of American Law Schools’ (AALS) Section on Leadership Institute for Leadership Education. In May 2021, Professor Jones was a panelist at the AALS Clinical Conference concurrent session “Building the Future Through the Development of Leadership and Professional Identity in Clinical Programs.” Professor Jones continues to serve on the AALS Leadership Section Executive Committee. Her co-edited book Investing for Social & Economic Impact is forthcoming in 2022 from ABA Publishing.
In January 2021, the faculty voted to appoint Dean Kohn as the Jacob Burns Associate Dean for Clinical Affairs. Dean Kohn had served in this position on an interim basis since 2019. Dean Kohn organized and moderated a panel at the January 2021 meeting of the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) titled “How the Pandemic Made Me a Better Teacher. In May 2021, the California Court of Appeals Fourth Appellate District relied on Dean Kohn’s scholarship regarding the credibility of domestic violence survivors.
Professor Meier was a featured commentator in parts 3 and 4 of HBO’s 4-part docuseries Allen v. Farrow, which ran in April 2021 and can be streamed on HBO Max. She is a co-author with Danielle Pollack of Allen v Farrow: Child Sexual Abuse is the Final Frontier. She was the keynote speaker of the New Jersey Family Division and Domestic Violence Education Conference, where she presented “Vicarious Trauma and Resilience.” She was a panelist for the Learning Network, Center for Research and Education on Violence Against Women and Children at Western University in Canada, where she presented “Family Court Outcomes in U.S. Custody Cases with Abuse and Alienation Claims.” She was a panelist for the GW Law Association for Women, where she presented “Paving Public Interest and Pro Bono.” She was also a panelist at the American Association of Law Schools Annual Meeting, where she presented “Dynamic Pedagogy in the Family and Juvenile Law Classroom: Experiential and In-Class Exercises.” Professor Meier has been featured on the episode “Testimony” of GW Law Dean Matthew’s podcast. She was featured with Sara Scott in the webinar “The Trauma We Carry” for the Center for Legal Inclusiveness and in the webinar “Family Court Outcomes in U.S. Cases with Abuse and Alienation Claims” for the N.Y. State Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Recently, Professor Meier’s manuscript, which she calls her “piece de resistance” on what is wrong in family courts and what can fix it, was accepted by Georgetown University Law Journal. Professor Meier also was appointed to the N.Y. Governor’s Blue-Ribbon Commission on custody evaluators as the only non-New York-based expert.
Professor Steinberg published “Judges and the Deregulation of Lawyers” (89 Fordham Law Review 1315 (2021) (with Anna Carpenter, Colleen Shanahan, and Alyx Mark) and presented the paper as part of Fordham Law School’s Colloquium on Judging. In addition, Professor Steinberg received the Alfred McKenzie Award from the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights for “dismantling injustice” for prisoners during the COVID-19 pandemic by founding the compassionate release clearinghouse along with several partner agencies. She was quoted in The Washington Post article “Sick, Elderly Prisoners Are At Risk for Covid-19. A New D.C. Law Makes it Easier for Them to Seek Early Release,” which detailed the impact of the District of Columbia’s new compassionate release law, authored by Professor Steinberg.
Professor Vera was selected by the Hispanic National Bar Association (HNBA) as one of 26 attorneys nationwide to receive the HNBA 2021 Top Lawyers Under 40 Award in March 2021. The award recognizes legal achievement, integrity, commitment to the Hispanic community, and a dedication to improving the legal profession.
JOIN US ON SOCIAL MEDIA
In October 2020, the clinics launched a Facebook group page. Through this forum, current clinic students and alumni can now gather to exchange information, share campus events, and discuss employment opportunities. Please join us.
It’s no surprise to me and other members of the NDPA that clinics are leading the way in modern legal education. And, immigration clinics have been at the forefront of clinical education (“practical scholarship”). While academia is often slow to adjust to “marketplace changes,” it’s encouraging to see the long-overdue recognition that clinical teaching is finally getting as the “core” of modern legal education.
Hats off to Alberto, Paulina, my Georgetown CALS colleagues, and all the other amazing clinical professors out there! Clinical professors and other progressive practical scholars and litigators are the folks who belong on the Federal Bench at all levels, from the Immigration Courts to the Supremes, and who should be the political and private sector leaders of the future!
Immigration, human rights, and due process have for some time now been the “seminal fields” of Federal Law — the essence of what our 21st Century Justice system is all about and the key to our survival and future prosperity as a democratic republic. Unfortunately, the political, judicial, and legal “establishments” have been slow on the uptake. That’s a primary reason why our legal and political systems are now in crisis.
Hopefully, the “best and the brightest” who have been courageously serving on the front lines of protecting our democracy and advancing racial and gender justice will in the next generations assume the leadership positions that they have earned and that will be key to our nation’s survival and advancement!
President Joe Biden has taken some steps toward reversing his predecessor’s legacy of broad, indiscriminate immigration enforcement, including a recent announcement that it will no longer detain immigrants at two locations under scrutiny for alleged abuses.
But Republicans are adamant that increased immigration enforcement be a prerequisite to any broader immigration reform.
“There’ll be no immigration reform until you get control of the border,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told Roll Call last month.
There are now nearly 40 percent more people in immigration detention compared to when Biden first took office, and his administration is continuing to turn away most migrants arriving on the border under pandemic-related restrictions put in place by his predecessor, President Donald Trump, which have led to the expulsions of more than 350,000 people this year alone.
But research shows that the threat of detention and deportation in the US doesn’t dissuade migrants from making the journey to the southern border, especially if they are victims of violence and may be seeking to escape the “devil they know” in their home countries.
“Managing migration at the border, particularly the kind of migration we’re seeing now, from a strictly deterrence, enforcement lens is just not sustainable in the long run and is not having the impact that people think it should have,” Theresa Cardinal Brown, managing director of immigration and cross-border policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center, said. “That’s why we need to rethink our paradigm for how we talk about migration and everything that we do at the border.”
. . . .
Knowledge of US immigration detention, however, did have an unintended effect on survey takers in Ryo’s experiment — it made them more likely to think outcomes and legal procedures in the American immigration system are unfair. That is worrisome, given that perceptions of fairness are significant predictors of people’s willingness to obey the law and cooperate with legal authorities, Ryo said.
“We really ought to be concerned about the extent to which generating these kinds of perceptions of unfairness can backfire in terms of more people disregarding our laws and undertaking that dangerous journey in order to get to our border and try to cross it,” she added.
. . . .
************************
First, let me congratulate Nicole on her spectacularly high level reporting and mastery of the English language: Clear, accessible, well-organized, informative, persuasive.Compare Nicole’s prose with the vapid, often misleading nonsense and gibberish spouted by legislators, government officials, bureaucrats, and right wing White Nationalist shills of all types. Just yesterday, Trump and his pathetic “wannabe” Greg Abbott were down at the border spouting their unadulterated, fact-free, racist blather and restrictionist nonsense (when Trump wasn’t rambling on incoherently about the “Big Lie” or himself). I encourage everyone to read Nicole’s full article at the link!
“Enforcement only doesn’t work” has been one of the key “themes” of Courtside since “Day 1.” The answer has also been clear — due process, fundamental fairness, racial equity, practical scholarship leading to durable solutions.
The converse of “enforcement only doesn’t work” is also true: A more realistic, more generous legal immigration system that advances due process and equality while taking advantage of “market factors” that attract and drive migration would also lead to more efficient and effective enforcement. Many, perhaps the majority, of those we are now wasting time and money on cruel and ultimately futile attempts to detain, deter, and remove would actually be a huge benefit to our nation if they were allowed to migrate legally on either a permanent or temporary basis.
I’ve been saying for a long time now that convincing folks that our legal system is basically bogus — falsely promising a fairness and dignified treatment we aren’t delivering — merely serves to drive migrants to enter the “extralegal” or “black market” system that helps support our economy. The real “beneficiaries” of “mindless immigration enforcement” and a dysfunctional legal system are smugglers, cartels, and exploitative employers. Also, obviously, corrupt GOP politicos benefit from having a permanent, disenfranchised, traumatized, largely non-White “black market labor pool” to prop up their economy while serving as an easy target to “whip up” their racist base.
Bad policies, driven by ignorance, myths, bias, cowardice, and racism will continue to produce lousy results — for the migrants and for our nation. Smarter, more courageous, more intellectually honest legislators and public officials are necessary. Whether voters will be wise enough to elect them remains to be seen.
Maria Ramos Pacheco reports for the Dallas Morning News:
CIUDAD JUÁREZ, Mexico — While Vice President Kamala Harris said Friday the goal of her trip to El Paso was to understand the “root causes” of the rising influx of migrants from recent months, just across the border Honduran migrant Manuel Medina had a simple explanation for why thousands of people from other countries will continue to try to reach the United States: To stay alive while fleeing countries where their families are threatened by crime and violence.
“I did not leave my country and my wife because I wanted to. [Rising] crime forced me to leave everything; the only thing I want is for my family and me to be safe,” said Medina, 37, who left Honduras in May 2019 after receiving threats from gang members.
Amid a chorus of criticism coming mainly from Republican politicians, Harris made her first trip to the U.S. Southern border flanked by the Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas; Sen. Dick Durbin, D- Ill; and El Paso Rep. Verónica Escobar.
Amid a chorus of criticism coming mainly from Republican politicians, Harris made her first trip to the U.S. Southern border flanked by the Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro MayorkasSen.
For people like Medina, neither restrictive immigration policies nor dangerous journeys through several countries, border walls, or even statements from politicians deter them from seeking to rebuild their lives in the United States.
Medina has lived for two years in this city’s El Buen Samaritano shelter, managed by a religious organization, along with his 15-year-old son Nahúm Medina. Their asylum petition was initially rejected in 2019 and he stayed in Ciudad Juárez under the Migrants Protection Protocols, waiting for a second chance.
The MPP or “Remain in Mexico” program was created in 2019 by the Trump administration, which forced people seeking asylum to remain in Mexico. As of May, there were 71,002 active cases.
Restrictionism, racism, nativism, cruelty, and scofflaw behavior will only continue to make things worse. And, AG Merick Garland, staffing your “courts” with “Miller Lite” holdovers and Trump toadies won’t stop the downward spiral of American justice on your watch!
EOIR Withdraws Opposition to
NAIJ Motion to Reconsider,
Does Not Oppose Motion to Remand
Judges:
In a filing this morning, EOIR withdrew its opposition to our motion to reconsider before the FLRA and agreed to a remand to the Regional Director. Here’s their brief.
This is a major step forward in our fight against the previous administration’s effort to decertify NAIJ. NAIJ thanks EOIR and DOJ for taking this important step.
EOIR’s actions come after NAIJ filed with the FLRA earlier this week a Motion to Remand and for Stay. NAIJ’s motion was part of a coordinated effort by NAIJ and our parent union IFPTE to bring the importance of the decertification issue to the attention of the highest levels of this administration. It looks like we succeeded.
Although there are many reasons for optimism, this fight is not yet over. The decertificaton matter remains pending before the FLRA. As we are well aware, the FLRA is still composed of the same members who, over a vigorous dissent, reversed the decision of the FLRA Regional Director who had previously upheld our right to unionize. We are closely monitoring the situation with our litigation team to assure this favorable progress continues until our case is definitively resolved, once and for all.
Thank you for your unwaivering support of NAIJ.
We will keep everyone updated with any further developments.
The NAIJ Board
**********************
As pointed out by the NAIJ Board, it’s not over till it’s over! But, definitely a big step in the right direction for the NAIJ, the Garland DOJ, and the Biden Administration!
FULL DISCLOSURE: I am a retired member of the NAIJ!
“Sadly, over the last two decades the US has been unable to get beyond this vision of ‘deterrence’ of legal asylum seekers.“ — Floaters — “How The World’s Richest Country Responds To Asylum Seekers” EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT – The bodies of Salvadoran migrant Oscar Alberto Mart??nez Ram??rez and his nearly 2-year-old daughter Valeria lie on the bank of the Rio Grande in Matamoros, Mexico, Monday, June 24, 2019, after they drowned trying to cross the river to Brownsville, Texas. Martinez’ wife, Tania told Mexican authorities she watched her husband and child disappear in the strong current. (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)Vice President Kamala D. Harris Vice President of the United States. — “So far, she hasn’t gotten beyond the mistakes of the past, either. Taking a tour with CBP won’t help.” (Official Senate Photo)
Last week, Ms. Harris traveled to Guatemala to meet with President Alejandro Giammattei and expressed the Biden administration’s goal to “help Guatelmalans find hope at home.” During a press conference on June 7, she told Guatemalans thinking of making the journey north to the United States: “Do not come. Do not come.”
“O.K., that’s like saying, ‘Stay home and die,’” according to the Rev. Pat Murphy, a Scalabrini priest who runs the Casa del Migrante shelter in Tijuana, Baja California. “That message is falling on deaf ears.”
If Ms. Harris does travel to the border, Father Murphy said, she should be sure to make a visit to the Mexican side. “If she just stays on her side, she’s not going to find much,” he said.
In Tijuana, Ms. Harris would see a camp of 2,000 asylum seekers near the port of entry, Father Murphy said. “If she looked a little further, she would see the people who are victims of violence in Tijuana and Mexicali and other places,” he said. Migrants may be eager to escape bad situations in their home countries, Father Murphy said, but they often do not understand how difficult conditions at the border are “until they’re stuck in the middle of [a border city] with no place to go.”
“You can’t understand [border realities] by talking to government officials. You have to talk to the people who are working with migrants and hear about the suffering.”
At diminished capacity because of the pandemic, migrant shelters are full. The United States has started to accept some vulnerable people, like families with children with an illness or those being persecuted because of their sexual orientation, Father Murphy said. But there are also hundreds deported every day.
He believes if the vice president did decide to visit the border, it would be worth her while. “You can’t understand [border realities] by talking to government officials,” Father Murphy said. “You have to talk to the people who are working with migrants and hear about the suffering.”
. . . .
Donald M. Kerwin Executive Director Center for Migration Studies
Donald Kerwin, the executive director of the Center for Migration Studies in New York, also noted that people have a right not to migrate—to stay in their home country. He sees immigration policy as an arena for a fruitful convergence of Catholic social teaching, international law and contemporary human rights principles.
The Biden administration’s recognition of the forces that drive migration should be applauded, but it can address root causes while re-establishing humane asylum policies at the border.
“States are responsible for ensuring that people can flourish at home,” he said. “But it’s an empty right at this point in many communities in the Northern Triangle countries. They’re facing impossible conditions, caused by natural disasters, climate change, gang violence and extraordinary poverty. So people have a right to flee those impossible conditions and seek lives that are worthy of human dignity. In some cases, that means leaving their countries.”
When they do leave their home countries, people have the right to seek protection wherever they can find it, Mr. Kerwin said. “The vice president seems to have bought into the… I can’t use another word, but the nativist party line, that somehow these immigrants are the cause of the problem when, in fact, they’re the victims of multiple problems in many cases.”
The United States needs a functioning refugee resettlement system, an asylum system and robust humanitarian programs to address the conditions in Central America that are driving people to migrate, he said. “They’re not in place right now,” Mr. Kerwin said, “and until they are in place, people will reluctantly, at a terrible cost…continue to migrate.”
If Ms. Harris visits the border, Mr. Kerwin suggested she speak with migrants that have entered the United States, starting with the children. “Find out why they’ve come, what drove them to the United States and also see what their situation is currently, in often overcrowded facilities,” he said. “At that point, it would be clear as day that these folks are not a problem. These folks fled terrible problems, but they themselves are not the problem.”
Earlier this month, more than 20 bishops, Vatican representatives and leaders of Catholic organizations met for an emergency immigration meeting at Mundelein Seminary, outside of Chicago. Mr. Kerwin, who attended the meeting, said organizers displayed notes written by immigrant children, often addressed to God.
“It’s clear from reading these notes that these are lovely children, who miss their parents and worry about them and are in difficult situations that are not of their own making. And that the United States should do right by them,” he said. “And the right thing is to protect them and reunify them with family members.”
Chloe Gunther, America intern, contributed to this story.
***********************
Read the full article at the link.
Politicians of both parties are averse to the truth. They don’t have the courage and backbone for it! But the truth is quite simple, if somewhat “inconvenient.”
Unless and until we can solve the problems driving refugees to flee the Northern Triangle, we will have to take more of them. We should welcome them through an orderly legal system, including a robust, properly staffed, and honestly administered legal refugee and asylum system.
Alternatively, we could continue our current policies of immorally and illegally killing some on the journey, “snuffing” some in the desert (where their bodies might never be found and “counted”), and enriching smugglers and cartels who will eventually get many determined survivors into the interior.
There, they will join our highly exploitable, yet politically expedient for both parties (for differing reasons), “extralegal population.” Alimited number will be “in the wrong place at the wrong time” and be arbitrarily removed by ICE, usually at costs that far exceed any demonstrable benefits. Even fewer will commit misconduct leading to their arrest and removal.
But the bulk of them will blend in somehow and do what’s necessary for themselves and their families to survive, as has been happening for decades and generations. They will also enrich and improve our nation in ways both predictable and unpredictable. Some will eventually find it possible and advantageous to return to their nations of origin, most won’t.
It would be far better for both the migrants and our nation, not to mention humanity as a whole, if we included the bulk of those forced to come here in our legal immigration system. But, whether we are enlightened enough “to do it the right way” or not, they will come as long as the alternatives are starvation, death, unspeakable abuse, and unending despair.
Migration is both our oldest and most persistent human phenomenon and an essential survival skill for humanity. It’s going to take more than inane walls, cruel and illegal imprisonment in American Gulags, unworkable laws, mindless, yet expensive, enforcement, nativist rhetoric, bad judges, and cowardly politicians sending “don’t come” messages to make them “die in place.” Our politicians might be not be bright or brave enough to face reality — but, I guarantee that the forced migrants we like to dehumanize and look down upon are much smarter, braver, more aware, and far more creative, adaptable, and capable than we think!
NPR: In a pair of decisions announced Wednesday, Attorney General Merrick Garland is vacating several controversial legal rulings issued by his predecessors — in effect, restoring the possibility of asylum protections for women fleeing from domestic violence in other countries, and families targeted by violent gangs.
AP: A pending federal court case in Texas is challenging whether the program’s creation was legal. If the challenge is successful, it could end protections, adding urgency to those pressing Congress for a more lasting solution.
Axios: The policy known as Title 42 has resulted in tens of thousands of migrant family members, including asylum seekers, being sent away — as well as thousands of kids then separating from their families to cross into the United States alone.
Reuters: As the U.S. military completes its withdrawal from Afghanistan in the coming weeks, the Biden administration says it is adding staff to hurry up the visa process for Afghans who worked for the U.S. government and want to flee to avoid Taliban reprisals.
CityLimits: As they continue on the campaign trail, contenders of both parties who remain in the race speak openly about citizens’ concerns, such as crime, police reform, affordable housing, education, health, jobs and the Big Apple’s recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. Latino voters, however, still feel that they have not heard concrete proposals regarding immigrants.
Intercept: Internal ICE records and emails, as well as a deposition by an ICE officer in a court case, show the agency referring to an advocacy group as a “known adversary” and closely surveilling the immigration and civil rights activists’ activities, both online and in person.
NYT: Health and consumer protection agencies have repeatedly warned that several of these treatments, as well as vitamin infusions and expensive injections of “peptide therapies” sold at alternative wellness clinics for more than $1,000, are not supported by reliable scientific evidence.
AIC: Although not every proposed rule put on the agenda will end up being finalized, the agenda signals an administration’s priorities and its goals for pursuing changes to our immigration system through executive action.
DOJ vacated Matter of A-B- and Matter of A-B-II and stated that immigration judges and the BIA should no longer follow these decisions when adjudicating pending or future cases. Matter of A-B-, 28 I&N Dec. 307 (A.G. 2021) AILA Doc. No. 21061639
DOJ vacated Matter of L-E-A- II in its entirely and immigration judges and the BIA should no longer follow Matter of L-E-A- II when adjudicating pending and future cases. Matter of L-E-A-, 28 I&N Dec. 304 (A.G. 2021)AILA Doc. No. 21061640
AAG: Please review any pending cases that may be affected by the Attorney General’s vacatur of L-E-A-II, A-B-I, and A-B-II and take appropriate steps in light of that development, including seeking remands in appropriate cases to allow the Board to reconsider asylum claims based on this change in the law.
The court certified to New York State Court of Appeals the question of whether an intent to “appropriate” property requires an intent to deprive the owner of property permanently or under circumstances where their property rights are substantially eroded. (Ferreiras Veloz v. Garland, 6/7/21) AILA Doc. No. 21061635
Law360: A split Third Circuit panel on Thursday refused to halt deportation proceedings for a Jamaican woman who pled guilty to defrauding the elderly in a lottery scam, ruling in a precedential decision that she didn’t prove she was likely to face retribution from the scam’s ringleader if sent back to her native country.
The court held that although the defendant, a former military officer, refused to shoot civilians during the Salvadorian Civil War, the fact that he “assisted” and “participated in the commission of” extrajudicial killings permitted his denaturalization. (United States v. Vasquez, 6/11/21) AILA Doc. No. 21061737
The court concluded that 8 CFR §212.7(e)(4)(iii), together with 8 CFR §§1003.10(b) and 1003.1(d)(1)(ii), gives IJs and the BIA the authority for administrative closure to permit noncitizens to apply for and receive provisional unlawful presence waivers. (Garcia-DeLeon v. Garland, 6/4/21) AILA Doc. No. 21061634
The court found that while the Memphis Immigration Court violated procedural rules in transferring the petitioner’s hearing to the Louisville Immigration Court, that violation was a procedural question relating to venue, not jurisdiction to hear the case. (Tobias-Chaves v. Garland, 6/8/21) AILA Doc. No. 21061636
The court granted the petition for review and remanded the case to the BIA in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Niz-Chavez v. Garland. (Lorenzo Lopez v. Garland, 6/8/21) AILA Doc. No. 21061643
The court held that the BIA erred by reviewing the IJ’s decision de novo rather than for clear error, and found that the record established that the petitioner had met her burden to show it was more likely than not she would be tortured if removed to Mexico. (Soto-Soto v. Garland, 6/11/21) AILA Doc. No. 21061644
Law360: A split Tenth Circuit panel on Tuesday reversed a Utah federal judge’s order finding that American Samoans are birthright U.S. citizens, holding that the issue belongs in the hands of Congress, not the courts.
Law360: In a decision that established several court precedents, the Eleventh Circuit has revived a Sri Lankan man’s bid for asylum, ruling that both an immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals failed to properly reconsider his asylum application after allowing him to stay in the United States.
Law360: The D.C. Circuit ruled Friday that it lacks jurisdiction to revive asylum-seekers’ challenge to how border officers carry out a policy that requires migrants to seek protections in other countries they pass en route to the U.S.
AILA: DHS filed a motion for partial summary judgment in district court on all the plaintiffs’ claims regarding the 30-day timeline repeal rule, which was published on June 22, 2020.
Law360: The Biden administration has asked a Maryland federal judge to keep intact a Trump-era asylum work rule that gives the U.S. Department of Homeland Security more time to process work permits, saying the increased flow of asylum-seekers justifies the change.
Law360: Three Mexican nationals have asked a Colorado federal court to declare that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services unlawfully denied their green card applications by finding them inadmissible under a 10-year bar on reentering the United States up to 20 years after they left the country.
USCIS provided guidance in the Policy Manual on employment authorization and deferred action for principal petitioners for U nonimmigrant status and qualifying family members with pending, bona fide petitioners. Comments and feedback is due by July 14, 2021. AILA Doc. No. 21061433
DHS and DOS issued a joint statement on the second phase of the Central American Minors (CAM) program’s reopening. Eligibility now includes legal guardians and parents and U.S.-based parents or legal guardians with pending asylum application or pending U visa petition filed before 5/15/21. AILA Doc. No. 21061631
Thanks Elizabeth!As previously noted, I remain skeptical of Biden Administration plans to “reform” asylum law without bringing in the progressive human rights experts who can handle the job!
Most needed “reforms” — like bringing in progressive judges, replacing the BIA, bringing in progressive managers and executives, slashing the largely self-created EOIR backlog, working with NGOs to provide universal representation to asylum seekers and other vulnerable individuals, eliminating unnecessary detention, issuing positive precedents to guide IJs and Asylum Officers, bringing on more Asylum Officers and offering them better training (see, e.g., VIISTA @ Villanova), restoring Administrative Closing, implementing e-filing at EOIR, expanding the Central American Minors Program and other refugee programs in Central America, and many others are “hiding in plain sight.”
The “blueprints” are already about there — in bulk! All that’s missing is the dynamic new progressive leadership to implement them and insure compliance.
Also, as I’ve pointed out before, no Administration in history has had the benefit of so much empirical data, practical scholarship, and “ready for prime time” workable solutions for such well-documented and glaring problems. The asylum and EOIR “fixes” are both highly doable and can produce immediate positive results with more to follow!
But, not necessarily the way the Biden Administration is going about it, with far too many of those needed to turn “rhetoric into reality” still on sidelines in the private sector. In the meantime, folks who have already proved beyond a reasonable doubt that they can’t fix the system remain in key positions.
For Pete’s sake, several of my Georgetown Law students rattled off some of these solutions in class yesterday, and asked me why nobody was working on them. I told them I couldn’t figure out why the Biden Administration was so “slow on the uptake” with so many resources and experts out here in the private sector!
One of my most obvious ideas — hire my three colleagues, Georgetown Professors Phil Schrag, Andy Schoenholtz, and Temple Associate Dean Jaya Ramji-Nogales who recently wrote “instant immigration classic” The End of Asylum and earlier wrote the classic “bad government” expose Refugee Roulette — on a six month consulting contract to come in and fix EOIR and the Asylum Office.
It’s not so much regulatory reform that’s needed (although to be sure improvements can be made), but rather bringing in progressive leadership and better judges in key positions at DHS, DOJ, and EOIR to insure that due process is maximized, best practices are instituted, and recalcitrant personnel still committed to the Trump/Miller White Nationalist agenda are placed in other jobs where they can’t overtly damage our justice system.
Not “rocket science!” 🚀 But, it’s not going to be solved by a “regulatory agenda” either!
“They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.”
Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice, Supreme Court, March 1857, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857)
“Congress is entitled to set the conditions for an alien’s lawful entry into this country and that, as a result, an alien at the threshold of initial entry cannot claim any greater rights under the due process clause.”
Justice Samuel Alito, Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. ___ (2020)
Dred Scott (circa 1857) Public Realm — Black asylum seekers and other migrants aren’t celebrating the continuing disgraceful “Dred Scottification of the other” in Mayorkas’s “New American Gulag” and Garland’s “Miller Lite” Immigration “Courts” that aren’t “courts” at all!
Yacouba, a political activist in Ivory Coast, knew if he didn’t immediately flee his home country, he wouldn’t survive.
After being threatened, attacked and tortured by people sympathetic to those in power, Yacouba fled his country in 2018. He went to Brazil for a few years, then made a perilous trek through Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, Panama, Costa Rica, Honduras and Mexico before finally arriving in the United States.
The journey was one of the two most challenging periods of his life. The second was being detained as a Black immigrant in the U.S.
As the nation celebrates Juneteenth — a day commemorating the emancipation of African Americans who had been enslaved in the United States — as a federal holiday for the first time, Black Americans and immigrants are fighting to dismantle institutional racism, including within the immigration system. Black immigrants are disproportionately detained, receive higher bond costs, and say they face racist treatment within detention centers.
Recognizing and celebrating the emancipation of slaves is vital, activists say ― but continuing to take down systemic racism needs to come with it.
“From an immigration perspective, Black immigrants face disproportionate levels of detention and exclusion,” Diana Konate, policy director at the advocacy group African Communities Together, said Thursday on a press call. “These can be life-threatening, as Black immigrants often get deported back to unsafe and dangerous conditions. While we celebrate the victories, we keep in mind that a lot of work remains.”
. . . .
*********************
Read the rest of Rowaida’s article at the link.
Every day that Garland, Monaco, Gupta, and Clarke drag their collective feet on ending “Dred Scottification,” racial bias, and xenophobia at EOIR diminishes their credibility on all racial and social justice issues. To date, Garland has appointed zero (O) progressive judges at EOIR, has only scratched the surface of the White Nationalist bias in decision-making in the Immigration Courts, and has failed to re-establish due process and the rule of law for Blacks and other migrants of color at the border.
Justice Alito and his colleagues in the majority disgracefully basically “dressed up” the core of Dred Scott dehumanization and bias in “21st century faux constitutional gobbledygook and intentional, disingenuous fictionalization!” Make no mistake: asylum seekers applying at our borders with their lives and humanity at stake are “persons” subject to our jurisdiction and are entitled to full Constitutional due process and statutory rights that are being denied to them every day, currently by the Biden Administration.
While Alito & Co. are wrong, DEAD WRONG in all too many cases, nothing in their dishonest and misguided “jurisprudence” prevents Garland from providing due process to individuals, regardless of status, in Immigration Court and to ending the racism and dehumanization underneath both the mess at EOIR and the cowardly abdication of duty by the Supremes’ majority in Thuraissigiam! In human rights, you either solve the problem or become part of it. And, experts, journalists, and historians are making a permanent record of the actions of the Supremes and the Biden Administration when democracy and racial justice are under stress!
You don’t have to look very far to “connect the dots” between Alito’s dismissive attitude toward the human rights of Asians and other asylum seekers of color and the increase in hate crimes directed against Asian Americans and unfair policing of African Americans. Once courts and government officials endorse “dehumanization of the other based largely on ethnicity” the “protections” and “distinctions” of citizenship tend to also vanish. If the lives of migrants of color can be declared worthless, what difference does citizenship mean for those of the same ethnic heritage that Alito deems below humanity? Obviously, the Trump kakistocracy’s attack on migrants of color was just a “place holder” for their attack on the rights of all persons of color in America!
How can Garland’s DOJ demand racial justice in state law enforcement while operating America’s most notorious “Jim Crow Court System?”
James “Jim” Crow Symbol of American Racism — He still “rules the roost” at Garland’s EOIR!
It’s time for all civil rights and civil liberties organizations to join forces in demanding an end to bias and “Dred Scottification of the other” in Garland’s disgracefully dysfunctional Immigration “Courts.” Not rocket science!🚀 Just human decency, common sense, available (yet ignored) progressive expertise, and Con Law 101!
“The NTA sent to Villegas de Mendez does not contain the information required to trigger the stop-time rule. See id. at 1478-79, 1485; see also § 1229(a)(1)(A)-(G). Neither does the subsequent notice of hearing sent to her. Thus, she did not receive the “single compliant document” required by statute. Niz-Chavez, 141 S. Ct. at 1485. The BIA consequently abused its discretion by committing an error of law. See Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 100 (1996); Ramos-Portillo v. Barr, 919 F.3d 955, 958 (5th Cir. 2019); Milat v. Holder, 755 F.3d 354, 365 (5th Cir. 2014). Therefore, the petition for review is GRANTED and the case is REMANDED to the BIA for further consideration in light of Niz-Chavez, 141 S. Ct. 1474, and consistent with this judgment.”
One major problem with constantly going with DHS interpretations is that many are both legally wrong and practical disasters. After the initial Pereira v. Sessions debacle the BIA had a chance to solve the problem. Instead, undoubtedly spurred on by the “deny everything culture” promoted by the Trump regime’s White Nationalist agenda, the BIA chose the worst possible legal interpretation with disruptive practical implications. Any real immigration expert could have seen this coming!
When was the last time in a potential “Chevron-type” situation that the BIA or the AG adopted the migrant’s proffered interpretation rather than DHS’s? Yet even with all the (in my view highly inappropriate) advantages conferred on the Government by the Supremes’ intellectual indolence in Chevron and its absurdist companion “Brand X,” Article III Courts, including the Supremes, reject BIA/AG interpretations on a regular basis. Pereira and Niz-Chavez are just two of the most prominent recent examples.
Moreover, because neither the AGs nor the BIA are respected experts in immigration and human rights, and, shockingly, none have significant experience representing individuals in Immigration Court, the mis-interpretations that they choose are often impractical and unworkable. This, in turn leads to confusion, unnecessary remands, and unmanageable backlogs, not to mention patent injustice and deadly results for the mere humanscaught up in this ongoing disaster! This is what “Dred Scottifcation” is all about!
The case highlighted above should have been reopened in 2017. In a “real” court system, with qualified judges, professional administration, and no political interference, it could have been completed by now. Instead, it’s no closer to completion than it was four years ago!
But, lots of time and resources have been wasted in defending the BIA’s wrong attempt to deny reopening! This nonsense by the Government, NOT dilatory tactics by migrants and their attorneys trying to navigate this intentionally user-unfriendly and often illegal and illogical system, is what “builds backlog!”
Indeed, a wiser system would have turned preliminary adjudication of these cases over to USCIS so that only those that could not be granted and were not appropriate for prosecutorial discretion (“PD”) would have been sent to Immigration Court. Virtually none of the “non-LPR cancellation” cases are legitimate enforcement priorities. A similar approach was used with the NACARA program under better overall management.
Instead, as a result of poor BIA decision-making and even worse “leadership” at the Trump DOJ, this case is no closer to a final resolution than it was in 2017. And, DHS and EOIR still haven’t systemically corrected the completely fixable practical problems that generated Pereira and Niz-Chavez in the first place. Nor have Garland and Mayorkas announced systemic plans for removing the unnecessary “cancellation backlog” from Immigration Court dockets even though they would be “low priorities” for ICE under the criteria announced by OPLA’s John Trasvina!
That’s why we have unmanageable backlogs! And they will continue until Garland cleans house at EOIR, brings in a diverse group of qualified expert judges, and empowers them to act independently, stand up to the frequent nonsense pushed by DHS, and “laser focus” on due process for individuals and instituting and enforcing best practices!
One of the most obvious of those “best practices,” totally missing from Garland’s mismanaged Immigration Courts to date, would be returning “docket control” to local Immigration Courts and ending the “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” by EOIR Headquarters and DOJ politicos that has helped generate the out of control backlog.
Many cancellation of removal cases could and should be “administratively closed.” But, inexplicably, Garland has yet to revoke Sessions’s ridiculously wrong Matter of Castro-Tum, and restore to Immigration Judges their power to administratively close cases. That’s notwithstanding that Castro-Tum has been rejected in whole or in part by every Circuit Court of Appeals to consider it.
How long is Garland going to continue to “sponsor” inferior, non-independent, pro-DHS “judging” and amateurish, politicized mismanagement that is destroying our entire legal system?
Gabe Gutierrez NBC News Correspondent Atlanta, GAJudge Amiena Khan, President National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ)Hon. Dana Leigh Marks U.S. Immigration Judge San Francisco Immigration Court Past President, National Association of Immigration JudgesHonorable Charles Honeyman Retired U.S. Immigration Judge Member, Round Table of Former Immigration JudgesHonorable Lisa Dornell U.S. Immigration Judge (Retired) Member, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
Judges Khan and Marks are already on the DOJ payroll. Garland should have brought them in to Falls Church, on at least a temporary basis, to start cleaning up the mess and instituting long overdue due process and judicial independence reforms! The NAIJ which they represent should have been reinstated to represent Immigration Judges.
FULL DISCLOSURE: I am a retired member of the NAIJ.
Recent retirees on the Round Table like Judges Honeyman and Dornell could have been rehired on a temporary basis under available authority to help root out and change the inane quotas, bad precedents, terrible exclusionary hiring processes, and mind-boggling “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” that continues to build backlog, deny due process, and promote reactionary White Nationalist policies in the failed and flailing Immigration “Courts.”
The continuing problems at Garland’s DOJ start with EOIR, but by no means end there! Apparently, Garland’s lackadaisical, permissive attitude toward corruption at DOJ under Trump & his cronies doesn’t get the Hill Dems’ attention unless they and their families were personally targeted by the illegality and misconduct. Otherwise, it’s just the lives of immigrants, asylum seekers, and “the others,” mostly people of color and abused women and children, so who cares?
It’s worthy of noting that it has largely fallen to the press and public interest groups to expose the corruption allowed to fester at Trump’s DOJ. Only then does Garland make tardy and half-hearted efforts to investigate or take action. Cleaning up corruption, changing bad and illegal policies, and rooting out those who carried out such abuses should have been “job one” for the incoming Attorney General. Instead, it’s an “afterthought,” at best!
And, of course, good government and ethics aren’t part of the “institutional culture” @ DOJ that Garland is so anxious to defend. Does every Administration have a “right” to have its illegal actions and corruption covered up and defended by its successor? Will it really deter “good government” if you believe that you might be held accountable by the next Administration for acts of unconstitutionality or illegality?
How come using the law as a “deterrent” is fine as applied to migrants of color, but “deterring” present and future DOJ bureaucrats and politicos from abusing the law in support of a corrupt Administration’s illegal policies isn’t?
Sure, I recognize that guys like Sessions and Barr have a perverted view of what’s unconstitutional. But, the object is to make it difficult for horrible opponents of American democracy like them to become Attorney General in the future and to insure that there will be institutional resistance to any future efforts to corrupt our justice system.
“Normalizing” the unprecedented overtly corrupt behavior of theTrump regime is a continuing problem! We need to fight it all levels of our society and government!
Dishonesty appears to be the main “bipartisan institutional value” at DOJ. No wonder it was so easy for Sessions and Barr to get their corrupt agendas carried out by career lawyers and bureaucrats!
Unless and until Congress finally lights a fire under Garland and his team, and creates an independent Article I Immigration Court, that’s unlikely to change.
Our DOJ is quite obviously broken and reeling. Why isn’t fixing it one of our highest national priorities?
Attorney General Merrick B. Garland — “Is he open to Article I? It would be nice to think so, but still plenty of reason to be skeptical about his intent for EOIR!’ Official White House Photo Public Realm
While it’s always good to be optimistic, to date, “as independent as possible” has meant “as independent as four years of White Nationalist weaponization and meddling from Trump, Miller, Sessions, Barr, Whitaker, Hamilton, McHenry, et al, left them.” That’s NOT independent at all! Quite the OPPOSITE. In many ways there is less judicial independence and more political interference at EOIR now than there was when it was located within the “Legacy INS” before EOIR was created in 1983.
I personally will believe it to the extent that it’s reflected in actions. That means things like vacating restrictive anti-immigrant precedents, restoring asylum for gender-based violence, re-instituting and encouraging Administrative Closing, slashing the backlog by working with parties to remove the vast majority of “non-priority” cases that could be handled in alternative ways, installing e-filing, eliminating bogus “performance work plans,” repudiating “production quotas,” replacing Trump’s BIA with better-qualified judges, revising judicial recruiting and hiring practices to attract more diverse expert candidates from the private/NGO sector, considering stakeholders’ views and recommendations on important policies BEFORE announcing them, establishing a transparent complaint and tenure review process involving the private bar, re-establishing a robust asylum system at the border, upgrading judicial training and using “outside DOJ” experts to conduct it, eliminating the unnecessary “Office of POlicy” from the bloated bureaucracy, hiring experts in judicial management for administrative positions, encouraging written over oral decisions on cases likely to be appealed, expanding the number of judicial law clerks assigned to judges, eliminating agency bureaucracy and redirecting resources to improving local courts and furthering independence, re-recognizing the NAIJ and listening to their suggestions, working cooperatively with the pro bono bar to increase representation, rethinking the overuse of televideo and the presence of “courts” in detention center settings (e.g., prisons in the “New American Gulag”), selecting and retaining only judges who will treat all parties, counsel, and court personnel with respect and professionalism, actively working to overcome the “culture of denial, White Nationalism, and misogyny” that has permeated EOIR over the past four years and still exists, ending docket meddling from Falls Church and DOJ and returning control to local judges, eliminating “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” by politicos and their enablers, reducing the use of single-judge orders at the BIA, selecting expert Appellate Judges for the BIA who will issue some positive as opposed to only negative precedents, refusing to open and closing “courts” located in obscure, out of the way prison locations selected by DHS in large part because of the absence of pro bono lawyers, returning full authority to grant continuances to local judges, no longer referring to DHS (but not respondents’ counsel) as “our partners,” ending the use of derogatory termsand false claims by DOJ officials to Immigration Judges about private lawyers, stopping the intentional manipulation of statistics bv DOJ and EOIR management to further political agendas, ending the “muzzle” on Immigration Judges and encouraging them to participate in public professional activities, promoting best practices rather than institutionalizing worst practices, and again making “through teamwork and and innovation, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all” the absolute touchstone at EOIR, for starters.
To date, NONE of the things on the foregoing list has been accomplished or proposed byGarland and his team. Indeed, a number of his actions, like engaging in “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” by establishing a “Dedicated Docket” for new asylum cases without consulting the stakeholders in advance, and appointing 17 new judges selected by Barr under defective and flawed procedures that discouraged diversity and “disfavored” private sector candidates, are in direct contravention of due process and best practices and serve to discourage, rather than nurture, judicial independence.
Moreover, as I have previously said, I see no evidence that Garland has hired or reached out to any of the types of progressive experts who could actually implement these reforms necessary to achieve judicial independence and promote due process. You can’t get the job done for judicial independence and due process without a radical personnel shakeup at EOIR! The current group at both DOJ and EOIR just doesn’t cut it, as ever a casual observer could tell Garland.
So, until I see some ACTUAL progress, beyond mushy rhetoric, color me skeptical about Garland’s plans for EOIR.
Changes to USCIS Mask Policy: Fully vaccinated staff and visitors are not required to wear masks. However, some government buildings may still require masks for all visitors, including 26 Federal Plaza.
SCOTUSblog: The court ruled in Sanchez v. Mayorkas that adjustment of status is reserved for those who were inspected at the border and admitted to the United States by an immigration officer, thus disqualifying the majority of those granted Temporary Protected Status.
BuzzFeed: The guidance, written by chief ICE attorney John Trasviña, a President Biden appointee, was sent to prosecutors on May 27 and represents a shift in how the agency pursues deportation orders in immigration court by emphasizing the discretion prosecutors have in court. While it does not require prosecutors to toss cases, it could lead to more immigrants having the ability to push for delays or dismissal of their deportation cases.
CNN: Shortly after President Joe Biden took office, the Department of Homeland Security suspended new enrollments to the program formally known as Migrant Protection Protocols. The department subsequently kicked off the process of gradually allowing asylum seekers previously subject to the program into the US. Between February 19 and May 25, around 11,200 migrants were processed into the US, according to Mayorkas’ memo Tuesday.
Vox: [R]esearch shows that the threat of detention and deportation in the US doesn’t dissuade migrants from making the journey to the southern border, especially if they are victims of violence and may be seeking to escape the “devil they know” in their home countries.
BuzzFeed: Ahead of a planned visit by Vice President Kamala Harris, the Biden administration wants Mexico to send back more immigrants turned around by the US, take back additional families expelled by border agents, and do more to prevent Mexican airports from being used as pit stops for migration routes, according to government documents obtained by BuzzFeed News.
Law360: Advocacy groups on Thursday released records acquired through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit that showed failures in oversight by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement of its medical personnel at a Georgia detention center, which is at the center of allegations of medical abuses and forced gynecological procedures.
LATimes: In recent weeks, U.S. border officials have taken an unprecedented step, quietly deploying a new app, CBP One, which relies on controversial facial recognition, geolocation and cloud technology to collect, process and store sensitive information on asylum seekers before they enter the United States, according to three privacy-impact assessments conducted by the Homeland Security Department and experts who reviewed them for The Times. See also US Border Officers Are Collecting DNA From Asylum-Seekers Even Though They Don’t Have Criminal Records.
NYT: Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas has instructed state officials to end contracts with the Biden administration for shelters in the state that hold migrant children and teenagers who have been arriving alone, in record numbers, to the southwest border.
The Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision, holding that a TPS recipient who entered the United States unlawfully is not eligible under §1255 for LPR status merely by dint of his TPS. (Sanchez et ux. v. Mayorkas, 6/7/21) AILA Doc. No. 21060799
BIA: The mere continuation of an activity in the United States that is substantially similar to the activity from which an initial claim of past persecution is alleged and that does not significantly increase the risk of future harm is insufficient to establish “changed circumstances” to excuse an untimely asylum application within the meaning of section 208(a)(2)(D) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D) (2018).
The court held that the BIA did not err when it found that the petitioner, who had a 12-year-old son and a five-year-old daughter, had not met his burden to show that his removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his family. (Tacuri-Tacuri v. Garland, 5/24/21)
The court held that the government’s evidence of petitioner’s fugitive status was insufficiently probative to justify discretionary dismissal of his petition, but found that BIA did not err in denying petitioner’s withholding of removal application. (Galeas Figueroa v. Att’y Gen., 5/19/21)
The court held that the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) does not apply to a habeas proceeding seeking release from civil detention, and thus affirmed the district court’s order denying the petitioner attorney’s fees under the Act. (Obando-Segura v. Garland, 5/28/21) AILA Doc. No. 21060734
The court held that the petitioner’s conviction for conspiracy to commit money laundering plainly constituted an aggravated felony under INA §101(a)(43)(D), and that the remainder of the petitioner’s claims were either meritless or unexhausted. (Maniar v. Garland, 5/20/21) AILA Doc. No. 21060434
Where the government had ordered petitioner removed after he threatened to commit an act of terrorism, the court held that the Attorney General had interpreted INA §208(b)(2)(A)(iv) correctly, and thus that the government had lawfully terminated his asylum status. (Mirza v. Garland, 5/12/21) AILA Doc. No. 21060432
The court held that the petitioner had failed to show that the IJ or the BIA had violated a statutorily imposed evidentiary requirement in finding that the plea agreement form proved the existence of a forgery conviction by clear and convincing evidence. (Nguyen v. Garland, 5/12/21) AILA Doc. No. 21060430
LexisNexis: Garcia-DeLeon v. Garland “We conclude that 8 C.F.R. § 212.7(e)(4)(iii), in conjunction with 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.10(b) and 1003.1(d)(1)(ii), gives IJs and the BIA the authority for administrative closure to permit noncitizens to apply for and receive provisional unlawful presence waivers.
Upholding the BIA’s denial of deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), the court held that the record did not compel a finding that it was more likely than not that the petitioner would suffer future torture if she returned to Jamaica. (Dawson v. Garland, 5/26/21) AILA Doc. No. 21060732
The court held that where it has not been proven that a custody order was entered in error, a nunc pro tunc order cannot retroactively establish a naturalized parent’s sole legal custody for purposes of derivative citizenship under former INA §321(a). (Padilla Carino v. Garland, 5/18/21) AILA Doc. No. 21060731
The court held that exceptional circumstances warranted reopening of in absentia removal orders entered against a mother and her minor child due to the mother’s failure to appear, where the mother suffered from memory problems and was illiterate. (Hernandez-Galand v. Garland, 5/12/21) AILA Doc. No. 21060438
The Ninth Circuit on Wednesday held that immigration judges can reopen the cases of immigrants who have been removed from the U.S. or who voluntarily left, reversing a Board of Immigration Appeals decision that held that the “departure bar” in immigration law blocked those reopenings.
Law360: The Ninth Circuit has agreed to reconsider en banc the denial of a Bangladeshi citizen’s asylum application based on alleged politically motivated threats against his family following a dissent from the panel decision citing evidentiary failures in the initial immigration court finding.
Law360: A group of House Democrats asked the U.S. Department of Justice to withdraw a Trump administration petition that led the Federal Labor Relations Authority to rule immigration judges are managers who cannot unionize, saying the ruling broadly threatens federal employees’ union rights.
Law360: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security asked a Maryland federal court to preserve Trump-era regulations restricting asylum-seeker work permits, saying the official who created the policies had the legal authority to do so despite several courts calling that authority into question.
Two New Jersey counties urged the Third Circuit on Thursday to strike down New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir S. Grewal’s order that county and local law enforcement officers must restrict information they share with immigration authorities, arguing that it obstructs federal law.
ICE issued interim guidance to all OPLA attorneys to guide them in appropriately executing interim civil immigration enforcement and removal priorities and exercising prosecutorial discretion. AILA Doc. No. 21060499
DHS announced that after review of the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) program, the Secretary of Homeland Security made a determination that MPP be terminated. This announcement does not impact this phased entry strategy into the United States of certain individuals enrolled in MPP. AILA Doc. No. 21060141
USCIS announced a pilot program for accepting credit card payments using Form G-1450, Authorization for Credit Card Transactions, for U nonimmigrants filing Form I-485. The pilot program began on May 3 and is limited to the Nebraska Service Center. AILA Doc. No. 21060200
Item #3 makes an essential point that experts have long recognized and that undermines the assumptions on which many of the failed Trump and Biden immigration policies are based: U.S. enforcement policies have little or no effect on forced migrants’ decisions to leave their homes.
Indeed, as immigration experts have told the Administration, to little apparent avail, “forced migration” is exactly what it says it is: migration resulting from forces in home countries that are largely beyond the immediate control of either the migrants or the U.S. Government.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t understand and constructively address the root causes of human migration. Of course we should!
But, such systemic changes will take time and will have only marginal effects, if any, on current migration patterns. And, harsh, cruel enforcement and illegal border closures will continue to waste resources while squandering any remaining moral leadership authority we have on migration issues following four years of unrelenting illegal and immoral behavior by the Trump regime!
Vox: [R]esearch shows that the threat of detention and deportation in the US doesn’t dissuade migrants from making the journey to the southern border, especially if they are victims of violence and may be seeking to escape the “devil they know” in their home countries.
I just watched a TV news report in which law enforcement officials and reporters hypothesized the higher walls had caused smugglers to use more dangerous methods such as maritime entries, that, in turn, kill more migrants. Is that how we measure “success?” And, even killing a few more migrants won’t have a material effect on departures or overall illegal entries.
Why not encourage individuals to apply for refuge from abroad or at legal ports of entry where they will be treated fairly and humanely by officials and judges actually qualified to administer asylum and protection laws? Why not structure our legal immigration system around the “market realities” of human migration and “push, pull factors” rather than continuously swimming against the tides of migration? Why not put experts who understand the realities of human migration in charge of our policies and courts, rather than politicos who look only for the expedient, while all too often eschewing the intelligent?
