⚖️🧑‍⚖️☠️ SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE (D-RI) HIGHLIGHTS RIGHT’S SUPREME TAKEOVER! — My Thoughts On “Agency Capture” By Nativists @ EOIR Under Garland!

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
Official Senate Photo

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/feb/22/the-scheme-senators-highlight-rightwing-influence-supreme-court?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

David Smith reports for The Guardian:

. . . .

The thread running through Whitehouse’s spoken essays is that the current 6-3 conservative majority on the court is no accident but the product of special interests and dark money – hundreds of millions of dollars in anonymous hidden spending.

The special interests are able to groom young judges, promote them in advertising campaigns and then try to influence them in legal briefs, all lacking in transparency. The outcome is a dire threat to the climate, reproductive rights and myriad issues that touch people’s everyday lives.

Whitehouse chose his title carefully. “It implies that this is not random,” he says. “This is not just, ‘Oh, we’re conservatives, and so we’re going to appoint conservative thinking judges,’ which is the veneer. They would like to maintain this is just conservatives being conservatives.”

Whitehouse suggests that the model of “agency capture”, when an administrative agency is co-opted to serve the interests of a minor constituency, was applied to the supreme court. “Once you’re over that threshold of indecency, it actually turned out to be a pretty easy target. The other construct to bear in mind is covert operations, because essentially what’s happened is that a bunch of fossil fuel billionaires have run a massive covert operation in and against their own country. And that’s a scheme.”

. . . .

Democrats have been criticised for being complacent as Republicans unspooled their 50-year campaign to capture the courts. Whitehouse agrees. “It’s way late. It’s really embarrassing how we let this dark money crowd steal a march on us.”

He observes: “From a political perspective it never mattered as much to the Democratic base as it did to the Republican base because we did not have the history of Roe versus Wade, Brown versus Board of Education [desegregating public schools] decisions that provoked massive cultural objections on the far right.

“So they got highly motivated and we did not but then once we saw this machinery begin to go in operation to capture the court, we never bothered to call it out either. It’s not just that our base didn’t care as much. It’s that we were sleeping sentries.”

Whitehouse is planning at least three or four more speeches about The Scheme. Like his climate series, he hopes that the message will get through: it is time to wake up.

“I hope there’ll be a more general understanding that what’s going on at the court has a lot less to do with conservatism than it has to do with capture and, with any luck, it might cause a bit of an epiphany with some of the judges that they don’t want to be associated with what they’re actually associated with. And the American public will see it for what it is and give us in politics more opportunities to administer a repair.”

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

Read the complete report at the link.

Sen. Whitehouse’s reference to “agency capture” is a perfect descriptor of what has happened at EOIR and in our Immigration Courts. Remade, co-opted, and weaponized by Miller, Sessions, Barr, and Gene Hamilton during the Trump regime, the Immigration Courts now represent a nativist/restrictionist culture, philosophy, and approach to justice, including racial justice, that is far, far out of the legal mainstream.

It’s so far out of the mainstream that even the most conservative circuits and Trump judicial appointees occasionally hand Garland’s poorly performing BIA “its head” on sloppy, poorly reasoned, substandard performance. It’s also light years away from the restoration of the rule of law and humane values promised by Biden and Harris during their 2020 campaign!

“Agency capture” appears to be a “GOP specialty,” that Democrats lack. How many key immigration officials, political or “career,” at DHS and DOJ were “Obama holdovers?” How long did the few who weren’t replaced at the outset last? How much influence did they retain or exercise? Yet, Garland continues to operate the Immigration Courts with largely the same toxic culture and badly flawed personnel he inherited from Sessions and Barr. Nonsensical? Disgraceful? Dumb? You bet!

The situation is aggravated many times over because these aren’t “normal agency decisions.” No, they are essentially life or death decisions in a “traffic court setting” that affect humanity, our future as a nation, and often “dribble over” into discriminatory and biased approaches to minority populations and rights outside the field of immigration!

Another serious aggravating factor is the astoundingly dysfunctional and incompetent “Byzantine Empire Style” agency bureaucracy at EOIR which bears no resemblance to competent, professional court management and administration.

Not surprisingly, the latter are outside the DOJ’s skill set. Shockingly, however, A.G. Garland failed to “recognize the obvious” and to bring in the needed outside professional experts to straighten it out.

Even worse, although he essentially “wholly owns” the broken, anti-due-process immigration “judiciary,” Garland has ignored experts’ calls for replacement of the current precedent-setting BIA with judges who are recognized leaders and role models in due process and human rights in the immigration context.

Nor has he actively recruited and appointed enough experts with NGO, clinical, and other private sector backgrounds to Immigration Judge positions. Further, he has failed to develop and implement a transparent, merit-based judicial selection and retention program to “re-compete” the many “new” IJ positions that were created and maliciously used by Sessions and Barr to “pack” EOIR with anti-asylum bias, often involving judges without expertise or with disturbingly thin due-process/fundamental fairness credentials.

Developing a fair, transparent, merit-based system, with outside input, to weed-out underperforming judges in a competitive process and, where warranted, to replace them with some of the brilliant and high-achieving immigration/human rights potential judicial talent now “out there in the market place” but largely ignored by the Biden Administration should have been high on Garland’s list. The process and criteria by which these life or death judicial positions are filled remains largely a mystery shrouded in opaque bureaucracy and with no input from those who actually have to practice before EOIR or who have been researching and documenting the abject, deadly failures of the current system!

With due respect, I think Senator Whitehorse needs to focus some of his attention and ire on the disgraceful performance of the U.S. Immigration Courts under Garland. Unlike the Article IIIs, this Federal Court system could and should have been majorly reformed, restructured, and vastly improved with a more enlightened, courageous, due-process oriented approach by DOJ.

Why doesn’t Senator Whitehouse call up his former Senate colleague VP Harris, who has done a “disappearing act” on immigration and human rights following her tone-deaf excursion to the Northern Triangle? Is he teaming with Chair Lofgren to introduce the Senate version of her Article I Immigration Court Bill? Some of the foregoing could be even more effective in “raising consciousness” and promoting constructive reform than giving speeches to an empty Senate Chamber!

The result of a reformed U.S. Immigration Court should be a “Model Federal Judiciary” — one laser-focused on fairness, scholarship, timeliness, respect, teamwork, due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices! Indeed, that’s what all Federal Courts should be, but are not right now. Not by a long shot!

The Immigration Courts could and should be a training and development ground for a diverse, high-functioning, practical, due-process-oriented Federal Judiciary all the way up to the Supremes — where failure by right-wing ivory-tower jurists who live “above the fray” to understand the reality of our broken Immigration Courts and to courageously vindicate the legal, constitutional, and human rights of abused and vulnerable migrants is literally destroying our republic.

That Garland and the Biden Administration generally are squandering this opportunity is as inexplicable as it is inexcusable! Perhaps Sen. Whitehouse can “light a fire!” 🔥

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

02-22-22

🔮PROPHETS: MORE THAN SEVEN MONTHS AGO, “SIR JEFFREY”🛡 & I SAID IT WOULD TAKE MORE THAN HOLLOW PROMISES IN AN E.O. TO BRING JUSTICE FOR VICTIMS OF GENDER VIOLENCE! — Sadly, We Were “Right On” As This Timely Lament From CGRS Shows!

Professor Karen Musalo
Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Hastings Law

Blaine Bookey
Legal Director
Center for Gender & Refugee Studies @ Hastings Law
Photo: CGRS website

The problem is very obvious: The “practical scholars” and widely respected international experts in asylum law who should be drafting gender-based regs and issuing precedents as appellate judges @ EOIR remain “frozen out” by Garland and the Biden Administration. Meanwhile, those who helped carry out the Miller/Sessions misogynistic policies of eradicating asylum protection for women of color not only remain on the bench but still empowered by Garland to issue controlling interpretations of asylum law.

https://cgrs.uchastings.edu/sites/default/files/Deadly%20Inertia%20-%20PSG%20Regs%20Guide_Feb.%202022.pdf

Deadly Inertia: Needless Delay of “Particular Social Group” Regulations Puts Asylum Seekers at Risk

February 10, 2022

On February 2, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order (“EO”) which directed executive branch agencies to review and then take action on numerous aspects of our shattered asylum system.1 Of particular interest to the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS), and many asylum seekers, legal experts, and allies, was a provision ordering the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to conduct a comprehensive examination of whether U.S. treatment of asylum claims based on domestic or gang violence is consistent with international standards, and to propose a joint rule on the meaning of “particular social group,” as that term is derived from international law (emphasis added).2

The deadlines set by the President – August 1, 2021 for the examination of current law on domestic violence and gang claims, and October 30, 2021 for the proposed regulations on particular social group – have come and gone. We are concerned that the administration has offered no indication of its progress on what should be a simple task, given that international law and authoritative international standards on particular social group are clear.3

This reference guide explains why regulations on particular social group are important, why this legal issue has become so contentious, and why there is no good reason for the delay in proposing regulations. We point out that there is a clear path forward for the United States to realign its treatment of asylum claims with established international standards, which is precisely what the EO mandates.

Why are regulations on particular social group important?

While “particular social group” may sound like an arcane topic in the notoriously complex area of asylum law, there is a reason it merited the President’s attention in an EO signed just two weeks after he took office.4 Persecution on the basis of membership in a particular social group is one of only five grounds for refugee status in U.S. and international law and has become the most hotly contested asylum law issue in the United States.

Why has particular social group jurisprudence become so contentious in the United States?

First, the phrase “particular social group” is less intuitively clear than the other grounds for asylum of race, religion, nationality, and political opinion. This ground is understood to reflect a desire on the part of the treaty drafters – and U.S. legislators who incorporated the international refugee definition into our own immigration law – to protect those who don’t fit neatly into the other four categories, and to allow asylum protection to evolve in line with our understanding of human rights. Such refugees might include, for example, women fleeing domestic violence, or LGBTQ+ people persecuted because they do not conform to social norms regarding sexual orientation or gender identity. They might be people fleeing violent retaliation by criminal gangs because they

200 McAllister Street | San Francisco, CA 94102 | http://cgrs.uchastings.edu

reported a crime or testified against a gang member. Or they might simply be related to someone who has defied a gang, and that alone makes them a target.

These people are clearly facing enormous harm, and equally clearly belong to a particular social group under a correct interpretation of the law. 5 But merely belonging to a particular social group does not result in being granted asylum. Only if a person meets all the other elements of the refugee definition, including the heavy burden of showing their group membership is a central reason they will be targeted, will they obtain protection in the United States.

Second, some policymakers and adjudicators fear that if particular social group claims qualify for protection, the “floodgates” will open. The Department of Justice’s Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) established the legal test for particular social group in 1985 in Matter of Acosta (see below).6 But beginning in 2006, the BIA altered the Acosta test by imposing additional requirements that are nearly impossible to meet.7 The result is that with only one exception, no new particular social groups from any country, no matter how defined, have been accepted in a published BIA decision since that time.

But there is no evidence to support the “floodgates” concern. Decades ago, when women who fled female genital cutting/mutilation were first recognized as a particular social group, some people argued that the United States would be inundated with such claims.8 Those fears never materialized. History shows, and the governments of both the United States and Canada acknowledged at the time, that acceptance of social group claims does not lead to a skyrocketing number of applicants.9

Third, asylum law, including the legal interpretation of particular social group, has been politicized. As part of an overtly anti-immigrant agenda, some politicians have seized upon the floodgates myth to promote increasingly restrictive policies and legal interpretations that depart from international standards. Politically oriented interference with asylum law reached new lows under the previous administration, most notably in 2018 when former Attorney General Sessions overruled his own BIA to issue his unconscionable decision in Matter of A-B-.10

Matter of A-B- was so widely reviled and justly condemned that all major Democratic candidates seeking their party’s presidential nomination in the last election promised to reverse the decision. Doing so was part of candidate Biden’s campaign platform.11 As President he made good on this promise by including the legal questions of domestic violence, gang brutality, and particular social group in the February 2021 EO.

Furthermore, and very much to his credit, Attorney General Garland granted CGRS’s request as counsel to vacate Matter of A-B- in June 2021.12 The law now stands as it did before Sessions’ unlawful interference, with the key precedent case Matter of A-R-C-G-13 recognizing a certain defined particular social group that may provide the basis for asylum for some domestic violence survivors.

However, as explained above, the problem goes beyond Sessions’ decision in Matter of A-B- and stretches back at least as far as 2006, when the BIA began to encumber particular social group claims with additional legal hurdles. As correctly noted in the EO, it is necessary to assess whether U.S. law concerning not only domestic and gang violence claims, but all claims based on particular

2

social group, is consistent with international law. Fortunately there is ample international guidance, which is itself largely based on Acosta, on this exact question.

So why the delay in proposing new regulations?

We can think of no good reason for the agencies’ delay in proposing new regulations on particular social group. From the perspective of both binding international law and authoritative international standards, each of which are named as the framework for particular social group regulations in the EO, the legal analysis is not at all complicated.

To begin with, this is not a new area of the law. The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, the source of the refugee definition in which the phrase appears, was drafted in 1951. Our domestic law followed suit in the 1980 Refugee Act. As noted above, the key BIA precedent case interpreting particular social group, Matter of Acosta, was decided in 1985.14 The UN Refugee Agency’s (UNHCR) guidelines on particular social group, which adopt Matter of Acosta, were issued 20 years ago, in 2002.15

Making the job of proposing regulations even simpler, international guidance is clear. It is critical to note that as an inter-governmental organization, UNHCR routinely takes the concerns of governments, including the United States, into account in crafting its legal advice. UNHCR’s guidelines on particular social group were drafted only after a thorough review of State practice, including U.S. law, and an extensive process of external expert consultations with government officials and judges in their personal capacities, academics, and practitioners.16 The consultations process began with a discussion paper on particular social group drafted by a leading U.S. scholar who had previously served as Immigration and Naturalization Service General Counsel.17

How should the United States interpret particular social group to be consistent with international law?

The United States should adopt the “immutability” standard that the BIA set forth in Matter of Acosta, with an alternative – not additional – test of “social perception” which was initially developed by courts in Australia.18 The Acosta test rests on the existence of immutable or fundamental characteristics such as gender to determine whether there is a particular social group. What must be discarded are the BIA’s extraneous requirements of “particularity” and “social distinction.” They have no basis in international law, are not consistent with international standards, are not compelled by the text of the statute, and are not coherent or internally logical. They have themselves spawned an enormous number of confused and confusing cases, including at the federal courts of appeals level, as judges attempt to apply them to real world cases.19

Key Democratic members of Congress with deep knowledge on refugee issues have taken this position, which is consistent with UNHCR’s views. The Refugee Protection Act of 2019, for example, reflects international guidance in its clarification of particular social group.20 Then-Senator Kamala Harris was one of the bill’s original cosponsors.

Additionally, in response to the EO, U.S. and international legal experts have explained that Matter of Acosta provided a workable test, that the BIA’s additional requirements distorted U.S. law in violation

3

of international standards, and that a return to Acosta would be consistent with international standards and offer an interpretation most faithful to the statutory text.21

Why does it matter?

Lives hang in the balance. Women who have survived domestic violence, and all other asylum applicants who must rely on the particular social group ground, are stuck on a deeply unfair playing field. Existing law, even with the vacatur of Matter of A-B-, gives far too much leeway for judges to say no to valid claims. For people wrongly denied protection, deportation can be a death sentence.22

We are concerned that the delay in proposing particular social group regulations reflects an unwillingness on the part of some key actors within the administration to accept that the United States is bound by international law and should realign itself with international standards. The EO explicitly expresses a mandate to analyze existing law on domestic and gang violence, and to draft new particular social group regulations, in a manner consistent with international standards. Yet it is possible that the administration, out of a flawed political calculus, will backtrack on this commitment as it has on others, notably the promise to restore asylum processing at the border.

To be clear, if this is the case, it is not because there is a principled legal argument against the relevance of international law. It is because a certain political outcome is desired, and the law will be bent to achieve that result. Administration officials should know that advocates will fight relentlessly if the proposed regulations do not in fact follow the EO’s directive to align U.S. law with authoritative international standards.

1 Executive Order on Creating a Comprehensive Regional Framework to Address the Causes of Migration, to Manage Migration Throughout North and Central America, and to Provide Safe and Orderly Processing of Asylum Seekers at the United States Border, Feb. 2, 2021, 86 Fed. Reg. 8267 (Feb. 5, 2021).

3 Instead, on the one-year anniversary of the EO, USCIS Director Ur Jaddou held a virtual briefing on USCIS’s progress on this and three other immigration-related EOs, but provided no substantive details.

4 The EO otherwise encompasses the enormous operational, logistical, foreign policy, development, and other challenges required to create a comprehensive regional framework to address root causes, manage migration throughout North and Central America, and provide safe and orderly processing of asylum seekers at the U.S. border.

5 For example, when Harold Koh, a senior State Department advisor, resigned in October 2021 in protest over the expulsion of Haitian and other asylum seekers, he wrote: “Persons targeted by Haitian gangs could easily have asylum claims as persons with well-founded fears of persecution because of their membership in a ‘particular social group’ for purposes of the Refugee Convention and its implementing statute. Indeed, this is precisely the issue that faces the interagency group on joint DOJ/DHS rulemaking pursuant to President Biden’s February 2, 2021 Executive Order, which directed examination of whether

2 EO, Sec. 4(c) Asylum Eligibility. The Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall:

(i) within 180 days of the date of this order, conduct a comprehensive examination of current rules, regulations, precedential decisions, and internal guidelines governing the adjudication of asylum claims and determinations of refugee status to evaluate whether the United States provides protection for those fleeing domestic or gang violence in a manner consistent with international standards; and

(ii) within 270 days of the date of this order, promulgate joint regulations, consistent with applicable law, addressing the circumstances in which a person should be considered a member of a “particular social group,” as that term is used in

8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42)(A), as derived from the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol.

4

the United States is providing appropriate asylum protection for those fleeing domestic or gang violence in a manner consistent with international standards.’” See https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017c-4c4a-dddc-a77e-4ddbf3ae0000.

6 19 I&N Dec. 211 (BIA 1985).

7 Stephen Legomsky and Karen Musalo, Asylum and the Three Little Words that Can Spell Life or Death, Just Security, May 28,

2021, available at: https://www.justsecurity.org/76671/asylum-and-the-three-little-words-that-can-spell-life-or-death/. 8 Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1996).

9 Karen Musalo, Protecting Victims of Gendered Persecution: Fear of Floodgates or Call to (Principled) Action?, 14 Va. J. Soc. Pol’y & L. 119, 132-133 (2007), available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1560&context=faculty_scholarship.

10 27 I&N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018). The applicant was a domestic violence survivor whose asylum claim based on particular social group had been granted by the BIA.

11 “The Trump Administration has … drastically restrict[ed] access to asylum in the U.S., including … attempting to prevent victims of gang and domestic violence from receiving asylum [.] Biden will end these policies [.]” See https://joebiden.com/immigration/.

12 28 I&N Dec. 307 (A.G. 2021). He also vacated other problematic decisions that touched on particular social group and gender claims. See Matter of L-E-A-, 28 I&N Dec. 304 (A.G. 2021); Matter of A-C-A-A-, 28 I&N Dec. 351 (A.G. 2021).

13 26 I&N Dec. 388 (BIA 2014). 14 19 I&N Dec. 211 (BIA 1985).

15 UNHCR, Guidelines on International Protection No. 2: “Membership of a Particular Social Group” Within the Context of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention and/or its 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 7 May 2002, HCR/GIP/02/02, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3d36f23f4.html.

16 UNHCR, Global Consultations on International Protection, Update Oct. 2001, available at: https://www.unhcr.org/3b83c8e74.pdf.

17 T. Alexander Aleinikoff, “Protected Characteristics and Social Perceptions: An Analysis of the Meaning of ‘Membership of a Particular Social Group’”, in Refugee Protection in International Law: UNHCR’s Global Consultations on International

Protection (Feller, Türk and Nicholson, eds., 2003), available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/470a33b30.html.

18 This is the approach recommended by UNHCR, n.15 above.

19 Legomsky and Musalo, Asylum and the Three Little Words that Can Spell Life or Death, n. 7 above, available at: https://www.justsecurity.org/76671/asylum-and-the-three-little-words-that-can-spell-life-or-death/. See also, Sabrineh Ardalan and Deborah Anker, Re-Setting Gender-Based Asylum Law, Harvard Law Review Blog, Dec. 30, 2021, available at: https://blog.harvardlawreview.org/re-setting-gender-based-asylum-law/.

21 Scholars letter to Attorney General Garland and DHS Secretary Mayorkas, June 16, 2021, available at: https://cgrs.uchastings.edu/sites/default/files/2021.06.16_PSG%20Scholars%20Letter.pdf. See also, letter to Attorney General Garland and DHS Secretary Mayorkas, May 27, 2021, signed by 100 legal scholars discussing the “state protection” element of the proposed regulations, available at: https://cgrs.uchastings.edu/sites/default/files/Law%20Scholars%20State%20Protection%20Letter%205.27.21%20%28FINAL%2 9.pdf.

22 When Deportation Is a Death Sentence, Sarah Stillman, The New Yorker, January 8, 2018, available at: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/01/15/when-deportation-is-a-death-sentence.

20 The Refugee Protection Act of 2019, Sec. 101(a)(C)(iii) reads: “the term ‘particular social group’ means, without any additional requirement not listed below, any group whose members—

(I) share—

(aa) a characteristic that is immutable or fundamental to identity, conscience, or the exercise of human rights; or (bb) a past experience or voluntary association that, due to its historical nature, cannot be changed; or

(II) are perceived as a group by society.”

See https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/2936/text?r=4&s=1#toc- idA272A477BC814410AB2FF0E6C99E522F.

5

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

“Sir Jeffrey and Me — “Sir Jeffrey & Me
Nijmegen, The Netherlands 1997
PHOTO: Susan Chase

You can check out what “Sir Jeffrey” and I had to say back in June 2021 here:

https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/06/22/sir-jeffrey-chase-garlands-first-steps-to-eradicate-misogyny-anti-asylum-bias-eoir-are-totally-insufficient-without-progressive-personnel-changes/

Unfortunately, my commentary then remains largely true today:

Without progressive intervention, this is still headed for failure @ EOIR! A few things to keep in mind.

- Former Attorney General, the late Janet Reno, ordered the same regulations on gender-based asylum to be promulgated more than two decades ago — never happened!
- The proposed regulations that did finally emerge along the way (long after Reno’s departure) were horrible — basically an ignorant mishmash of various OIL litigation positions that would have actually made it easier for IJs to arbitrarily deny asylum (as if they needed any invitation) and easier for OIL to defend such bogus denials.
- There is nobody currently at “Main Justice” or EOIR HQ qualified to draft these regulations! Without long overdue progressive personnel changes the project is almost “guaranteed to fail” – again!
- Any regulations entrusted to the current “Miller Lite Denial Club” @ the BIA ☠️ will almost certainly be twisted out of proportion to deny asylum and punish women refugees, as well as deny due process and mock fundamental fairness. It’s going to take more than regulations to change the “culture of denial” and the “institutionalized anti-due-process corner cutting” @ the BIA and in many Immigration Courts.
- Garland currently is mindlessly operating the “worst of all courts” — a so-called “specialized (not) court” where the expertise, independence, and decisional courage is almost all “on the outside” and sum total of the subject matter expertise and relevant experience of those advocating before his bogus “courts” far exceeds that of the “courts” themselves and of Garland’s own senior team! That’s why the deadly, embarrassing, sophomoric mistakes keep flowing into the Courts of Appeals on a regular basis.
- No regulation can bring decisional integrity and expertise to a body that lacks both!

As the CGRS cogently says at the end of the above posting:

The EO explicitly expresses a mandate to analyze existing law on domestic and gang violence, and to draft new particular social group regulations, in a manner consistent with international standards. Yet it is possible that the administration, out of a flawed political calculus, will backtrack on this commitment as it has on others, notably the promise to restore asylum processing at the border.

To be clear, if this is the case, it is not because there is a principled legal argument against the relevance of international law. It is because a certain political outcome is desired, and the law will be bent to achieve that result. Administration officials should know that advocates will fight relentlessly if the proposed regulations do not in fact follow the EO’s directive to align U.S. law with authoritative international standards.

If you follow some of the abysmal anti-asylum, poorly reasoned, sloppy results still coming out of Garland’s BIA and how they are being mindlessly defended by his OIL, you know that a “principled application” of asylum law to protect rather than arbitrarily reject isn’t in the cards! Also, as I have pointed out, even if there were a well written reg on gender based asylum, you can bet that the “Miller Lite Holdover BIA” would come up with intentionally restrictive interpretations that many of the “Trump-era” IJs still packed into EOIR would happily apply to “get to no.”

You don’t turn a “built and staffed to deny in support of a White Nationalist agenda agency” into a legitimate court system that will insure due process and fair treatment for asylum seekers without replacing judges and bringing in strong courageous progressive leaders.

That’s particularly true at the BIA, where harsh misapplications of asylum law to deny worthy cases has been “baked into the system” for years. And, without positive precedents from expert appellate judges committed to international principles and fair treatment of asylum seekers in the U.S., even a well-drafted reg won’t end “refugee roulette.”

By this point, it should be clear that the Biden Administration’s intertwined commitments to racial justice and immigrant justice were campaign slogans, and not much more. So, it will be up to advocates in the NDPA to continue the “relentless fight” to force an unwilling Administration and a “contentedly dysfunctional” DOJ that sees equal justice and due process as “below the radar screen” to live up to the fundamental promises of American democracy that they actively betray every day!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

02-13-22

🏴‍☠️☠️⚰️GARLAND’S FAILURES LOOM LARGE AS EOIR’S ABUSES OF BLACK REFUGEES EMERGE! 🤮 — Biased, Thinly Qualified “Judges” Fingered In HRF Report On Wrongful Returns To Cameroon Remain On Bench Under Garland — Anti-Asylum BIA & Ineffective Leadership From Trump Era Retained By Garland In EOIR Fiasco!

Kangaroos — What fun, sending Black Cameroonian refugees back to rape, torture, and possible death! We don’t need to know much asylum law or real country conditions here at EOIR. We make it up as we go along. And, Judge Garland just lets us keep on playing “refugee roulette,” our favorite game!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/
Creative Commons License

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2022/02/deported-cameroonian-asylum-seekers-suffer-serious-harm.html

From HRF:

. . . .

Nearly all of the deported people interviewed had fled Cameroon between 2017 and 2020 for reasons linked to the crisis in the Anglophone regions. Human Rights Watch research indicates that many had credible asylum claims, but due process concerns, fact-finding inaccuracies, and other issues contributed to unfair asylum decisions. Lack of impartiality by US immigration judges – who are part of the executive branch, not the independent judiciary – appeared to play a role. Nearly all of the deported Cameroonians interviewed – 35 of 41 – were assigned to judges with asylum denial rates 10 to 30 percentage points higher than the national average.

. . . .

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

The complete report gives a totally damning account of EOIR’s incompetence, ignorance of asylum law, poor decision making, “rigged” assignment of bad judges, and systemic bias directed against asylum seekers, primarily people of color. Although human rights conditions have continued to deteriorate in Cameroon, asylum grant rates have fluctuated dramatically depending on how the political winds at DOJ are blowing.

For example, judges denying asylum because of imaginary “improved conditions” in Cameroon falls within the realm of the absurd. No asylum expert would say that conditions have improved.

Yet, in a catastrophic ethical and legal failure, there is no BIA precedent “calling out” such grotesque errors and serving notice to the judges that it is unacceptable judicial conduct! There are hardly any recent BIA published precedents on granting asylum at all — prima facie evidence of the anti-asylum culture and institutional bias in favor of DHS Enforcement that Sessions and Barr actively cultivated and encouraged!

How bad were things at EOIR? Judges who denied the most asylum cases were actually promoted to the BIA so they could spread their jaundiced views and anti-asylum bias nationwide. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2019/11/01/corrupted-courts-no-stranger-to-improper-politicized-hiring-directed-against-migrants-seeking-justice-the-doj-under-barr-doubles-down-on-biased-ideological-hiring-promot/

Even more outrageously, these same members of the “asylum deniers club” remain in their influential appellate positions under Garland! As inexplicable as it is inexcusable!

The HRF report details the wide range of dishonest devices used by EOIR to cut off valid asylum claims: bogus adverse credibility determinations; unreasonable corroboration requirements; claiming “no nexus” when the causal connection is obvious; failing to put the burden on the DHS in countrywide persecution involving the government or past persecution; bogus findings that the presence of relatives in the country negates persecution; ridiculous findings that severe harm doesn’t “rise to the level of persecution,” failure to listen to favorable evidence or rebuttal; ignoring the limitations on representation and inherent coercion involved in intentionally substandard and health threatening ICE detention, to name just some. While these corrupt methods of denying protection might be “business as usual” at EOIR “denial factories,” they have been condemned by human rights experts and many appellate courts. Yet Garland continues to act as if nothing were amiss in his “star chambers.”

This bench needs to be cleared of incompetence and anti-asylum bias and replaced with experts committed to due process and fair, impartial, and ethical applications of asylum principles. There was nothing stopping Sessions and Barr from “packing” the BIA and the trial courts with unqualified selections perceived to be willing and able to carry out their White Nationalist agenda! Likewise, there is nothing stopping Garland from “unpacking:” “cleaning house,” restoring competence, scholarly excellence, and “due process first” judging to his shattered system!

“It’s not rocket science, but ‘unpacking’ the Immigration Courts appears beyond Garland’s skill set!”
“Unpacking”
Photo by John Keogh
Creative Commons License

All that’s missing are the will and the guts to get the job done! Perhaps that’s not unusual for yet another Dem Administration bumbling its way through immigration policy with no guiding principles, failing to connect the dots to racial justice, betraying promises to supporters, and leaving a trail of broken human lives and bodies of the innocent in its wake. But, it’s unacceptable! Totally!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

02-11-22

⚖️👩🏽‍⚖️CONGRESS: ARTICLE I IN PLAY, AS CHAIR LOFGREN INTRODUCES “The Real Courts, Rule of Law Act of 2022!” — “Our immigration court system will never be effective as long as it is housed under the Department of Justice.”☠️🤮

Zoe’s Lofgren — Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)
Chair of the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship
PHOTO: US House

Here’s the scoop:

Lofgren Introduces Landmark Legislation to Reform the U.S. Immigration Court System

February 3, 2022 Press Release

The Real Courts, Rule of Law Act of 2022 creates an independent ‘Article I’ immigration court, free from the political influence of the Executive Branch

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, U.S. Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (CA-19), Chair of the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship, introduced H.R. 6577, The Real Courts, Rule of Law Act of 2022, a bill that transitions the nation’s immigration court system into an independent judiciary, consistent with Article I of the U.S. Constitution. The bill will ensure that the immigration courts are administered by qualified, impartial judges; have adequate court resources and support services; are defined by transparency and integrity; and are financially independent. The Real Courts, Rule of Law Act of 2022 is co-sponsored by House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerrold Nadler (NY-10) and Chair of the House Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, Hank Johnson (GA-04).

An office within the Department of Justice, our nation’s immigration court system – known as the Executive Office for Immigration Review – lacks procedural and structural safeguards to protect it against political influence. Immigration judges are not judicial officers – they are lawyers, appointed by the nation’s top prosecutor, the Attorney General. As employees of the Department of Justice, immigration judges are charged with adjudicating cases in accordance with the policies and priorities of the governing administration. Each Administration – Democratic and Republican – has used the immigration courts as a mechanism to shape immigration policy.

“A hallmark of our system of democracy and the rule of law is an independent judiciary. Our immigration court system will never be effective as long as it is housed under the Department of Justice. After decades of political whiplash, resulting from the ever-changing policies and priorities of the governing Administrations, it is clear that the system is ineffective, inflexible, and far too often, unfair,” said Chair Zoe Lofgren. “Congress must act by passing The Real Courts, Rule of Law Act to create an immigration court system independent of the Executive Branch. This structural overhaul will strengthen due process and restore faith in the system by taking politics out of the immigration courts for good.”

“Since its founding, our immigration court system has been mired by political interference from both Democratic and Republican administrations,” said Chair Jerrold Nadler. “Our country needs an immigration court system that can deliver just decisions in accordance with the law, not one that is subject to ever-changing political whims. I’m proud to join Subcommittee Chair Lofgren in introducing the Real Courts, Rule of Law Act, which would establish an independent Article I immigration court system consistent with other judicial institutions across our nation. By moving the court out from under the Department of Justice, this legislation will ensure that our immigration court system can effectively prioritize due process and the rule of law.”

“The creation of an independent immigration court would ensure that our immigration judges are no longer subject to the political whims of any particular administration,” said Chair Hank Johnson. “Our current immigration backlog is approaching 1.6 million cases and lacks procedural and structural safeguards to protect the human beings that make up these cases. By establishing an independent immigration court, this bill will ensure impartiality and transparency when it comes to these life and death decisions and allow these judges to administer justice efficiently and effectively. I’m proud to join Rep. Lofgren in introducing The Real Courts, Rule of Law Act of 2022.”

Click here for a one-pager on immigration court reform and The Real Courts, Rule of Law Act.

Click here for a section-by-section summary of The Real Courts, Rule of Law Act.

Click here for full text of The Real Courts, Rule of Law Act.

Bill Details

The Real Courts, Rule of Law Act of 2022 will:

Establish an independent immigration court – similar to the U.S. Tax Court – consistent with Article I of the United States Constitution. The newly-formed United States Immigration Court will be comprised of a trial division, an appellate division, and an administrative division.

Ensure that qualified, impartial individuals are appointed to serve as immigration judges at both the trial and appellate levels.

Ensure that the United States Immigration Court has adequate resources and support to operate efficiently while giving the Court authority to appoint temporary immigration judges and establish temporary court facilities to ensure the expeditious administration of justice.

Improve transparency and accountability in Immigration Court proceedings by requiring publication of all court rules and procedures, as well as precedent decisions and pleadings while protecting confidential information.

Improve efficiencies by allowing the Immigration Court to establish its own budget without review by the Executive Branch and empowering immigration judges to control their own dockets and compel agency action that is unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.

Strengthen the integrity of immigration court proceedings by giving immigration judges authority to impose civil money penalties for contempt of court.

Ensure due process by preserving the privilege of counsel, ensuring quality interpreter services, and mandating legal orientation programs for individuals appearing before the Court.

Support

The Real Courts, Rule of Law Act of 2022 is supported by the American Bar Association, American Immigration Lawyers Association, Federal Bar Association, National Association of Immigration Judges, American Immigration Council, Bipartisan Policy Center Action, Human Rights First, Kids in Need of Defense, National Immigrant Justice Center, National Immigration Law Center, Niskanen Center, and Women’s Refugee Commission.

“The American Bar Association has high regard for the mission and goals of the Justice Department, but we strongly support the creation of an independent Article I immigration court system. It is essential that every judge is free to decide cases based solely on the facts and the law, without external pressure or influence,” said Reginald Turner, President of the American Bar Association (ABA).

“This legislation and the effort to rebuild our immigration court system is welcome indeed. For decades, the deck has been stacked against immigrants. Getting a fair day in court is nearly impossible when the immigration courts are under the authority of the nation’s chief prosecutor: the Attorney General. Regardless of their administration or political party, Attorneys General can abuse the extraordinary power they have over the immigration courts and sacrifice due process for expediency. When that has happened in the past, the most vulnerable people – including asylum seekers, victims of violence, and people deprived of their liberty – have paid a high price. There remains vital work to be done by Congress to reform the immigration law itself—specifically, restoring discretion to immigration judges. But foundational to any fair system is a neutral judge. This bill provides that foundation,” said Jeremy McKinney, President-elect of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA).

“After spending several decades helping develop and advocate for this landmark legislation, the Federal Bar Association commends Chair Lofgren and her colleagues for introducing a bill today that would facilitate a long-lasting solution to separate the politics of immigration enforcement from the needs of immigration adjudication. Having collaborated with a number of other prominent legal associations to get to this historic point, FBA remains committed to ensuring that we improve access to justice and due process for individuals appearing before immigration judges. The Constitution gives Congress the ability to create new federal courts and with a current backlog of 1.6 million cases, it is clear to our members that the time has finally come to fix a broken and ineffective system,” said Anh Le Kremer, President of the Federal Bar Association.

“The NAIJ applauds the House Judiciary leadership for introducing an Article I Immigration Court bill. Chair Lofgren, Chairman Nadler and Chairman Johnson, in introducing this legislation, are rectifying the historical mistake of having an immigration court housed in a law enforcement agency. Given the many problems facing the Immigration Court, Congress’s leadership in removing the court from the Department of Justice is welcome relief, and is a crucial step in restoring due process and court efficiency to our broken system,” said Judge Mimi Tsankov, President of the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ).

Related Hearings

On January 20, 2022, the Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship held a hearing titled “For the Rule of Law, An Independent Immigration Court.” Click here for the full video, witness testimonies, and supporting documents from that hearing.

On January 29, 2020, the Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship held a hearing titled “Courts in Crisis: The State of Judicial Independence and Due Process in U.S. Immigration Courts.” Click here for the full video, witness testimonies, and supporting documents from that hearing.

###

Issues:

Immigration

Media

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

Four Horsemen — The BIA’s “take no prisoners” approach to asylum seekers has helped bring the Immigration Courts into disrepute, leading some reviewing courts to suggest that EOIR has crossed the line from “fair and impartial adjudication” to “advocates for DHS Enforcement.” That’s not news to experts and human rights advocates. Despite Biden’s campaign promises to restore justice for migrants, Garland has failed to usher in a new era of “due process and fundamental fairness for all.”
Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

As this bill moves forward, the ongoing chaos, unfairness, disorder, dysfunction, dehumanization, and abysmal quality of decisions flowing from Garland’s Clown Courts 🤡 will get more and more attention and memorialization!

It would behoove Garland to clean house at EOIR and bring in some real judges, immigration/human rights/due process expertise, and competent judicial administrators to prepare the system for transition to Article I.

In this respect, the bill contains this provision, requiring the President and the Appellate Division ensure:

‘‘(2) the corps of immigration judges—

‘‘(A) is comprised primarily of individuals with prior legal experience in immigration law; and

‘‘(B) to the extent practicable, reflects a balance of individuals with prior legal experience in the public sector and private sector; and ‘‘(3) candidates are selected without regard to political party affiliation or perceived political ideology.

Certainly not the way EOIR has been run by DOJ politicos over the past two decades! And, to date, Garland has done little to bring about long overdue personnel changes, due process, fundamental fairness, decisional independence, quality, and professionalism!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

02-03-22

🤮🏴‍☠️☠️⚰️ GARLAND’S “SHAMEFUL RECORD” GETS EVEN WORSE AS HE DEFENDS STEPHEN MILLER’S DEGRADATION OF HUMANITY AT OUR BORDERS!

Biden’s “Shadow Attorney General” speaks through the likeness of Merrick Garland! Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com

Priscilla Alvarez reports for CNN:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/19/politics/title-42-biden/index.html

. . . .

“Today we heard the same unconvincing arguments from the Biden administration that we’ve been hearing for the last year about this xenophobic and baseless policy, arguments that have already been rejected in federal court. Title 42 unjustly and unnecessarily inflicts harm on families seeking asylum at our border, and we will continue to work tirelessly to ensure that this policy ends once and for all,” said Diana Kearney, senior legal adviser with Oxfam America, in a statement.

In a recently released report, Human Rights First found nearly 9,000 reports of kidnappings and other violent attacks against people who had been expelled to Mexico or blocked from seeking protection in the US.

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

Read Priscilla’s full story on the bottomless depths to which Garland has taken American “justice” and the Department of “Justice” at the link.

I can always count on Garland to illustrate and punctuate my points about his unfitness for the job of achieving racial equality, re-establishing the rule of law, and promoting human rights in America, not to mention his total unsuitability and inability to run a fair, impartial, due-process-oriented court system! He probably would have been right at home with the “GOP Six” on the Supremes.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-20-22

⚖️FINALLY, HOUSE TO EXAMINE GARLAND’S DYSFUNCTIONAL, MISMANAGED, LEADERLESS IMMIGRATION “COURTS” & NEED FOR DUE-PROCESS-FOCUSED REFORMS! — Tal Kopan Reports For SF Chron!

Read: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/The-nation-s-immigration-court-system-is-a-16773646.php

The nation’s immigration court system is a mess. Rep. Lofgren is teeing up an effort to overhaul it

WASHINGTON — South Bay Rep. Zoe Lofgren will convene a congressional hearing on the immigration courts next week, The Chronicle has learned, likely laying the groundwork for the introduction of her bill to overhaul the troubled system.

The hearing may also provide the first critical look by Congress at how the courts, which are under the control of the Department of Justice, have been running under the Biden administration. Though President Biden came into office pledging to turn the page from his predecessor’s hardline immigration stance, advocates say progress has been slow, especially at the Department of Justice.

…

Lofgren, a San Jose Democrat, chairs the immigration subcommittee of the House Judiciary panel and is a longtime leader on immigration policy in Washington. She has been working on legislation that would make the nation’s immigration courts an independent system. In theory that change, which has been called for by the major pro-immigrant and immigration law organizations, would insulate the courts from the political whims of different administrations, and allow them to function more as a justice system.

Committee staff said Lofgren was still working on the bill and offered no timeline for its introduction, but an informational hearing such as the one scheduled for next week typically serves as a precursor to the unveiling of legislation.

Read more: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/The-nation-s-immigration-court-system-is-a-16773646.php

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

Read Tal’s complete report at the link.

Welcome and long, long, long overdue news! But, is it too little, too late?

Subcommittee Chair Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) is one of the few legislators who understands the full extent of the disaster in Garland’s deadly and broken “courts,” the missed opportunities by Garland to initiate meaningful due-process and practical efficiency reforms, and the debilitating effect of the disorder countenanced by Garland at EOIR on our entire legal system and the future of democracy.

Unlike Garland and his ineffectual lieutenants, the Subcommittee will actually hear from experts who understand the full legal and human effects of Garland’s complacent and ineffectual leadership.

It will also come a year after The Chronicle reported that immigration court policies and structure have allowed sexually inappropriate behavior and misconduct among judges and staff to flourish, which prompted the Justice Department to kick off a study of how to overhaul its procedures.

The hundreds of judges at the roughly 70 immigration courts nationwide decide the fate of immigrants seeking to stay in the U.S., many of whom fear for their lives if they are deported. But the system has long faced criticism for its enormous backlog of more than 1.5 million cases, inconsistency across judges and courts, antiquated bureaucracy and labyrinthine structure that’s difficult for immigrants without lawyers to navigate.

In many ways, the above quote from Tal “says it all.” A year after finally being spurred into action by Tal’s reporting on a well-known, long-festering problem, the DOJ has “studied” without actually taking corrective action. A serious lack of transparency remains a chronic problem!

The “culture” at EOIR remains sick. Those in the EOIR system who survived the Trump disaster without giving in to the anti-immigrant corruption had reasonably expected Garland to embrace common-sense, progressive reforms and root out the White Nationalists opponents of due process. Instead they find themselves abandoned and disheartened by his inept and tone-deaf performance.

Incredibly folks like Barr’s hand-selected, anti-immigrant, “Stephen Miller acolyte” Chief Judge Tracy Short remain in their positions while progressive experts have been totally shut out of EOIR leadership by Garland. Only one “practical expert” has been appointed to the BIA, where she remains hopelessly outnumbered and effectively “marginalized” by the overwhelming number of “Trump Holdovers” who “packed” the BIA during the last Administration.

Progressive experts had given the incoming Biden Administration “practical blueprints” and recommended personnel changes for rooting out the deadwood and the many less-than-qualified judges and officials at EOIR and bringing in a team of outstandingly well-qualified due-process-committed “practical experts” to begin fixing the system — with a sense of urgency and priority. Those actions would have included an entirely new BIA with real expert judges who would by now not only have vacated White Nationalist precedents imposed under the Trump DOJ, but actually have issued proper precedents interpreting the immigration laws that would facilitate and enforce due process, and promote uniformity and efficiency, rather than undermining it.

The backlog could have been slashed by decisive actions removing from hopelessly overcrowded and mismanaged dockets, “low-priority” cases and those many that could better have been resolved initially by USCIS. Poorly performing anti-immigrant judges could be brought under control, “Asylum Free Zones” eliminated, training drastically improved, working automated systems implemented, a merit-based hiring system for judges instituted, affirmative recruiting for diverse expert candidates undertaken, representation increased, and a collaborative relationship with the private bar and ICE counsel established.

Instead, Garland has retained Sessions and Barr “holdovers,” embraced “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” accepted sloppy, unprofessional work product surfacing in the Article IIIs on an almost a daily basis, treated the immigration advocacy community with indifference and disrespect, used “gimmicks” instead of standing up for due process and immigrants’ rights, argued in favor of upholding some of the worst “Miller Lite” policies left behind by Trump’s White Nationalist advisor, and built more unnecessary backlog at a rate that would make “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions and “Billy the Bigot” Barr envious.

In other words, Garland has been a disaster for those committed to due process, racial justice, equal treatment under law, and a diverse, welcoming, stable American democracy.

Given Garland’s failures and disinterest in achieving justice for asylum seekers and other migrants, an Independent Article I Immigration Court free from the inept (Democrats) and toxic (GOP) mismanagement of the DOJ is the answer. But, like the rest of the Dem agenda, it’s hard to see a legislative solution anywhere on the horizon. And, those counting on Garland to finally grow a backbone and start reforming the system are likely to be left “throwing punches in the air.” Again!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever,

PWS

01-14- 21

☹️MORE IMMIGRATION EXPERTS FLEE THE COOP AS BIDEN ADMINISTRATION TURNS ITS BACK ON HUMAN AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF ASYLUM SEEKERS — Esther Olavarria & Tyler Moran Latest To Jump Biden’s Sinking Human Rights Ship!

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/588663-key-member-of-white-house-immigration-team-retiring-report

Olafimihan Oshin reports for The Hill:

Esther Olavarria, the deputy director for immigration of the Biden administration’s Domestic Policy Council (DPC), is retiring from her position.

A White House spokesperson confirmed Olavarria’s pending departure from her position to Politico and CNN.

“I could not be more grateful for Esther Olavarria’s myriad contributions to the Biden-Harris Administration, particularly her work to reverse the cruel and reckless policies of the previous Administration and to implement President Biden’s vision for a fair, orderly, and humane immigration system,” DPC head Susan Rice said in a statement to Politico.

A source told Politico that Olavarria hasn’t decided when her last day at the White House will be and will continue to work with the administration for the time being.

This comes as Tyler Moran, a senior adviser on migration, is set to leave this month after spending roughly six months with the Biden administration.

The Hill has reached out to White House for comment.

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

The suggestion by Susan Rice that Olavarria was able to help implement a “fair, orderly, humane immigration system” is preposterous.

The Biden Administration dishonestly continues to use Stephen Miller’s bogus, racially motivated Title 42 ruse to deny fair treatment of asylum seekers at the Southern Border. Garland’s regressive “Miller Lite” Immigration Courts are in free fall, paralyzed by an astounding, ever-expanding 1.5 million case backlog. There is no functioning due process asylum system at our borders. Nor has Biden established robust, realistic “overseas” refugee programs in Latin America that could help obviate the pressure at the border.

Most of Mayorkas’s and Garland’s ill-conceived proposed asylum regulations have been panned by the Round Table and other experts. Biden’s promise to reform and strengthen gender-based asylum has disappeared into the bureaucratic morass at DHS and DOJ. In plain terms, Biden’s human rights’ program is a mess — lacking leadership, moral courage, practical experience, and legal expertise.

These are the real reasons why the “progressive practical experts” who should be leading human rights and immigration reforms for Biden are instead abandoning ship. The “deterrence crowd” and those who live in mortal fear of the nativist right are “driving the train” for Biden.

These notable departures follow in the wake of the resignation of widely respected human rights/immigration expert Harold Koh who blasted the Biden Administration’s spineless, inept, and immoral performance on racial justice, human rights, and the Constitutional rights of vulnerable legal asylum seekers. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/10/04/%f0%9f%91%8d%f0%9f%8f%bcprogressive-legal-icon-harold-koh-rips-bidens-bogus-stephen-miller-lite-xenophobic-policies-resigns-dos-post-amid-a-cresendo-of-administration-lies/

Additionally, as covered earlier today, widely admired Immigration Judge Dana Leigh Marks retired at the end of the year. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2022/01/09/%f0%9f%98%8e%f0%9f%97%bd%e2%9a%96%ef%b8%8f%f0%9f%91%a9%e2%80%8d%e2%9a%96%ef%b8%8f-flash-judicial-maven-hon-dana-leigh-marks-retires-joins-round-table-%f0%9f%9b%a1%e2%9a%94%ef%b8%8f/

Garland blew the chance to use Marks’s last six to nine months prior to retirement to harness her incomparable knowledge and leadership to institute long overdue progressive personnel, procedural, and policy reforms to his disastrously dysfunctional Immigration Courts. Talk about loss of institutional knowledge of everything that has gone wrong at EOIR over the past two decades!

Also, ICE Principal Legal Advisor John Trasvina departed after an unusually short stint on the job, although he was replaced with another experienced immigration lawyer, Kerry Doyle.

Obviously, some of the “best and brightest” who once were willing to lend their expertise to an incoming Administration that (apparently disingenuously) claimed that it would reverse the “dehumanization of the other” by Trump and his cronies now believe their talents can be better used elsewhere.

As to the claims that the Olavarria and Moran departures were “normal,” don’t believe a word of it. Senior level policy advisors who believe their views are respected, making government better, and saving lives don’t “retire” after a few months on the job. It’s not like they weren’t bright enough to know their jobs would be highly stressful and personally inconvenient when they accepted their positions.

All this comes at a time when America is experiencing a worker shortage that many experts believe is being fueled by a declining birth rate and declining immigration. Seems like many of the workers we could use are legal asylum seekers who are being illegally turned around at our border while Mayorkas and Garland refuse to stand up for the rule of law. Could that have something to do with why those who have spent careers understanding the shortcomings of our immigration and human rights systems are “voting with their feet” on the Biden Administration’s muddled and wildly inconsistent approach to immigration?

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-09-21

😎🗽⚖️👩‍⚖️ FLASH: JUDICIAL MAVEN HON. DANA LEIGH MARKS RETIRES, JOINS ROUND TABLE! 🛡⚔️ — “Founding Mother” Of U.S. Asylum Law Successfully Argued INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca @ Supremes, Led Immigration Judges’ Association, Spearheaded “Article I” Movement For Judicial Independence, Saved Thousands of Lives Over Career On Bench Spanning More Than Three Decades!

Hon. Diana Leigh Marks — Hon. Dana Leigh Marks
U.S. Immigration Judge (Ret.) One of the most influential, outspoken, and dynamic Federal Judges of the past half-century enters the next phase of her illustrious career, as a caregiver for her granddaughter and a “fighting knightess” of the Round Table, with typical optimism. “Decades of dealing with DOJ and EOIR management has given me the best possible toolbox to meet any challenges on the road ahead,” says “NanaDana.”

😎🇺🇸🗽⚖️👩‍⚖️ FLASH: JUDICIAL MAVEN HON. DANA LEIGH MARKS RETIRES, JOINS ROUND TABLE! 🛡⚔️ — “Founding Mother” Of U.S. Asylum Law Successfully Argued INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca @ Supremes, Led Immigration Judges’ Association, Spearheaded “Article I” Movement For Judicial Independence, Saved Thousands of Lives Over Career On Bench Spanning More Than Three Decades!

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

Courtside Exclusive

Jan. 9, 2022

Judge Dana Leigh Marks, one of America’s leading “applied scholars” and human rights jurists, joined the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges. Marks retired from the San Francisco Immigration Court on December 31, 2021, following an extraordinary nearly 35-year career on the bench. Round Table spokesperson Judge Jeffrey S. Chase announced Marks’s move in an e-mail yesterday to the group’s more than 50 members.

In addition to her “number one retirement priority” — helping care for her granddaughter — Marks told Courtside that she “looks forward to continuing the fight for Article I and due process for all in America, now without the disclaimers that DOJ requires.” It’s a mission and a sentiment shared by the group.

Long time colleague and fellow past president of the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”), Judge John Gossart enthusiastically welcomed and recognized Marks’s fearless advocacy “for due process, fundamental fairness, the right to be heard, and an Article 1 Court.”

Other Round Table judges greeted their newest member with an avalanche of praise, appreciation, admiration, and love for Marks’s intellectual prowess, courage under pressure, and embodiment of the one-time vision of making the U.S. Immigration Courts “the world’s best tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” Over the last several decades, many experts say that noble vision was cashiered by Department of Justice (“DOJ”) politicos in favor of the “go along to get along” and “good enough for government work” aura that infects today’s broken and dysfunctional Immigration Court system. Those courts, now running an astounding, largely self-created backlog in excess of 1.5 million cases, are inappropriately located within the byzantine, politicized bureaucracy of a DOJ still reeling from four years of grotesque mismanagement and misdirection by the Trump group.

Marks graduated from Cal Berkeley in 1974 and received her J.D. from Hastings Law in 1977. She worked for almost ten years as an immigration lawyer in private practice, and was an active leader in AILA’s Northern California chapter during that time. In 1986, as a partner with Simmons & Ungar, then San Francisco’s premier immigration law specialty firm, Marks successfully argued the landmark case, INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 US 421 (1987).

There, the Supreme Court rejected the Government’s argument that asylum seekers must establish that their future persecution is “more likely than not” to happen. Instead, the Court adopted the much more generous international standard of a “well founded fear” of persecution. The Court thereby recognized that asylum could be granted where the fear was objectively reasonable, even if it were significantly less than “probable.”

Some also consider this to be the “high water mark” of the Court’s positive use of international law concepts in a human rights case involving immigration. Despite considerable internal resistance to fairly applying the more generous legal standard, Cardoza has undoubtedly saved the lives of tens of thousands of refugees and their families over the past three and one-half decades.

Shortly after submitting the brief (co-authored with Bill Ong Hing, Kip Steinberg and Susan Lydon), but prior to her Cardoza argument, Marks was selected for a judgeship by then Chief Immigration Judge, the late William R. Robie. Then Attorney General Ed Meese adopted Robie’s recommendation, and Marks was sworn in as a U.S. Immigration Judge for San Francisco in January, 1987, two months after the oral argument and two months prior to the decision being issued by the Court.

During her distinguished career on the immigration bench, Marks has been an outspoken fighter for professional treatment of her fellow Immigration Judges, for true judicial independence in the Immigration Courts, and for fair, humane, professional treatment of those coming before the courts. She served on a number of occasions as the President and Executive Vice President of the NAIJ, sometimes “swapping” leadership positions with her close friend Judge Denise Slavin, also President Emerita of NAIJ and now a “fearless fighting knightess” of the Round Table.

Marks and Slavin helped battle two DOJ attempts to “decertify” the NAIJ and thus silence the powerful voices that often exposed severe problems in the administration of the Immigration Courts. Indeed, Marks’s determination to speak “truth to power,” her outsized personality, and her willingness to “level” with the media often put her at odds with “handlers” in the court’s bloated bureaucracy and their DOJ overlords.

The latter often sought to divert the Immigration Courts from their due process mission to focus instead on “deterrence” of asylum seekers and fulfilling each Administration’s goals for immigration enforcement. Among other things, this led to a backlog-building phenomenon known as “Aimless Docket Reshuffling.”

In her writings, speeches, and interviews, Marks decried these glaring conflicts of interest and abuses of normal judicial ethics, not to mention common sense and human decency. She tirelessly advocates that the United States adhere more closely to international standards governing refugees and asylees, which was the clearly expressed legislative intent when the Refugee Act of 1980 was enacted.

Summing up her new life after Immigration Court, Marks said “I will enjoy my new day job of caring for my granddaughter, but will continue my hobby of telling truth about EOIR [the bureaucratic acronym for Immigration Courts] through NAIJ and the Roundtable. I am proud to be in such good company!” The feeling is mutual! Due process forever!

🤮👎🏽WASHPOST SLAMS BIDEN ADMINISTRATION FOR ABANDONING NEGOTIATIONS WITH FAMILIES WHO SUFFERED CHILD ABUSE BY SESSIONS & MILLER! — “Having condemned a policy that traumatized children and their parents, Mr. Biden now leads an administration fighting in court to deny recompense to those same families.”

“Floaters” — So, what’s the “dollar value” of brown-skinned human lives to Biden, Harris, & Garland? We’re about to find out!
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)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/01/05/president-biden-broke-his-promise-separated-migrant-families/

Opinion by the Editorial Board

January 5 at 2:18 PM ET

When the Trump administration wrenched migrant babies, toddlers and tweens from their parents as a means of frightening away prospective asylum seekers, it was guilty of emotionally torturing innocent children. Americans of every political leaning expressed revulsion toward the policy implemented in 2018, especially when it became clear that the government had kept no clear records linking parents with their children — in other words, no ready means to reunite the families.

President Biden, as a candidate and also once in office, made clear his own disgust at the so-called zero-tolerance policy, calling it “criminal.” He said, correctly, that it “violates every notion of who we are as a nation.”

Now the president, having explicitly endorsed government compensation that would address the suffering of separated migrant family members, has apparently had a change of heart — or political calculation. In mid-December, the Justice Department abruptly broke off negotiations aimed at a financial settlement with hundreds of affected families. Having condemned a policy that traumatized children and their parents, Mr. Biden now leads an administration fighting in court to deny recompense to those same families.

The government has no means of alleviating the trauma inflicted by the previous president’s egregious treatment of those families. That is particularly true as regards the children, whose torment has been described and documented by medical professionals, advocates and journalists. The babies and toddlers who didn’t recognize their own mothers when they were finally reunited; the depression; the fear of further separations, even brief ones — the human aftershocks of Donald Trump’s heartlessness will linger for years, and for lifetimes in some cases.

The administration compounds the hurt by breaking off negotiations on compensating victims. The government must be held accountable; compensation is the most potent and credible vehicle for achieving that.

Granted, there may be a political price to pay. Republicans had a field day blasting the White House after media reports this fall suggested the government might pay $450,000 to separated family members — a settlement that could amount to $1 billion if applied to the several thousand affected migrants. Mr. Biden, apparently unaware of the status of negotiations at that time, said the reports, first published in the Wall Street Journal, were “garbage.” He later backed away from that remark, saying he did not know how much money would be suitable but that some amount was certainly due.

Now, it seems, all bets are off. In the absence of a negotiated settlement, the government would enter into what would likely be years of costly litigation, in which Mr. Biden’s Justice Department would be in the awkward position of defending a policy that Mr. Biden himself — and most Americans — have condemned as evil. There is no predicting how individual judges or juries might react to documented accounts of harm done to children. No one should be surprised if some were to award enormous damages — conceivably in amounts that exceed the $450,000 contemplated in the now-stalled negotiations.

By walking away from the bargaining table, Mr. Biden has broken an explicit, repeated promise. Whatever the political calculus behind that decision, it is morally indefensible.

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

Garland fails to stand up for the rights of families of color — again. At the same time, he ties up resources on a frivolous DOJ defense of the indefensible!

“Replacement theory,” White Nationalism, and racism always have been and remain at the core of the GOP’s anti-democracy insurrection. It’s no coincidence that Trump’s plans to de-stabilize American democracy began with cowardly attacks on vulnerable migrants (enabled by a failed Supremes) and culminated in open insurrection.

The dots aren’t that hard to connect. But, Garland doesn’t seem to be able to do it!

If Garland can’t handle the “low hanging fruit” — like settling these cases and creating a progressive judiciary at EOIR who will stand up for the rights of all persons while using expertise and “practical scholarship” to replace dysfunction with efficiency, his pledge to hold the January insurrectionists and their leaders accountable rings hollow!

I’m not the only one to note and question Garland’s uninspiring performance as Attorney General at a time of existential crisis. https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Editorial-Merrick-Garland-isn-t-going-to-save-16752522.php?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=headlines&utm_campaign=sfc_opinioncentral&sid=5bfc15614843ea55da6b8709

For those who read the LA Times, there was a “spot on” letter to the editors today accurately characterizing Garland as the “Attorney General for different era.”

As I’ve noted before, this is NOT Ed Levi’s, Griffin Bell’s, or Ben Civiletti’s DOJ. It isn’t even Janet Reno’s DOJ. (I ought to know, as I worked under each of the foregoing.)

It’s an organization that has become increasingly politicized over the last two decades (as it was during Watergate), and that allowed itself to be weaponized by Trump’s White Nationalist regime. EOIR, Executive Orders, and immigration litigation were perhaps the most obvious, but by no means the only, examples.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-07-22

☹️👎🏽BIDEN’S MUDDLED IMMIGRATION APPROACH WINS FEW FANS, WHILE CONTINUING TO TREAT HUMAN LIVES CALLOUSLY! — Weak AG, Underperforming VP, Fear Of The Right, Dysfunctional Immigration Courts, Failure To “Connect The Dots” Between Immigrant Justice & Racial Justice Appear To Have Led Administration To Treat Re-Establishing The Rule Of Law & Standing Up For Human Rights As “Bogus Policy Option” Rather Than The Legal & Moral Imperative It Is! — Tal Kopan Reports In The SF Chron!

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/One-year-in-Biden-has-been-slow-to-unwind-Trump-16725642.php

One year in, Biden has been slow to unwind Trump immigration policies

WASHINGTON — As President Biden approaches a year in office, immigration advocates fear he may have learned some lessons from his predecessor, Donald Trump — and not the ones they would have wanted.

Most immigration advocates abhor virtually every policy in the sphere that Trump pursued, but they do give him credit for two things: showing how much change an administration can make quickly, and driving home the power of fully committing to a salient political message. But they fear that instead of using those lessons to enact Biden’s stated objective — a fair, orderly and humane immigration system — the president has borrowed too many of his predecessor’s policies and not enough of the fervor.

Biden has extended Trump’s policy turning away the vast majority of immigrants at the border ostensibly because of COVID. The administration has also, under court order, reinstated and expanded a policy forcing migrants to wait in Mexico for court hearings, despite Biden running against the policy in his campaign. And his Justice Department is defending some of Trump’s policies in court against challenges from immigrant advocates.

Several immigration groups worked together on what became known as the “Big Book,” a collection of more than 500 policy recommendations for the incoming Biden administration. The pro-immigration group Immigration Hub has tracked about 150 that have been implemented so far. Many of those were reversing Trump policies.

“What we don’t have is a White House that’s committed to moving forward on the stated Biden administration agenda in the way that the Trump White House was committed to moving forward on theirs, and as a result, we’re living in a world where a whole lot of those Trump policies are still around,” said Omar Jadwat, director of the Immigrants’ Rights Project with the American Civil Liberties Union.

A White House spokesperson objected to the notion that Biden has not delivered progress on immigration, citing actions in the early days of the administration to roll back some of Trump’s policies, extend protections to young undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and new protections for migrants whose home countries are in turmoil.

“This administration is committed to working day in and day out to provide relief to immigrants and bring our immigration system into the 21st century,” spokesperson Vedant Patel said.

During the presidential campaign, Biden ran on turning the page from Trump’s hardline immigration policies and talked up a plan to get a pathway to citizenship for the undocumented into law. He also emphasized the importance of letting asylum-seekers make their case to stay in the U.S., and said the Obama administration in which he served made a mistake in waiting too long to enact immigration reforms.

In his early days in office, Biden did introduce policies cheered by immigration advocates, including rescinding Trump’s travel bans and embracing an aggressive legislative strategy to legalize millions of undocumented immigrants through procedural maneuvers that would require only Democratic votes.

But he also kept in place a controversial policy known as Title 42 that essentially closed the southern border to virtually all immigrants. Then in the spring, when border crossings soared to historic levels, the Biden administration doubled down on deterring migration, vexing many advocates who saw that strategy as essentially an embrace of the right’s talking points. Others have pinned their hopes on Vice President Kamala Harris, who forged a strong progressive streak on immigration while serving as California’s senator. She has led administration efforts to improve conditions in Central America, but also adopted deterrence talking points, including urging would-be migrants directly while in Guatemala: “Do not come.”

More: https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/One-year-in-Biden-has-been-slow-to-unwind-Trump-16725642.php

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

As Tal and others have observed, the Trump Administration “hit the ground running” on its White Nationalist anti-immigrant agenda, which was a key part of it’s overall anti-democracy, neo-fascist program.

The Biden Administration’s campaign pledges to undo the damage — not so much. In the end, lack of backbone, failure to leverage and use the expert talent available, not acting quickly, and treating values-based campaign promises as “fungible political capital” has left the Administration “wandering in the wilderness” on this key issue. Usually, standing for the right thing, even if risky, is a far better path than aimlessly wobbling around.

“Don’t come” is not part of our asylum law!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-03-22

CODE RED! 🆘☠️⚰️IMMIGRATION COURTS FAIL AS GARLAND FLAILS — With Human Lives In The Balance & A Catastrophic Collapse Of System On The Horizon, Garland “Rearranges The Deck Chairs On The Titanic!” — “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” is a “Clown Court Strategy” 🤡 But, It’s No Laughing Mater For The Asylum Seekers & Their Lawyers Stuck In Garland’s Dysfunctional Mess!🤮

Deepa Fernandes reports for the SF Chron:

Waiting nine years for an asylum hearing in San Francisco https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/An-El-Salvadoran-attorney-has-waited-five-years-16739505.php

A Salvadoran attorney who fled death threats in her home country and built a new life in Oakland faces a nearly nine-year wait for her day in immigration court. She’s among hundreds of thousands stuck in the same bureaucratic limbo.

Ana and her son first arrived in Oakland in 2016 with a harrowing story and an urgent case for asylum. They had escaped the same gang that chased her niece out of El Salvador three years earlier. Ana said the gang’s leader had stalked and threatened her niece. When she intervened, Ana said, the gang retaliated with threats of sexual violence and death.

“They pressured me to agree to many things that could be in their favor, which I did not agree to,” Ana told The Chronicle in Spanish. The Chronicle is withholding Ana’s last name in accordance with its policy on anonymous sources because of the dangers she faces if sent back.

Ana and her son first arrived in Oakland in 2016 with a harrowing story and an urgent case for asylum. They had escaped the same gang that chased her niece out of El Salvador three years earlier. Ana said the gang’s leader had stalked and threatened her niece. When she intervened, Ana said, the gang retaliated with threats of sexual violence and death.

“They pressured me to agree to many things that could be in their favor, which I did not agree to,” Ana told The Chronicle in Spanish. The Chronicle is withholding Ana’s last name in accordance with its policy on anonymous sources because of the dangers she faces if sent back.

At her first appearance in San Francisco immigration court in 2017, Ana was told to return in 2019 to make her asylum case. That court date was postponed to this past November. Then Ana received notice that her hearing had been canceled again — and rescheduled to May 2025.

Ana represents just one of the 670,000 asylum requests in the U.S., a figure that continues to climb due to the complexity of the cases, Trump administration policies that delayed processing times and the federal government’s slow adaptation to the pandemic. According to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University, the average wait time for an asylum hearing is 1,621 days — or nearly four-and-a-half years.

In an attempt to put a dent in the growing backlog, the Biden administration announced a strategy over the summer that previous administrations have tried to expedite cases for certain groups. President Biden’s “dedicated docket” catapults 5,000 migrants who crossed the southwest border of the U.S. after May 28 to the front of the line.

But critics warn the initiative means these recent arrivals have limited time to prepare their immigration cases while migrants who have been waiting for years, like Ana, must wait even longer.

A growing backlog

Immigration Judge Dana Leigh Marks feels constant pressure to avoid getting sick. She is one of 28 judges in a San Francisco court that is fielding 78,992 immigration cases. That means if Marks needs to cancel court for any reason, the ramifications are years-long delays to “people whose lives hang on our decisions,” she said.

“That is the problem of being so overbooked,” added Marks, who spoke in her role as the president emeritus of the National Association of Immigration Judges. “The number of cases assigned to any judge have exponentially exploded in recent years.”

Like other federal immigration courts, San Francisco’s saw its asylum backlog start its sharp ascent in 2017, as the Trump administration began rolling out policy changes that tightened eligibility while increasing evidentiary thresholds, grinding processing to a halt. The court went from more than 25,000 asylum claims that year to nearly 56,000 this year, TRAC figures show.

The pandemic compounded delays by forcing courts to cancel or significantly scale back in-person hearings. Part of the problem is that the Department of Justice, which runs the nation’s immigration court system, was slow to implement video conferencing technology when judges began working from home in March 2020, Marks said.

“Other state and federal courts across the country pivoted much more quickly to the use of remote technology, which allowed them to keep their caseload moving,” Marks said.

This past summer, over a year into the pandemic, immigration hearings began taking place over Webex, a video conferencing platform. Still, only six of San Francisco’s 28 immigration judges have been set up with government-issued laptops and special audio recording capabilities to conduct the video hearings, Marks noted, and the current average wait between asylum hearings has ballooned to 1,715 days.

Ana was not given the option of a video hearing, said Julie Hiatt, Ana’s attorney from Centro Legal De La Raza. Armed with detailed legal briefs and hundreds of pages about conditions in El Salvador, Hiatt said she was ready to present her client’s gender-based persecution claim for asylum in November. But the judge couldn’t be in court that day and the hearing was pushed to the judge’s next available opening — more than three years away.

Despite believing her client has a strong asylum claim, Hiatt said the lengthy wait will make it harder to win Ana’s case, and not because the facts of the case have changed.

“I worry about memory fading, circumstances changing and everything that can happen that could impact on her ability to confidently tell her story when it comes time to do so,” Hiatt said.

Immigration advocates worry President Biden’s dedicated docket plan to cut down processing times could end up hurting asylum seekers, by rushing ill-prepared new arrivals through the process while supplanting immigrants whose cases have languished for years.

An analysis by the Migration Policy Institute shows that in 17,000 expedited docket cases under previous administrations, the majority of immigrants lacked legal representation and 80% of them were ordered removed without even being in court.

History appears to be repeating. Current Justice Department data shows that of San Francisco’s 1,138 dedicated docket cases being heard right now, 1,008 — nearly 90% — do not have legal representation.

“This docket is not fair to asylum seekers,” said Milli Atkinson, an attorney with the Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Association of San Francisco who has witnessed local dedicated docket hearings. “These expedited dockets make it extremely difficult for respondents to find counsel and puts enormous pressure on them to move forward with their case without an attorney.”

. . . .

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

Woman Tortured — “What if Garland had to hang out with us in his backlogs?”
Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Read Deepa’s full article at the link.

Notably, a 9-year wait for a merits hearing in Immigration Court more than spans the tenure of even a two-term Administration!

The scary thing is that San Francisco probably is by no means the most screwed up Immigration Court in the nation. The 9th Circuit, which reviews some of their cases and establishes precedents for the Circuit, does sometimes “call out” chronically poor performance by EOIR and poorly reasoned, anti-immigrant “precedents” emanating from the BIA and Garland’s predecessors as AG.

But, with a large number of Trump/McConnell right wing appointees, many of them younger, even the 9th Circuit is moving rightward. So, unless Biden can stem the tide, one of the last “fail safes” in a dysfunctional system might be neutered.

Although Garland has (too slowly) undone some of the worst precedents, he has yet to generate the positive legal guidance necessary to ”move dockets” by granting more cases like Ana’s. Without a new BIA, he lacks the “onboard, progressive, expert, due-process-oriented legal and judicial talent” to fashion and enforce the long overdue and badly needed “enlightened precedents” that will save lives and straighten out the law on a nationwide basis.

As pointed out by this article and other critics, EOIR is “far behind the eight-ball” in using technology to meet the challenges of justice in the age of COVID. Although EOIR has been using some form of televideo for over a quarter of a century, they fell behind other court systems when it came to adapting to COVID. After more than two decades of largely wasted time and money, the Immigration Courts still lack a functional e-filing system, which greatly compounded both dangers and chaos during COVID.

Worse yet, what limited technology that is available at EOIR appears to be used primarily for the benefit of EOIR and its bureaucrats, not for the convenience of the public it supposedly serves. How does this “practical nonsense,” unfolding on a daily basis, without meaningful engagement with judges and parties before the courts, meet any definition of competent “service to the public?” Garland has ignored aspirational, achievable, visions and progressive goals for a culture of “good enough for Government work” and “who cares, it’s only aliens and their ‘dirty’ attorneys!”

Moreover, his continuation of the unconscionable, scofflaw use of Title 42 to suspend the asylum process and send legal asylum seekers to danger or death without due process undermines his credibility and integrity as a leader and role model. Although Garland pretends otherwise, judicial, and legal leadership has a moral element that requires a sense of urgency, courage, and demonstrated competence. Garland’s leadership (and that of his “Senior Team” of political appointees at the DOJ) has fallen woefully short!

Judge Dana Leigh Marks is a good example of Garland’s exceptionally poor approach. One of the best judges in America, on any court, including the Supremes, Marks is a proven fearless leader and extraordinary legal mind. Her victory at the Supremes in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, establishing the “well-founded-fear” international standards for asylum, is probably the Court’s most important humans rights’ case of the 20th Century. Her dynamic, inspiring leadership of the National Association of Immigration Judges has helped expose the grotesque shortcomings of EOIR @ DOJ while giving rise to the national movement for an Article I independent Immigration Court outside the DOJ.

I daresay that Judge Marks can “move” asylum cases through the system without tromping on anyone’s due process tights. She, and others like her, both currently in and outside the system, could set a new tone and lead the way toward a better, fairer future!

Too many of her fellow judges, and most members of the BIA not named Saenz, lack the expertise, experience, motivation, and courage to do that. So, cases like Ana’s, which actually might serve as positive precedents for documenting and granting other asylum cases, languish among Garland’s inconceivable backlog while other potentially grantable cases are unfairly pushed to the front of the line without attorneys, adequate preparation time, or accountability for judges programmed to deny rather than stand up for due process and asylum seekers’ legal rights! Much, but by no means all, of this predictably sloppy work product is returned by the Article IIIs for “redos,” thus adding to the backlog, chaos, and “institutionalized arbitrariness” of this approach to “justice!”

Judge Marks is an articulate, energetic experienced public spokesperson for immigration and court reform. She knows where the “bodies are buried” and the “deadwood stored” at EOIR; she has has actual solutions and ideas for addressing many problems now infecting our Immigration Courts. And, unlike past generations of EOIR bureaucrats and “go along to get along judges,” she has no fear and can’t be intimidated!

Judge Marks is already on the payroll. Garland could and should have tapped her on “Day One” to be part of a “Transitional Leadership Group” at EOIR to start “knocking heads and making long overdue due-process-driven changes” while Garland and his Team, with outside input, conducted an expedited emergency, merit-based process to recruit and replace the BIA and Senior Management at EOIR with a diverse team of progressive “practical scholars” as judges and dynamic, progressive, problem-solving leaders and administrators of the Immigration Courts. These sensible recommendations actually were made during the transition period, only to be totally ignored by Garland!

Instead, after a nearly a year, Garland’s tone deaf and dilatory (non)approach to EOIR reform has allowed the system’s continued disintegration, further undermined the credibility of his DOJ, demoralized and “de-enthused” potential supporters in the advocacy community, and continued to degrade and destroy human lives.

Ah, Yes, What Timing!

Just as I was posting this, my friend, Professor Lindsay Muir Harris at UDC Law published what I call the “Practical Scholars Compendium” to the missed opportunities that Garland and other members of “Biden’s Gang With Neither Vision Nor Moral Courage” have been compiling, as documented on Courtside and other blogs! See https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2022/01/immigration-article-of-the-day-asylum-under-attack-by-lindsay-harris.html

Thing is, tough-minded, courageous, ethically-driven, “practical scholars” like Professor Harris, Professor Kit Johnson (who posted Harris’s article on ImmigrationProf Blog), and others like them could and should have been enticed by an “AG with a Plan” to join the BIA, serve on the trial bench at the Immigration Courts, or otherwise occupy key positions @ EOIR.

Like Judge Marks, these folks would put an end to “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” the culture of mindless denial, the improper use of Immigration Courts as (failed) deterrence, and start holding the “main perpetrators” at EOIR and at DHS accountable for their disregard and disrespect for the quasi-judicial system. They would also know how to write and apply accessible “practical scholarly” precedents (written in plain English, rather than “opaque judicial gobbledygook”) that would fulfill our legal (not to mention moral) obligations to provide fair and generous treatment of vulnerable asylum seekers and others caught up in this now-disreputable and dysfunctional parody of a court system.

Instead, Garland has countenanced a continuation of “Clown Courts” 🤡 and “star chambers” ☠️ that have become contributing factors in the precipitous and perhaps fatal disintegration of democracy in America.

Star Chamber Justice — ”This is Stephen Miller’s perverted ‘vision of justice in Immigration Court!’ Why hasn’t Garland moved beyond it by bringing in the ‘best and brightest’ to reform his dysfunctional EOIR system?” “Justice”
Star Chamber
Style

Undoubtedly, the same White Nationalist “replacement theory” motivation that was behind Trump’s weaponization of the Immigration Courts is a driver of the overall anti-democracy movement on the right.

It’s a shame, that given at least a good shot at making a difference, Dems are too timid, distracted, and frankly, inept to pick off the “low hanging fruit” within their reach!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever! And, many thanks to Deepa for putting in the spotlight Garland’s disgraceful failure to lead and institute due process reforms in his dysfunctional, hopelessly backlogged, wholly-owned and unprofessionally operated Immigration “Courts.”

PWS

01-02-22

😇☠️👹THE GOOD, THE BAD, & THE UGLY — NGOs & Citizens Make Extraordinary Efforts To Help, U.S. Vets Forced To Vainly Beg For Mercy For Afghan Comrades, & Some Of The Most Vulnerable Condemned To Suffering, Torture, Death W/O Process @ Disgraceful S. Border, As Biden Administration Flails To Find Leadership On Human Rights — “If it is actually the policy of the United States to turn away veteran-endorsed Afghan allies, then our bureaucracy isn’t just passively ‘letting them die’; it is actively killing them.“

JGOOD:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/24/afghan-evacuees-spending-first-christmas-america-seek-miracle-kindness/

. . . .

Here’s hoping in this season of fellowship that these latest “tempest-tost” — to use the words poet Emma Lazarus appropriated from Shakespeare to inscribe on the Statue of Liberty — find there is room for them in our countrymen’s hearts. So far, the signs are encouraging. Resettlement agencies, gutted in the Trump years when refugee admissions were slashed to historic lows, are overwhelmed but staffing up as fast as they can. In far-flung places around the nation, there is little political pushback as the evacuees become more numerous and visible.

One reason is that U.S. veterans, former soldiers and Marines, have their backs. Having fought side by side with and depended critically on their Afghan interpreters, fixers and guides, those veterans are going to bat for their former comrades in arms, officials say. In Republican communities such as Tulsa, as in Democratic ones like Northern Virginia, some of the arriving evacuees may be nearly penniless, but they are not without allies and advocates.

Let this Christmas, these Afghans’ first, be a moment when they tap into this country’s innate generosity, so that the American Dream is as successful for them as it has been for so many who arrived before them.

BAD:

https://thewashingtonpost.pressreader.com/search?query=Vets%20on%20Afghans&in=ALL&hideSimilar=0&type=1&state=0

Mr. President, hear this plea from Afghan war vets

The Washington Post25 Dec 2021BY JAYSON HARPSTER The writer is a U.S. Army veteran. He lives in D.C.

Please don’t let my friends die. It’s a simple plea to the U.S. government from many American veterans of the Afghanistan war. And so far, that plea is being ignored. My friends Nabi and Kohee are what our political class calls “Afghan allies.” They were Afghan intelligence officers whom I served with during my second deployment to Afghanistan. God blessed me the day I was assigned to work with such fine men. They taught me about their country, I taught them about intelligence analysis, and together we tracked Taliban threats.

Now our immigration system is leaving these men and their families to die at the hands of the Taliban. The special immigrant visa (SIV) for interpreters excludes Afghan soldiers like my friends. The Refugee Admissions Program is backlogged. And now Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) is blocking Afghans from accessing humanitarian parole, their only remaining lifeline. Director Ur M. Jaddou of CIS and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas need to fix humanitarian parole for our Afghan allies.

The Army gave me a Bronze Star for the work that I did with Nabi and Kohee. That helped get me into a good school, get a good job, a good life — the American Dream. But for my friends, the fact that they worked with the Americans is a death sentence, and I dare not use their full names given the ongoing threats to them and their families. The Taliban raided Nabi’s house the very night it conquered Kabul. If he had not already gone into hiding, he’d be dead. Kohee and his family had to flee their home when their pro-taliban neighbors threatened them with death and promised to “take care of ” their teenage daughter. “Take care of ” means forcibly marrying her off to a Taliban fighter to be raped.

If it is U.S. policy to turn away veteran-endorsed Afghan allies, then our bureaucracy isn’t just passively ‘letting them die’; it is actively killing them.

Working with fellow veterans and volunteers, I desperately tried to get Nabi, Kohee and their families into the Kabul airport so they could escape. But U.S. guards turned them away, all while some planes were taking off with unfilled seats. Nabi evaded a half-dozen Taliban checkpoints to get within six feet of his assigned pickup location, only to be attacked with tear gas by American guards and whipped by a Taliban fighter. It was only after days of failure at the airport that we made the difficult decision to help them flee to Pakistan.

In Pakistan, they live with the risk of being deported back to Afghanistan. They can barely go outside. The kids can’t go to school. And they can’t go to another country that will accept them. Every time I see a message notification on my phone, I’m afraid.

. . . .

UGLY:

. . . .

It felt to Chic as if her whole family had cohered in Florida while she was in Guatemala, leaving her on the outside. During Adelaida’s birthday parties, she was the square box on the FaceTime calls, peering through the screen, until she hung up and cried alone.

Separated at the border, reunited, then separated again: For migrant families, another trauma

David listened. More parents had arrived at the hotel; some were eavesdropping. When they shared their own stories, they would describe the moments of separation almost identically. But in each case, the familial chaos and dislocation that came next was different for each parent.

David’s son was also in South Florida, about an hour from Adelaida. But his wife and other children were still in Guatemala. To reunite with one of his children, he would have to leave the others. His son, who had slipped in and out of depression, needed him in Florida.

“So that’s my trouble,” he said. “One solution creates another problem.”

This time, it was Chic who nodded, permitting herself, briefly, to feel fortunate.

. . . .

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

Read the full version of all of these pieces at the respective links above.

So, inflicting irreparable harm on refugees and vulnerable asylum seekers became the official policy of the U.S. Government and a vile rallying cry for a morally bankrupt GOP. It would be naive to ignore that actively killing refugees and other migrants was part and parcel of the Trump regime’s hate and lie-based immigration policies. And, the Biden Administration has been too wobbly to undo Trump’s toxic legacy with integrity, dynamic leadership, and courage.

So, families suffer, Vets beg in vain, atrocious Government policies continue at the border, and NGOs and citizens struggle to fill the gap.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-26-21

👍🏼⚖️🗽MAJORITY OF ASYLUM SEEKERS WIN THEIR CASES, EVEN IN A BROKEN & BIASED SYSTEM INTENTIONALLY STACKED AGAINST THEM — But, Only, If They Can Get To A “Merits Adjudication!” — Nativist Lies, Myths, Driving USG Policies Exposed! — Why USCIS & EOIR Self-Created Backlogs Primarily Shaft Those Deserving Legal Protection Of Some Type!

https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/672/

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

. . . .

Completed Asylum Cases and Outcomes

Asylum grant rates have often been the focus of public attention and discussion. An implicit assumption is often made that if the immigrants’ asylum applications are denied that they have been unsuccessful in their quest to legally remain in the U.S. However, this may not always be the case. In addition to asylum, there are often other avenues for relief, and other types of decisions where the Immigration Court can determine that an individual should be allowed to legally remain in the U.S. This report breaks new ground in empirically documenting just how often asylum seekers’ quests to legally remain in the U.S. have been successful.

According to case-by-case records of the Immigration Courts, Immigration Judges completed close to one million cases (967,552) on which asylum applications had been filed during the last 21 years (October 2000 – September 2021). Of these, judges granted asylum to 249,413 or one-quarter (26%) of these cases.

However, only about half of asylum seekers were ordered deported. More specifically, just 42 percent received removal orders or their equivalent,[4] and an additional 8 percent received so-called voluntary departure orders. These orders require the asylum seekers to leave the country, but unlike removal orders voluntary departure orders do not penalize individuals further by legally barring them for a period of years from reentry should their circumstances change.

The remaining one-quarter (24%) of asylum seekers were granted other forms or relief or Immigration Judges closed their cases using other grounds which allowed asylum seekers to legally remain in the country.[5] When this proportion is added to asylum grant rates, half of asylum seekers in Immigration Court cases — about twice the individuals granted asylum — have been successful in their quest to legally remain in the United States at least for a period of time. See Figure 5.

Figure 5. Outcome of U.S. Asylum Applications, October 2000 – September 2021

(Click for larger image)

Focusing on just Immigration Court asylum cases, however, does not take into consideration asylum seekers who have asylum granted by Asylum Officers from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Those cases end there with the asylum grant. Only unsuccessful cases are forwarded to the Immigration Court for review afresh, and thus included in the Immigration Court’s records. These referrals of asylum denials by USCIS Asylum Officers are classified in the Court’s records as affirmative asylum cases,[6] to distinguish them from those that start with DHS seeking a removal order from the Immigration Court and the asylum claim being raised as a defense against removal.

Thus, a more complete picture of asylum seekers to the U.S. would add in the asylum grants by USCIS on these affirmative cases. Over the period since October 2000, the total number of asylum grants totals just under 600,000 cases – more than double the asylum grants by Immigration Judges alone.[7] Asylum Officers granted asylum in just over 350,000 cases, while Immigration Judges granted asylum in an additional close to 250,000 cases. See Tables 5a and 5b.

Asylum grants thus make up almost half (46%) of the outcomes on the total number of 1.3 million cases closed in which asylum applications were filed. An additional one in five (18%) were granted some other form of relief or otherwise allowed to legally remain in the U.S. Thus, almost two-thirds (64%) of asylum seekers in the 1.3 million cases which were resolved have been successful over the past two decades.

Figure 5 above presents a side-by-side comparison of asylum case outcomes when examining Immigration Court completions alone, and how outcome percentages shift once Asylum Officers’ asylum grants are combined with decisions made by Immigration Judges.

. . . .

Outcome on Asylum Cases Number Percent**

IJ Outcome on Asylum Cases

Asylum Granted by IJ 249,413 26%

Other Relief, etc. 236,889 24%

Removal Order 403,252 42%

Voluntary Departure Order 77,998 8%

Total IJ Asylum Completions 967,552 100%

USCIS + IJ Outcome on Asylum Cases

Asylum Granted by USCIS+IJ 599,772 46%

Other Relief, etc by IJ 236,889 18%

Removal Order by IJ 403,252 31%

Voluntary Departure Order by IJ 77,998 6%

USCIS + IJ Asylum Completions 1,317,911 100%

. . . .

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

Read the complete TRAC report, containing all the graphs and charts that I could not adequately reproduce, at the link.

Applying the 50% “granted protection of some type” rate in Immigration Court to the ever expanding backlog of 667,000 asylum cases in Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR, that means that there are at least 333,000 asylum seekers who should be “out of Garland’s backlog” and legally living, working, and/or studying in the U.S., probably over 165,000 of whom should be on the way to green cards, citizenship, or already citizens in a functional system!

And, the TRAC-documented success rate has been achieved in a system that has been designed with bias to deter and discourage asylum seekers with mediocre, or even hostile, judges, a BIA that lacks asylum expertise and turns out incorrect restrictionist precedents, and administrative leadership that specializes in ineptitude, toadyism, and mindless “aimless docket reshuffling.”

Obviously, the “get to stay” rate would be much higher with better-qualified, better-trained, merit-selected judges, guided and kept in line by a BIA of America’s best and brightest appellate judges with proven expertise in asylum, immigration, human rights, due process, and racial justice, and dynamic, inspiring, well-qualified leadership. For a great example of what “could have been” with a better AG, see, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/12/18/%e2%9a%96%ef%b8%8f%f0%9f%97%bd%f0%9f%87%ba%f0%9f%87%b8courts-justice-courtside-proudly-announces-the-dream-bia-its-out-there-even-if-garland/.

Better problem-solving-focused judicial leadership at EOIR could come up with innovative ways of screening and getting the many aged, grantable cases of asylum seekers and other migrants (cancellation of removal, SIJS, and “stateside processing” come to mind) out of the Immigration Court backlog and into an alternative setting where relief could granted more efficiently. For the most part, there is no useful purpose to be served by keeping cases more than three years old on the Immigration Court docket.

The Immigration Courts must work largely in “real time” with real judges who can produce consistent, fair results on a predictable timetable. Big parts of that are increasing competent representation, providing better legal guidance on recognizing and promptly granting meritorious cases (that, significantly, would also guide the USCIS Asylum Office), and standing up to efforts by DHS Enforcement to overwhelm judicial resources and use Immigration Courts to “warehouse and babysit” the results of their own mismanagement and misdirection of resources.

There’s no chance that Garland (based on inept and disinterested performance to date, and his near total lack of awareness and urgency) and the crew, largely of Sessions/Barr holdovers, currently comprising his EOIR can pull it off. That’s a monumental problem for migrants and American justice generally!

Without an AG with the guts, determination, expertise, and vision to “clean house” at EOIR and DOJ, or alternatively, a Congress that takes this mess out of the DOJ and creates a real Article I Immigration Court system, backlogs, fundamental unfairness, and incompetence at EOIR will continue to drag down the American legal system.

Worthy of note: The TRAC stats confirm the generally held belief that those asylum seekers held in detention (the “New American Gulag” or “NAG”) are very significantly less likely to be granted relief than those appearing in a non-detained setting. But, what would be helpful, perhaps a task for “practical scholars” somewhere, would be to know “why.”

Is it because the cases simply are not a strong, because of criminal backgrounds or otherwise? Or, is it because of the chronic lack of representation, intentional coercion, and generally less sympathetic judges often present in detention settings? Or, as is likely, is it some combination of all these factors?

Also worthy of note: Three major non-detained courts, with approximately 31,000 pending asylum cases, had success rates significantly below (20% or more) the national average of 50%:

Houston (19%)
Atlanta (29%)
Harlingen (24%)

On the “flip side,” I was somewhat pleasantly surprised to see that the oft-criticized El Paso Immigration Court (non-detained) had a very respectable 48% success rate — a mere 2% off the national average! Interesting!

Also worthy of watching: Although based on a tiny, non-statistically-valid sampling (2% of filed asylum cases), Houston-Greenspoint had a 53% grant rate, compared with “Houston non-detained’s” measly 19%. If this trend continues — and it well might not, given the very small sample — it would certainly be worthy knowing the reasons for this great disparity.

In addition to “giving lie” to the bogus claims, advanced mostly by GOP nativists, but also by some Dems and officials in Dem Administrations, that most asylum seekers don’t have valid claims to remain, the exact opposite appears to be true! Keeping asylum seekers from getting fair and timely dispositions of their cases hurts them at least as much, probably more, than any legitimate Government interest.

Moreover, it strongly suggests that hundreds of thousands of legitimate asylum seekers with bona fide claims for protection have been illegally and immorally returned to danger or death without any semblance of due process under a combination of a bogus Title 42 rationale and an equally bogus “Remain in Mexico” travesty. It should also prompt some meaningful evaluation of the intellectual and moral failings of Administrations or both parties, poorly-qualified Article III judges, and legislators who have encouraged, enforced, or enabled these “crimes against humanity” — and the most vulnerable in humanity to boot!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-24-21

☠️🤮 “TEFLON MERRICK” — GROTESQUE DUE PROCESS MELTDOWN @ GARLAND’S EOIR CONTINUES UNABATED, WHILE AG AVOIDS ACCOUNTABILITY — 3RD CIR. CASTIGATES GARLAND’S BIASED & INCOMPETENT “STAR CHAMBERS” — “It is more akin to the argument of an advocate than the impartial analysis of a quasi-judicial agency.”

Alfred E. Neumann — As asylum applicants, other migrants, and their lawyers, receive grievous mistreatment by the “judges of his EOIR Star Chambers,” “Teflon Merrick” Garland has avoided accountability for the ongoing, systemic degrading of humanity and American justice carried out in his name!” Why?
PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca3-slams-ij-bia-nsimba-v-atty-gen#

CA3 Slams IJ, BIA: Nsimba v. Atty. Gen.

Nsimba v. Atty. Gen.

“Bob Lupini Nsimba petitions for review of a December 8, 2020 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of his application for asylum. In affirming that decision, the BIA misapplied and misinterpreted controlling precedent and imposed requirements on those seeking relief that would require petitioners to first endure torture or arrest. Accordingly, for the reasons that follow, we will grant the petition for review, vacate the ruling of the BIA and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

[You MUST read the entire opinion; the panel really goes to town on the IJ and the BIA. Hats off to Valentine Brown!]

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

Not news for anyone who (unlike Garland) has even passing familiarity with the daily mockery of justice being carried out by Garland’s “wholly-owned bogus ‘court’ system.” These AREN’T aberrations or isolated incidents! They are “business as usual” in Garland’s totally dysfunctional and out of control Immigration “Courts.”

These aren’t “courts;” they are “adjuncts of DHS enforcement, masquerading as courts,” redesigned as such by Sessions and Barr with Stephen Miller’s influence and enabled to continue their disgraceful degradation of American justice by Garland!

DRC cases, if credible and documented, should be “slam dunk grants of asylum.” They could be put on the “30 minute docket.” Instead, EOIR has been allowed and encouraged to engage in this type of obscene, dilatory nonsense, with obvious racial overtones.

This case is a microcosm of how EOIR and the DOJ have built astounding due process denying backlog! The solution is NOT more Immigration Judges! It’s better Immigration Judges.

Congrats to NDPA Star Valentine Brown!

Obviously Garland has neither standards nor any shame!

Dishonest, biased, and incompetent decisions like this should long ago have resulted in the removal from the BIA and reassignment of the BIA “judge(s)” involved.

When are the Circuits going to catch on that this entire charade is a grotesque denial of due process, pull the plug, and hold Garland accountable for this unconstitutional (not to mention unethical) degradation of American justice?

BIA judges and EOIR judges AREN’T Article IIIs, and they DON’T have life tenure in their particular jobs.

When are Dems in both Houses going to start demanding accountability and competence from Garland? How long are the Article IIIs going to allow this mind-boggling misfeasance that materially affects millions of lives in America, and squanders an unconscionable amount of legal resources, to continue before finally “pulling the plug” on Garland’s “quasi-judicial farce?”

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-23-21

☠️NEW KIND REPORT SHOWS CRISIS OF PERSECUTION OF WOMEN & CHILDREN IN NORTHERN TRIANGLE EXACERBATED BY PANDEMIC — More Evidence Of Legal, Factual, & Moral Bankruptcy Of Administration’s Bogus “Deterrence Policies” As Well As Grotesque Failure Of U.S. Courts At All Levels To Uniformly Require Granting Of Asylum To Qualified Refugee Women & Children!

*Cover photo by photojournalist Guillermo Martinez shows a boy in El Salvador wearing a protective mask from his home during a COVID-19 lockdown. Photo credit: Guillermo Martinez/APHOTOGRAFIA/ Getty Images

New Report: Dual Crises

Gender-Based Violence and Inequality Facing Children and Women During the COVID-19 Pandemic in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras

Gender-based violence has long been one of the main drivers of migration from Central America to the United States. Widespread violence, including sexual abuse, human trafficking, and violence in the home and family, combined with a lack of access to protection and justice forces children and women to flee in search of safety. Drawing on existing research and interviews with children’s and women’s rights experts, this report lays out how the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated already pervasive forms of violence against children and women in Central America, as well as the deeply entrenched gender inequality that leaves children and women even more vulnerable to violence.

Here’s a link to the full report: http://us.engagingnetworks.app/page/email/click/10097/1093096?email=C9P0Zhj6QQc0L7Si0LDouAN%2BRR2ul1GhmZAK81VjEpg=&campid=z6owwwxd2r6ZkArzVWMSmA==

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

Successful implementation of the U.S. Strategy for Addressing the Root Causes of Migration in Central America must start by acknowledging that gender-based violence is a primary driver of migration and includes most violence against children.

Obviously, mindless, failed enforcement and deterrence-only policies that tell women and children to “suffer and die in place” rather than flee and seek asylum are absurdly out of touch with the realities of both human migration and the real situation in the Northern Triangle. This report shows that increased flight from the Northern Triangle probably has more to do with the aggravating effects of the pandemic on the already untenable situation of many women and children in the Northern Triangle than it does on any policy pronouncements, real or imagined, on the part of the Biden Administration.

An honest policy that recognizes the reality that gender-based persecution is a major driver of forced migration in the Northern Triangle would go a long way toward addressing the largely self-created situation at our Southern Border.

As many of us keep saying, to no visible avail, asylum isn’t a “policy option” for politicos and wonks to “discuss and debate.” It’s a legal and moral requirement, domestically and internationally, that we are currently defaulting upon!

Wonder why “democracy is on the ropes” throughout the world right now? Perhaps, we need look no further than our own horrible example!

A robust overseas refugee program in the region and a uniform, consistent, timely policy of granting asylum to qualified applicants applying at ports of entry at our borders would be a vast improvement.

Sure, it would undoubtedly result in the legal immigration of more refugees and asylum seekers. That’s actually what refugee and asylum laws are all about — an important and robust component of our legal immigration system.

Although our needs are not actually part of the “legal test for asylum,” the fact is, we need more legal immigrants of all types in America right now.

It should be a win-win for the refugees and for America. So why not make it happen, rather than continuing failed policy approaches that serve nobody’s interest except nativist zealots trying to inflame xenophobia for political gain?

An additional point: On February 2, 2021, to great ballyhoo, President Biden issued Executive Order 14010. A key provision of that order required that:

(ii) within 270 days of the date of this order, promulgate joint regulations, consistent with applicable law, addressing the circumstances in which a person should be considered a member of a “particular social group,” as that term is used in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42)(A), as derived from the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol.

270 days have long passed. In fact, its been more than 300 days since that order. Yet, these regulations are nowhere in sight. Perhaps, that’s a good thing.

This doesn’t come as much of a surprise to “us old timers” who have “hands on” experience with the unsuitability of the DOJ regulation drafting process for this assignment. Indeed, this assignment is actually several decades “overdue,” having originally been handed out by the late former Attorney General Janet Reno prior to her departure from office in January 2020!

The problem remains lack of expertise. With the possible exception of Lucas Guttentag, I know of nobody at today’s DOJ who actually has the necessary experience, expertise, perspective, and historical knowledge to draft a proper regulation on the topic. Past drafts and proposals have been disastrous, actually seeking to diminish, rather than increase and regularize, protections for vulnerable women and others facing persecution on account of gender-based particular social groups.

Indeed, one proposal was even used by OIL as an avenue in attempting to “water down” the all-important, life saving “regulatory presumption of future persecution arising out of past persecution!” Talk about perversions of justice at Justice! Why? Because OIL had suffered a series of embarrassing, ego-deflating setbacks from Article III Courts calling out the frequent failure of the BIA and IJs to properly apply the basics of the presumption. Sound familiar?

At DOJ, the “normal solution to lack of expertise and competence” is to simply eliminate expertise and competence as requirements! In many ways, “good enough for government work” has replaced “who prosecutes on behalf of Lady Justice” as the DOJ’s motto!

It’s also yet another reason why the DOJ is a horribly inappropriate “home” for the U.S. Immigration Courts!

😎Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-16-21

Outcome on Asylum Cases	Number	Percent**
IJ Outcome on Asylum Cases
Asylum Granted by IJ	249,413	26%
Other Relief, etc.	236,889	24%
Removal Order	403,252	42%
Voluntary Departure Order	77,998	8%
Total IJ Asylum Completions	967,552	100%
USCIS + IJ Outcome on Asylum Cases
Asylum Granted by USCIS+IJ	599,772	46%
Other Relief, etc by IJ	236,889	18%
Removal Order by IJ	403,252	31%
Voluntary Departure Order by IJ	77,998	6%
USCIS + IJ Asylum Completions	1,317,911	100%

David Smith reports for The Guardian:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Deadly Inertia: Needless Delay of “Particular Social Group” Regulations Puts Asylum Seekers at Risk

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Priscilla Alvarez reports for CNN:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever,

Related posts:

Olafimihan Oshin reports for The Hill:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

Courtside Exclusive

Jan. 9, 2022

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Deepa Fernandes reports for the SF Chron:

Ah, Yes, What Timing!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever! And, many thanks to Deepa for putting in the spotlight Garland’s disgraceful failure to lead and institute due process reforms in his dysfunctional, hopelessly backlogged, wholly-owned and unprofessionally operated Immigration “Courts.”

Related posts:

JGOOD:

BAD:

UGLY:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Completed Asylum Cases and Outcomes

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

😎Due Process Forever!

Related posts: