"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
Biden’s “Shadow Attorney General” speaks through the likeness of Merrick Garland! Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.comCNN Digital Expansion 2019, Priscilla Alvarez Politics Reporter, CNN
“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.
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.
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 expertswho understand the full legal and human effects of Garland’s complacent and ineffectual leadership.
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!
“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.
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.
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?
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 OnBench 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!
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)
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 upfor 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!
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.”
. . . .
************************************
“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.
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.
Better choices for the now-broken and regressive Immigration Judiciary are out there? Why hasn’t Garland tapped them? Kit Johnson Associate Professor of Law University of Oklahoma Law School
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.
”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.”
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.
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.
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.
The “Gauleiter”s” policies of “transportation” of legal asylum seekers to danger zones or death has, to a totally unacceptable extent, been adopted by the Biden Administration. America’s cowardly, immoral, illegal, and unethical treatment of these vulnerable individuals will haunt our nation for generations to come! Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com
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
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.”
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!
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
“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?”
*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.
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!
Furthermore, in oral arguments before the Supreme Court yesterday in Patel v. Garland, our amicus brief received a brief mention:
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: — questions, how
10could an appellate court — and this question
11cuts both ways, so — but how can an appellate
12court look at a cold record and determine a
13factual error when it relates to credibility,
14for example, or something like that? Just give
15me some examples where this will matter, I
16guess.
17MR. FLEMING: Well, there — as the
18amici, the American Immigration Lawyers
19Association and the EOIR judges, point out, it
20— it’s not uncommon.Best, Jeff
********************
And, here’s more coverage from Human Rights First:
Courtesy Paul Ratje — AFP via Getty Images
A man sits in a migrant camp near Reynosa, Tamaulipas, Mexico.
The new version of MPP expands its focus to asylum seekers from across the hemisphere, stranding even more people seeking safety in dangerous conditions at the border.
Kennji Kizuka, Associate Director for Research and Analysis, Refugee Protection, appeared on Democracy Now! and detailed the many human rights violations faced by asylum seekers processed under the “Remain in Mexico” policy.
“It’s extraordinarily concerning that the Biden administration is not only restarting this policy but expanding it,” said Kizuka.
Human Rights First also announced the resumption of our research documenting the human rights abuses suffered by people turned away to wait in danger under MPP.
Human Rights First’s Associate Attorney, Refugee Protection Julia Neusner and Advocacy Strategist for Refugee Protection Ana Ortega Villegas are on the ground in Ciudad Juárez to monitor the first days of MPP’s reinstatement. Please follow their live updates and other reports through Human Rights First’s twitter account.
Our team’s view of the Mexican government’s
staging area in Cuidad Juárez for Remain in Mexico 2.0
Our position is gaining widespread support from those who understand the issue. The Roundtable of Former Immigration Judges condemned
MPP as the “antithesis of fairness,” concluding that there has been “no greater affront to due process, fairness and transparency,” and called for administration to “permanently end the program.”
The union for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) asylum officers tasked with MPP screenings call it “irredeemably flawed.” They said that restarting MPP “makes our members complicit in violations of U.S. federal law and binding international treaty obligations of non-refoulement that they have sworn to uphold.”
******************
So proud to be a part of this group and so grateful for the leadership of colleagues like Judges Jeffrey Chase, Ilyce Shugall, Lory Rosenberg, Carol King, Joan Churchill, Denise Slavin, Sue Roy, John Gossart, Charles Honeyman, Charlie Pazar, Sarah Burr, Cecelia Espenoza, Bruce Einhorn, Tue Phan-Quang, Bob Weisel, Paul Grussendorf, Jennie Giambastini, and many, many, many others!
As an “appreciative fellow NDPA member” told me yesterday, “it’s a true team effort!“ This type of teamwork for the public good was once encouraged at EOIR and even incorporated into the “leadership vision,” but now, sadly, it has “fallen by the wayside” in what has basically become a “haste makes waste race to the bottom.”
Fortunately, the Round Table and other members of the NDPA still share a “vision of what American justice should look like” and are willing to speak up for what’s legal and right rather than just “expedient!”
December 6 , 2021
The Round Table of Former Immigration Judges is a group of 51 former Immigration Judges and Members of the Board of Immigration Appeals who are committed to the principles of due process, fairness, and transparency in our Immigration Court system.
There has been no greater affront to due process, fairness, and transparency than the MPP, or “Remain in Mexico” policy. Instituted under the Trump Administration, it appears to have been motivated by nothing other than cruelty.
Tragically, to comply with a most misguided court order, the Biden Administration, which promised us better, is today not only resuming the program with most of its cruelty intact, but expanding its scope to now apply to nationals of all Western Hemisphere countries.
In 1997, the BIA issued a precedent decision, Matter of S-M-J-, that remains binding on Immigration Judges and ICE prosecutors. In that decision, the BIA recognized our government’s “obligation to uphold international refugee law, including the United States’ obligation to extend refuge where such refuge is warranted. That is, immigration enforcement obligations do not consist only of initiating and conducting prompt proceedings that lead to removals at any cost. Rather, as has been said, the government wins when justice is done.”1
One of the cases cited by the BIA was Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas Co. v. FERC,2 a decision which concluded: “We find it astonishing that an attorney for a federal administrative agency could so unblushingly deny that a government lawyer has obligations that might sometimes trump the desire to pound an opponent into submission.”
The MPP policy constitutes the pounding into submission of those who, if found to qualify for asylum, we are obliged by international law to admit, protect, and afford numerous fundamental rights. The “pounding” in this instance is literal, with reports of those lawfully pursuing their right to seek asylum in the U.S. being subject to kidnappings, extortion, sexual abuse, and other
1 Matter of S-M-J-, 21 I&N Dec. 722, 728 (BIA 1997). 2 962 F.2d 45, 48 (D.C. Cir. 1992).
threats and physical attacks.3 This is the antithesis of fairness, in which the parties are not afforded equal access to justice.
Concerning due process, a statement issued by the union representing USCIS Asylum Officers, whose members interview asylum applicants subjected to the program, noted that MPP denies those impacted of meaningful access to counsel, and further impedes their ability to gather evidence and access necessary resources to prepare their cases.4 As former judges who regularly decided asylum claims, we can vouch for the importance of representation and access to evidence, including the opinions of country condition experts, in successfully obtaining asylum. Yet according to a report issued during the Trump Administration, only four percent of those forced to remain in Mexico under MPP were able to obtain representation.5 As of course, DHS attorneys are not similarly impeded, the policy thus fails to afford the parties a level playing field.
As to transparency, one former Immigration Judge from our group who attempted to observe MPP hearings under the prior administration was prevented from doing so despite having the consent of the asylum seeker to be present. A letter from our group to the EOIR Director and the Chief Immigration Judge expressing our concern went unanswered.
Like many others who understand the importance that a fair and independent court system plays in a free and democratic society, we had hoped to have seen the last of this cruel policy. And like so many others, we are beyond disappointed to learn that we were wrong. On this day in which MPP is being restarted, we join so many others both within and outside of government in demanding better.
We urge the Biden Administration to end its unwarranted expansion of MPP; to instead do everything in its power to permanently end the program; and to insure that in the interim, any court-ordered restart of MPP first accord with our international treaty obligations towards refugees, and with the requirements of due process and fairness on which our legal system is premised.
Contact Jeffrey S. Chase, jeffchase99@gmail.com
3 See the compilation of of publicly reported cases of violent attacks on those returned to Mexico under MPP by Human Rights First, available at https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/ PubliclyReportedMPPAttacks2.19.2021.pdf.
4 American Federation of Government Employees, National Citizenship and Immigration Services Council 119, “Union Representing USCIS Asylum Officers Condemns Re-Implementation of the Migrant Protection Protocols” (Dec. 2, 2021).
5 Syracuse University, TRAC Immigration, “Contrasting Experiences: MPP vs. Non-MPP Immigration Court Cases,” available at https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/587/.
***********************
Thanks to “Sir Jeffrey” Chase for leading this effort. It’s an honor and a privilege to serve with you and our other colleagues on the Round Table!
“The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held that Janito DeCarvalho’s conviction for possession of oxycodone with intent to distribute in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94C, § 32A(a), constitutes a “particularly serious crime” that makes him ineligible for withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii). The BIA also denied DeCarvalho’s application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). DeCarvalho petitions for review of the BIA’s decisions, principally arguing that the Attorney General’s decision in Matter of Y-L- unlawfully presumes that all aggravated felonies involving trafficking in controlled substances are particularly serious crimes. See 23 I. & N. Dec. 270, 274–75 (U.S. Att’y Gen. 2002). We deny his petition for review insofar as he seeks CAT relief. We grant the petition in part, however, because the immigration judge (IJ) informed DeCarvalho, who was proceeding pro se, that he was eligible for potential relief only under the CAT. In so doing, the IJ treated DeCarvalho’s conviction for drug trafficking as if it were a per se bar to withholding of removal, a position that the government now disavows on appeal. We remand to the agency with instructions to give DeCarvalho a new hearing to determine whether he is entitled to withholding of removal.”
“Pathmanathan Jathursan, a native and citizen of Sri Lanka, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final order affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”). The BIA found no clear error in the immigration judge’s findings that Jathursan failed to establish (1) past persecution on account of a protected ground, (2) a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground, or (3) that he would more likely than not be tortured in the event he returned to Sri Lanka. Following oral argument, we grant Jathursan’s petition for review in part, vacate the BIA’s order in part, and remand to the BIA for further consideration of his asylum and withholding-of-removal claims based on his fear of future persecution as a Tamil failed asylum seeker. We also vacate and remand on the BIA’s denial of relief under CAT.”
What’s the “worst of all worlds?” Let’s try a ”holdover BIA” still channeling Trump/Miller biased nativist restrictionism combined with a Dem AG with infinite tolerance for substandard judging, an anti-immigrant culture, and bad decision making that disproportionately adversely affects people of color! 😎 Add that to an out of control, largely self-created, jaw-dropping 1.5 million case backlog and you get a formula for national disaster!
These “TRAC Lowlights” show a totally unacceptable and inept performance by the DOJ and Judge Garland that should have every American who believes in due process, equal justice, and “good government” outraged and demanding a change at DOJ! https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/quickfacts/?category=eoir
Highlights from data updated today on immigrants facing deportation in court include the following:
Immigration Courts recorded receiving 49,817 new cases so far in FY 2022 as of October 2021. This compares with 21,154 cases that the court completed during this period.
According to court records, only 0.68% of FY 2022 new cases sought deportation orders based on any alleged criminal activity of the immigrant, apart from possible illegal entry.
At the end of October 2021, 1,486,495 active cases were pending before the Immigration Court.
Los Angeles County, CA, has the most residents with pending Immigration Court deportation cases (as of the end of October 2021).
So far this fiscal year (through October 2021), immigration judges have issued removal and voluntary departure orders in 24.7% of completed cases, totaling 5,232 deportation orders.
So far in FY 2022 (through October 2021), immigrants from Guatemala top list of nationalities with the largest number ordered deported.
Only 20.7% of immigrants, including unaccompanied children, had an attorney to assist them in Immigration Court cases when a removal order was issued.
Immigration judges have held 2,011 bond hearings so far in FY 2022 (through October 2021). Of these 714 were granted bond.
You don’t have to be a Rhodes Scholar to see how an undisciplined system run by clueless politicos and bureaucrats (rather than judges and experts) that takes in more cases than it can decide, picks on unrepresented individuals, deports large numbers of Guatemalans to a country that is clearly in crisis, and grants bond to only 1/3 of the custody cases even with a minuscule percentage of so-called “criminal immigrants” in proceedings is failing, miserably, every day.
What’s even worse, is that there is NO credible plan to fix this! NONE! Throwing more bodies into the maelstrom, poorly thought out proposed asylum regulations, dedicated dockets, and misuse of Title 42 to block proper access to those seeking asylum and other forms of legal protection won’t do the trick. No qualified expert would propose any of the foregoing as the solution to fairly and legally reducing backlogs. That tells us all we need to. know about the qualifications of the folks “pulling the strings” on immigration in the Biden Administration.
The message: The GOP hates immigrants, and the Dems disrespect them!
We’ll see whether the Biden Administration’s contemptuous treatment of immigrants, their families, communities, and supporters, particularly their failure to “clean up, clean out, and reform” their wholly owned “courts” at EOIR, proves to be a great political strategy. Frankly, I can’t see how dumping on a key group of supporters from the last successful election proves to be a “winner” in 2022 or 2024!
The extraordinary quality of the work done by the NDPA all-stars 🌟highlighted above by Dan speaks for itself, as does the unacceptably poor quality of the legal work done by EOIR and a BIA that is bogusly presenting itself as “experts.” Obviously, as has been clear from the beginning of the Biden Administration, the wrong people are on the BIA and Team Garland has disgracefully failed to do the serious and gutsy “recruitment and replacement” necessary to fix this dysfunctional EOIR system and save lives!
“Miller Lite” – Garland’s Vision of “Justice @ Justice” for Communities of Color
The absolute disaster for our legal system and the reprehensible result of Garland & Co’s failure to “pull the plug” on the “Miller Lite BIA” and to make wholesale merit-based positive changes in the recruitment, selection, and composition of the Immigration Judiciary will go down as a legacy that not only will reflect ill on Garland and his lieutenants, but will also be a major factor promoting the failure of American democracy.
You can tell a lot about the values of a society by the way it treats the most vulnerable among it. Right now, sadly, that’s “nothing to write home about!”🤮
S.F. Immigration Court fast-tracking cases in what critics say call a deportation conveyor belt
By Tal Kopan and Deepa Fernandes
A San Francisco immigration judge took less than an hour on Tuesday to order 23 people deported. But none of the immigrants was present and it’s unclear whether they knew about the hearing — even as they were deported for missing it.
The proceedings are part of a recently enacted effort the San Francisco Immigration Court says it’s undertaking to find immigrants it loses track of. Instead, advocates say the court has set up a deportation conveyor belt, one that fast-tracks removal orders before immigrants can make their case to stay in the country.
The practice appears to have started this summer, when immigration attorneys became aware of a subset of hearings being scheduled for immigrants whose mail was being returned as undeliverable. The court was notifying immigrants of the hearings by sending mail to the same incorrect addresses, practically ensuring few would show up.
In immigration law, not showing up at a hearing is enough to be ordered deported on the spot, in what’s known as an “in absentia” order of removal.
According to court data reviewed by The Chronicle, as many as 173 people were given deportation orders because of such proceedings in August and September — a nearly ninefold increase from the 20 similar orders given the previous seven months combined.
ACLU of Northern California attorney Sean Riordan, who has been tracking the issue, compared the situation to a criminal proceeding where, if a defendant didn’t show up for a routine step, the judge declared them guilty with limited ability to challenge the verdict. What’s more, he said, the court scheduled the proceeding expecting the defendant not to show.
“Our society would not tolerate that, it’s just grossly unfair, and we shouldn’t tolerate something similar happening in the immigration courts,” Riordan said. “It’s especially problematic that the San Francisco Immigration Court is spending significant time and resources to obtain so many removal orders through a special docket in cases where they know people will not be able to appear for their hearings.”
At this time, the effort appears limited to the San Francisco court, one of 70 such venues nationwide that hear immigrants’ cases. But advocates fear other courts may see how many cases the San Francisco bench has closed through in-absentia orders and follow suit, saddling scores of immigrants with unknown deportation orders. The immigration court system is run entirely by the Department of Justice, which also employs the judges.
The (completely unnecessary and self-inflicted) “EOIR Travesty” continues! There are many, many ways that Garland could reduce his Immigration Court backlog (most covered by Courtside or elsewhere online) without stomping on any individual rights! But, this utter nonsense doesn’t happen to be one of them!
As anyone with even a passing familiarity with Immigration Court practice knows, DHS and EOIR are notorious for issuing defective notices and then creating illegal “in absentia” orders. The issue of bad notices has actually been to the Supremes twice recently, with the USG losing badly both times, and the possibility of yet a third trip on the horizon.
Yet, several overt rebukes from the Supremes about “unnecessary corner cutting” have engendered no fundamental changes in the notice system at either agency! Garland & Co. seem just as wedded to anti-due-process, wasteful “mondo enforcement gimmicks” at EOIR as Stephen Miller, “Gonzo” Sessions, and “Billy the Bigot” Barr!🤮
So much for the “racial justice agenda” at DOJ and the reputations of DAG Lisa Monaco, Associate AG Vanita Gupta, and AAG/Civil Rights Kristen Clarke, who have all “looked the other way” while their “boss” Garland continues to promote White Nationalist, anti-immigrant, resource wasting policies at EOIR.☠️
Then, incompetent, tone-deaf Dem politicos wonder why support among their “loyal progressive base” is fading fast? Progressives should “remember the EOIR disaster” and total lack of concern for those “fighting the good fight” in Garland’s disgracefully dysfunctional courts when any of Garland’s complicit lieutenants come up for future Article III judicial appointments!
Conduct like Garland’s at EOIR is a direct result of progressives allowing themselves to be “pushed around and disrespected” by a “Democratic Party Establishment” that gives not a hoot for immigrant justice, racial justice, or fair treatment of asylum seekers except when it’s time to solicit contributions or get out the vote! Vice President Kamala Harris appears to have taken a “leave of absence” on what was supposed to be one of her “signature issues!”
Garland’s “in your face tone-deafness” also contains a very clear message that progressive advocates aren’t “getting!” It’s going to take a “radical break from the past” to achieve any meaningful immigration reform at DOJ!
