"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.
Hon. David L. Neal Director Executive Office For Immigration Review USDOJ PHOTO: C-SPAN
BREAKING: ABSURDIST “IJ DASHBOARDS” HEADED FOR THE SCRAP HEAP? — New EOIR Director David Neal Reportedly Takes Prompt Action To Eliminate Wasteful, Counterproductive, Stress-Inducing “Big Brotherism” On The Bench!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
Courtside Exclusive
Oct. 20, 2021
Sources in and outside of EOIR confirm that new EOIR Director “David Neal has ended the dashboard. Supposedly, new IJ quotas are coming, which will be presented as kinder, more humane quotas.”
The “IJ Dashboards,” inextricably tied to due-process-denying “deportation quotas” for Immigration Judges were one of the stupidest, most childish, and transparently counterproductive wastes of taxpayer money by the Trump regime at the DOJ. They were harshly criticized both internally and by outside commentators, including “Courtside.” Their ineffectiveness in reducing backlogs and their adverse effects on already “below basement level” IJ morale are matters of public record!
Shockingly, this wasteful abuse of technology was undertaken at a time when EOIR was continuing its two decade abject failure to implement a badly-needed and long overdue nationwide e-filing system. Who knows how many files and filings are actually floating around EOIR (“lost in space”)? EOIR incompetence means we might never know the full extent of the ongoing backlog disaster! Will David Neal become the first Director in more than two decades to actually solve this problem, rather than just scrambling to conver up failure?
Congratulations to Director Neal for “taking at least one small step for mankind.” We’ll wait to hear what he does to make “IJ quotas” more “kind and gentle.”
The obvious “no brainer” answer is to eliminate them entirely. They could be replaced with realistic, non-mandatory “goals”or “guidelines” for deciding certain types of cases. This might provide helpful guidance for IJs in setting expectations and fairly and professionally handling clogged dockets, rather than ham-handed attempts at coercion and transparent “blame shifting.”
However those guidelines would have to be developed with input from the Immigration Judges themselves, counsel from both the private bar and DHS, and some true judicial experts — perhaps “on loan” from the Administrative Office for U.S. Courts, the Brennan Center, the ABA, and/or the FBA.
Past “goals and timetables” have been the product of political posturing and wishful thinking by those bureaucrats at DOJ and EOIR trying to shift blame and CTA for the failing system under their responsibility. The legitimacy of the process by which any guidelines are established is critical to making them realistic and helpful, rather than just another bureaucratic gimmick untethered to reality as past guidelines have been.
Finally, Defendants argue that “[a]ny time [the government]
is enjoined by a court from effectuating statutes enacted by
representatives of its people, it suffers a form of irreparable
injury.” Defs.’ Opp’n, ECF No. 76 at 38 (quoting Maryland v.
King, 133 S. Ct. 1, 3 (2012)). But, as explained above, the
Title 42 Process is likely unlawful, and “[t]here is generally
no public interest in the perpetuation of an unlawful agency
action.” Newby, 838 F.3d at 12.
*********************************“
“There is generally no public interest in the perpetuation of an unlawful agency action.” Yup! Couldn’t have said it better myself!
Who knows if this will stand. Both the DC Circuit and the Supremes have too often been willing to allow continued Government abuse of the rights of “mere migrants,” mostly of color, because they can’t really see them as fellow human beings, entitled to due process, justice, and human dignity!
But, at least for this moment in time, it’s a victory for due process, humanity, and judicial integrity.
Trumpy nativists, posing as fiscal conservatives, want you to question whether the United States can afford to take in Afghan allies and refugees.
The better question is whether we can afford not to.
The Republican Party has cleaved in recent weeks over the issue of Afghan refugees, specifically those who served as military interpreters or otherwise aided U.S. efforts. On the one hand, Republican governors and lawmakers around the country have volunteered to resettle Afghan evacuees in their states. Likewise, a recent CBS News/YouGov poll found that bringing these allies to the United States is phenomenally popular, garnering support from 76 percent of Republican respondents. Influential conservative constituencies are invested in this issue, too, including veterans’ groups and faith leaders.
On the other hand, the Trump strain within the GOP has been fighting such magnanimous impulses with misinformation.
Xenophobic politicians and media personalities have been conspiracy-theorizing about the dangers of resettling Afghan allies here — even though we had previously entrusted these same Afghans with the lives of U.S. troops and granted them security clearances. And even though they go through additional extensive screening before being brought to our shores.
No matter; if you listen to Tucker Carlson and his ilk, you’ll hear that these Afghans are apparently part of a secret plot to replace White Americans, and that untamed Afghan hordes are going to rape your wife and daughter.
Often these demagogues try to disguise their racist objections to refugee resettlement (and immigration more broadly) as economic concerns. Their claim: that however heartbreaking the footage from the Kabul airport, compassion for Afghan refugees is a luxury Americans simply cannot afford.
Refugees are somehow responsible for existing housing shortages, proclaims Carlson. (This is demonstrably false; the reason we have too little affordable housing is primarily because people like Carlson oppose building more and denser housing.) More refugees would sponge up precious taxpayer dollars, according to Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.). And in general, refugees — like all immigrants — are a massive drain on the U.S. economy, alleges Stephen Miller.
This is nonsense.
. . . .
***********************
Read Catherine’s complete op-ed at the link!
Thanks, Catherine, for once again standing up to and speaking truth against disgraceful, neo-Nazi, nativist racists like Stephen Miller, Tucker Carlson, and Marjorie Taylor Greene!
By contrast, one might well ask what “value added” folks like Stephen Miller and his buddies, (Miller has largely sponged off of taxpayer funds while looking for ways to inflict misery on others and destroy America) bring to the table. None, that I can see!
Moreover, even beyond the undoubted value of robust refugee admissions, there is good reason to believe that large-scale migration presents our best opportunity for salvation and prosperity, rather than the “bogus threat” posited by Miller & Co.
As Deepak Bhargava and Ruth Milkman recently, and quite cogently, wrote in American Prospect:
. . . .
A “Statue of Liberty Plan” for the 21st century could make the United States the world’s most welcoming country for immigrants. Right now, the foreign-born share of the U.S. population lags behind that of Canada, Australia, and Switzerland. In order to surpass them, the United States would have to admit millions more people each year for a decade or longer. We currently admit immigrants to promote family integration, meet economic needs, respond to humanitarian crises, and increase the diversity of our population from historically underrepresented countries. Under this plan, we could dramatically expand admissions in all four categories and add a fifth category to recognize the claims of climate migrants. As a civic project of national renewal, with millions of people playing a role in welcoming new immigrants, such a policy could reweave frayed social bonds and create a healthier, outward-looking, multiracial national identity.
The politics of immigration, however, lag far behind the moral and economic logic of the case for a pro-immigration policy. The immigrant threat narrative has become so pervasive that many liberals have embraced it, if only because they hope to fend off threats from right-wing nationalists. President Obama not only deprioritized immigration reform in his first term but deported record numbers of immigrants, hoping that such a display of “toughness” might win support for legalization of the undocumented immigrants already here. Hillary Clinton advocated liberal immigration policies in her 2016 presidential campaign but later tacked toward restrictionism. Liberals and leftists across the global North, from Austria to France to the U.K., have offered similar concessions to nativism. But mimicking right-wing appeals is a losing gamble that only serves to legitimize the anti-immigrant agenda and its standard-bearers.
There are promising signs of potential for shifting the debate, however, if progressives lean in. Polling shows that Americans increasingly reject the immigrant threat narrative, largely due to Trump’s shameless cruelty. Last year, for the first time since Gallup began asking the question in 1965, more Americans supported increased levels of immigration than supported reduced levels. A telling barometer of how the sands are shifting is that President Biden’s proposed immigration bill is far to the left of what Obama proposed.
The work of shifting gears toward a more welcoming policy can begin right now by fully welcoming immigrants who already reside in our country. A crucial starting point would be to include a path to citizenship for essential workers, Dreamers, farmworkers, and Temporary Protected Status holders in the American Jobs Plan Congress is considering. This is not only a humane approach, but it also will stimulate economic growth and thus help finance other parts of the plan. A separate campaign by the Biden administration (not requiring congressional action) to simplify the naturalization process for nine million eligible green-card holders would help make the nation’s electorate more reflective of its population.
Getting the politics of immigration right isn’t just important for immigrants. Nativism, built upon the sturdy foundation of racism, remains among the most potent tools in the arsenal of right-wing authoritarians. Any program for economic equity or democracy will be fragile in the absence of a coherent immigration agenda. The antidote to authoritarianism is not to duck, cower, or imitate the nativists, but rather to make the case for opening the door to millions more immigrants.
If slavery and genocide were the country’s original sins, its occasional and often accidental genius has been to renew itself through periodic waves of immigration. Once we expose the immigration threat narrative as the Big Lie that it is, it becomes plain that immigration is not a problem to be solved but an opportunity and necessity to be embraced.
This, of course, also casts doubt on the wisdom of our current, wasteful and ultimately ineffective, policy of illegally rejecting legal asylum applicants at our Southern Border, rather than attempting in good faith to fit as many as qualify under our current system, as properly and honestly administered (something that hasn’t happened in the past). Additionally wise leaders would be looking for ways to expand our legal immigration system to admit, temporarily or permanently, those whose presence would be mutually beneficial, even if they aren’t “refugees” within existing legal definitions. In this respect, the proposal to modernize our laws to admit climate migrants is compelling.
Remember, as stated above:
Getting the politics of immigration right isn’t just important for immigrants. Nativism, built upon the sturdy foundation of racism, remains among the most potent tools in the arsenal of right-wing authoritarians. Any program for economic equity or democracy will be fragile in the absence of a coherent immigration agenda. The antidote to authoritarianism is not to duck, cower, or imitate the nativists, but rather to make the case for opening the door to millions more immigrants.
NDPA members, keep listening to Catherine and the other voices of progressive wisdom, humanity, practicality, and tolerance. The key to the future is insuring that the “Stephen Millers of the world” never again get a chance to implement their vile, racist propaganda in the guise of “government policy.”
Happily, many Northern Virginians have listened to our “better angels.” Humanitarian aid and resettlement opportunities for Afghan refugees are pouring in, as shown by this report from our good friend Julie Carey @ NBC 4 news:
Julie Carey NOVA Bureau Chief, NBC4 Washington PHOTO: Twitter
The local couple interviewed by Julie emphasized the impressive “human dignity” of the Afghan refugees! (I also observed this during many years of hearing asylum cases in person at the Arlington Immigration Court.) Compare that with the lack thereof (not to mention absence of empathy and kindness) shown by the nativist naysayers!
Here’s a key quote from Circuit Judge Kayatta’s majority opinion:
KAYATTA, Circuit Judge. Ana Ruth Hernandez-Lara (“Hernandez”), a thirty-four-year-old native and citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States in 2013 without being admitted or paroled. An immigration officer arrested Hernandez in September 2018, and the government detained her at the Strafford County Department of Corrections in Dover, New Hampshire (“Strafford County Jail”) pending a determination of her removability. Approximately one month later, Hernandez was denied bond at a hearing before an immigration judge (IJ) in which the burden was placed on Hernandez to prove that she was neither a danger to the community nor a flight risk.
Hernandez subsequently filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, contending that the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment entitled her to a bond hearing at which the government, not Hernandez, must bear the burden of proving danger or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence. The district court agreed and ordered the IJ to conduct a second bond hearing at which the government bore the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Hernandez was either a danger or a flight risk. That shift in the burden proved pivotal, as the IJ released Hernandez on bond following her second hearing, after ten months of detention. The government now asks us to reverse the judgment
of the district court, arguing that the procedures employed at Hernandez’s original bond hearing comported with due process and, consequently, that the district court’s order shifting the burden of proof was error. Although we agree that the government need not prove a detainee’s flight risk by clear and convincing evidence, we otherwise affirm the order of the district court. Our reasoning follows.
. . . .
******************************
Note that the Garland GOJ continued to defend EOIR’s unconstitutional procedures. So, don’t be shocked if they ask the Supremes to intervene. And the current Supremes have too often been happy to ignore the Due Process Clause when it comes to the rights of migrants of color.
But, it’s some progress toward eventually dismantling the “New American Gulag” — the one that Biden is still running (despite campaign promises to the contrary) and that righty Federal Judges and nativist GOP AGs in the Fifth Circuit are committed to expanding!
For the NDPA, the war to save humanity never ends!
“Floaters — How The World’s Richest Country Responds To Asylum Seekers” — Beneath the disingenuous legal blather of the 5th Circuit’s tone-deaf judges, this is the sentence that they are pronouncing on the world’s most vulnerable, without any due process or concern for human dignity. 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)
Here’s the decision denying the Administration’s request for stay in Texas v. Biden:
Although this was only a stay application, the tone of the decision left little doubt about the court’s Trumpist ideology and intention to block rational humanitarian human rights initiatives by the Administration. Not surprisingly, the 3-judge panel was all GOP appointees — two Trump, one Bush II
I wouldn’t expect any help from the Supremes. So, we’ll see whether right wing Federal Judges and GOP AGs can conduct a war on human rights and communities of color by taking over the immigration enforcement apparatus and re-instating Trump’s racist policies.
The Administration is not entirely blameless here. The extreme problems with MPP, including how it caused needless deaths, torture, kidnapping, extortion, rape, and other grotesque mistreatment for those returned, were well-documented going into the 2020 election. Indeed, Biden and Harris campaigned on a promise to reverse them!
Yet, not having a viable plan for restoring the legal asylum system and dealing humanely with new border arrivals “ready for prime time” by inauguration, and still not really having one, is problematic. Although some have “touted” the just-released asylum NPR as the “solution,” that system is not, by any stretch of the imagination, “ready for prime time” either, given the disastrous operational, personnel, “cultural, and “quality control” issues at both the Asylum Offices and EOIR, which could and should have been addressed before now and which could actually become worse if the NPR goes into effect without major internal and leadership changes at these dysfunctional agencies.
Moreover, it appears that DOJ Attorneys did a substandard job of documenting the many problems, adverse effects, and operational issues with MPP and the injustices and abuses it inflicted upon legal asylum seekers.
As opposed to the rather contrived interests of the states in furthering oppression, endorsed by the Fifth Circuit, the human interests of those seeking asylum under what was supposed to be a fair and functional legal system have fallen off the radar screen. The law still says that any individual arriving at the border, regardless of status, has a right to apply for asylum. That right, as well as the humanity of refugees and the legal and moral obligations of our nation, has been entirely abrogated by the Fifth Circuit.
In a well-functioning democracy, Congress could reform the law, bring the righty judges back under control, and restore Constitutional protections and human and civil rights, But, that would probably take a party different from today’s Dems. And, of course, with the support of the Supremes, the GOP is working furiously to suppress minority votes and insure GOP minority rule stretches long into the future.
Anna Marie Gallagher, Esquire Executive Director CLINIC PHOTO: CLINIC website
Here’s a statement from CLINIC condemning this Judge’s decision to reinstate the misnamed “Migrant Protection Protocols,” better known as “Remain in Mexico,” or more accurately as “Let ‘Em Die In Mexico:”
A Statement From the ED: CLINIC Condemns Federal Ruling to Resume Migrant Protection Protocols
SILVER SPRING, Maryland — The following is a statement from CLINIC Executive Director Anna Gallagher:
“CLINIC staff and volunteers have accompanied and provided legal counsel to thousands of men, women and children who sought safety at our doors, only to be stranded in Mexico in inhumane conditions through MPP. They desperately waited for protection and admission to one of the richest countries in the world, in increasing danger, by design of the U.S. government.
MPP is a national shame.
Jesus said, ‘whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ Judge Kacsmaryk’s decision is contrary to man’s law and God’s law and must be overturned. We now call on President Biden to act on his faith and once again, end this policy that is so contrary to our values and who we aspire to be.”
CLINIC advocates for humane and just immigration policy. Its network of nonprofit immigration programs — 400 organizations in 48 states and the District of Columbia — is the largest in the nation.
In case you miss the irony, think of this: At the very moment we are pleading with the international community to help extricate us from the humanitarian disaster in Afghanistan, we are illegally and arbitrarily turning away legal asylum applicants at our border, many of them women and children with claims just as compelling as those from Afghani women and girls, and returning them to dangerous areas with NO PROCESS AT ALL!
And, Judge K would like to support his GOP White Nationalist buddies in Texas and Missouri by unlawfully reimplementing “Remain in Mexico” — a much-studied, vigorously and rightfully criticized program deemed a practical, human rights, legal, and humanitarian disaster by every credible human rights organization.
CLINIC is right: “Shame!”
The above statement is, of course, not the only cogent criticism I have received at Courtside about this decision. It just happens to be the one that appeared first in my Courtside inbox, courtesy of my good friend and NDPA stalwart Anna Marie Gallagher, Executive Director of CLINIC!
As the human rights situations in Afghanistan, Haiti, and the Northern Triangle continue to unravel, the lack of a coherent, operational, legally sound, properly generous refugee and asylum program will continue to haunt the Administration;
In particular, the disgraceful failure to establish a strong, consistent, humane, and protection-oriented interpretation of gender-based asylum to protect women, who are disproportionately targeted for persecution, torture, and other violence, will cost lives of the most vulnerable and be a lasting stain on our nation. (I just listened to Peter Baker, NBC WH Correspondent, on Meet the Press, characterize Afghanistan under the Taliban as a “nation of spouse beaters!”)
The need to fix our our refugee and asylum systems immediately was obvious on January 20, 2021. Why, after 7 months it still is nowhere close to being accomplished is less obvious!
The turmoil in Afghanistan and Haiti and the ongoing human rights disasters in Latin America, all reasonably predictable, are going to increase the human and political problems flowing from a failure to take human rights seriously and to bring the practical human rights experts necessary to solve these issues constructively into the Government power structure! In the end, human rights are everyone’s rights! We ignore that at our peril!
Ironically, while protecting women from persecution and improving their lives was used as a justification by Administrations of both parties for our continuing military presence in Afghanistan, now, as the “end game” plays out in real time, it appears to have been largely reduced to a “talking point” (or a “news feature”) without any discernible plan for protecting or saving Afghan female refugees. Sadly politicos and officials from both parties seem more interested in using women’s lives as “cover” for two decades of ultimately futile presence there than with actually saving any lives now. Indeed, if we treat Afghan women refugees with the inhumane indifference we have continued to heap on female refugees seeking legal asylum at our Southern Border, their outlook is beyond grim.
Heather Cox Richardson Historian Professor, Boston College
Heather Cox Richardson — Letters From An American — 08-08-21
. . . .
Republican-led states have been hit the hardest. Last week, Florida and Texas alone made up one out of every three new cases, and now Florida is the center of the pandemic. On Friday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported 23,903 new cases in Florida that day alone. Hospitals are filling up as unvaccinated Americans need medical care; Austin, Texas, activated an emergency alert this weekend as its hospitals were overwhelmed.
But Republican lawmakers stand against the mask requirements and vaccines that would help stop the spread. Texas governor Greg Abbott has banned mask and vaccine mandates across the state, as has Arkansas governor Asa Hutchinson (who has since said the law was an “error”). South Carolina and Arizona have banned mask mandates in schools.
Today, in just the latest example, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) said, “It’s time for us to resist. They can’t arrest all of us…. No one should follow the CDC.” He claimed that masking and remote learning was physically and emotionally damaging for children, and there was no reason they should not return to school full time, without masks. He said he would work to defund any school or government agency or school that did not simply resume its pre-pandemic operations.
Instead of trying to stop the spread of the virus, Republicans are blaming Biden for it. They claim that it is sparked by his handling of immigration on our southern border and that infected immigrants are responsible for the spike in the deadly disease.
When Biden asked Republican governors on August 3 to help or get out of the way, Florida governor Ron DeSantis responded: “Joe Biden has the nerve to tell me to get out of the way on COVID while he lets COVID-infected migrants pour over our southern border by the hundreds of thousands. No elected official is doing more to enable the transmission of COVID in America than Joe Biden with his open borders policies,” and claimed: “He’s imported more virus from around the world by having a wide-open southern border.”
DeSantis is not an outlier. Trump has pushed this line, Fox News Channelpersonality Sean Hannity hammers on it, and right-wing publications from the Daily Wire to National Review to the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page all insist that immigrants are to blame for the spread of the virus. Rand Paul has gone so far as to claim that administration officials are deliberately sending infected immigrant children around the country to spread the variant. Yesterday, Trump legal adviser Jenna Ellis called for Biden’s impeachment over the issue.
In fact, the administration continues to reject or expel border crossers under a public health order known as Title 42. It does permit the entry of unaccompanied minors and some vulnerable families. Migrants who cross the border are immediately required to wear masks. They are not tested at Customs and Border Patrol unless they show symptoms, but all are tested if they move into the system, and those who test positive for coronavirus are quarantined. Those slated for deportation are quarantined before they are deported. While infection rates are climbing, because of both the Delta variant and the crowding at Border Patrol, immigrants test positive at a lower rate than the rate of non-immigrants around them.
And yet, Republicans are using the deadly new coronavirus variant to stoke anti-immigrant fires.
It is cynical, it is deadly… and it takes us one more step toward authoritarianism.
As the pandemic revives and spreads, primarily as a result of GOP anti-vaccers and anti-maskers, new infections of children not eligible for the vaccine set records, and schools are about to reopen in the face of incredibly idiotic “mask bans” by magamoron, irresponsible GOP Govs like DeSantis and Abbott, you decide who the real threat is to America’s health, welfare, safety, and future!
WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice will examine its sexual harassment policies for potential reform, a move that comes after The Chronicle’s reporting on inappropriate behavior in the immigration courts, according to an announcement obtained by the newspaper.
The announcement went out to all department staff Thursday in an email seen by The Chronicle. In it, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco wrote it was “critical to our duty as principled defenders of the law to combat sexual harassment and misconduct in our own workplace and hold offenders accountable for their actions.”
Monaco said she is forming a committee to review all sexual harassment policies of the many sub-agencies of the Justice Department and assess where they may need to be changed, as well as evaluate current training and education. Two senior officials from her office will chair the effort and include members from across the department, and she said she wanted results of the review in six months.
. . . .
***********************
Thanks, and congrats, Tal! Those with access can read the rest of Tal’s report at the link.
Not surprisingly, according to the research, the fairest Immigration Judges for asylum applicants and other migrants “profile” as female, with immigration experience, in the 9th Circuit, in a Dem Administration. Not exactly the Sessions, Barr, Garland (to date) judicial profile. That could have something to do with these festering problems at EOIR that haven’t been dealt with despite numerous warning signs and “alerts.”
Also, the Garland DOJ would do well to investigate and correct the effects of the virulent misogyny directed at female refugees of color by Sessions, Barr, and their toadies and furthered by EOIR policies, procedures, and precedents over the past four years. Endemic problems don’t happen by chance!
According to the Ryo-Peacock study I posted, the “difference” that better Immigration Judges could make is over 200,000 lives potentially saved or altered for the better. That’s not exactly “chump change,” particularly when the interests of family members, employers, communities, our larger justice system, and our overall society are considered.
It also calls into question the apparent lack of seriousness with which “Team Garland” has taken Immigration Judge appointments to date. Throwing dozens of “not the best qualified available” IJs — without any concerted recruitment or diversification efforts —into an already broken, biased, and reeling system that deals with human lives in a cavalier manner is NOT GOOD POLICY! Particularly when the chronic problems of bad judging at EOIR had been clearly and articulately identified and many viable action plans and reform programs had been set forth by private sector experts even before the 2020 election.
EOIR needs new progressive leadership, a new progressive expert BIA that will truly be the “Supreme Court” of immigration and human rights, and better qualified and more diverse Immigration Judges who finally will implement the noble and correct vision of “through teamwork and innovation, being the world’s best tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all!” That would include treating all individuals coming before the courts, staff, and colleagues with dignity, respect, and fairness.
Sadly, the Biden Administration’s immigration policies, whatever they are on any particular day and place, seem to be mired in confusion, questionable competence, and a barrage of largely meaningless and confusing bureaucratic doublespeak. Meanwhile, in reality, it appears that Central Americans, Haitians, and others are being returned to danger zones without any process in place to insure fair treatment. Certainly, “Title 42” is the equivalent of no process whatsoever. While “expedited removal” might have the potential to be used fairly, there is little reason to believe that it is now being fairly and professionally administered by anyone committed to fundamental fairness over expedient enforcement.
Yes, Garland has sued racist moron Gov. Greg Abbott on his illegal Trumpist grandstanding (like Texas doesn’t have real problems to solve?). Stunts like Abbott’s were entirely predictable. However, if the Biden Administration had “hit the ground running” on asylum, the issue might well have been put to bed by now, and Abbott might have to focus instead on his normal job of mis-governing Texas, rather than focusing attention elsewhere.
The Administration could and should have had a robust refugee system up and running in the Northern Triangle that would reduce border pressure, a functioning asylum system that would encourage asylum applicants to apply at ports of entry rather than seeking irregular entry, a professional screening program in place at DHS, and a relatively “backlog free” Immigration Court, led by a progressive BIA, providing positive guidance on cases that could be granted. They would also have resettlement agreements and programs in place with NGOs and legal service groups to appropriately represent and resettle those granted asylum and those in the process to the locations where they could best reside.
Fair, expert, courageous leadership, leadership with a humane, positive, practical vision of immigration and an unswerving commitment to fairly granting asylum, is critical to success on immigration, human rights, and racial justice issues. So far, nobody in the Biden Administration appears to fit the bill! That’s probably why the Administration’s confused and ever-vacillating policies are being blasted by both progressives and reactionaries — the worst of all political worlds, as I have observed before!
There are experts out here in the private sector with the vision and leadership ability to solve these problems while putting White Nationalist restrictionists like Abbott in their place. Even though it’s late, the Biden Administration still needs to get a better team in place and let them solve the problems with knowledge, competence, and compassion, not more “knee-jerk reactions” and continuations of the cruel, inhumane, counterproductive, and often illegal policies and practices of the Trump regime.
Substantial research and policymaking have focused on the importance of lawyers in ensuring access to civil justice. But do lawyers matter more in cases decided by certain types of judges than others? Do lawyers matter more in certain political, legal, and organizational contexts than others? We explore these questions by investigating removal proceedings in the United States—a court process in which immigration judges decide whether to admit noncitizens into the United States or deport them. Drawing on over 1.9 million removal proceedings decided between 1998 and 2020, we examine whether the representation effect (the increased probability of a favorable outcome associated with legal representation) depends on judge characteristics and contextual factors. We find that the representation effect is larger among female (than male) judges and among more experienced judges. In addition, the representation effect is larger during Democratic presidential administrations, in immigration courts located in the Ninth Circuit, and in times of increasing caseload. These findings suggest that the representation effect depends on who the judge is and their decisional environment, and that increasing noncitzens’ access to counsel—even of high quality—might be insufficient under current circumstances to ensure fair and consistent outcomes in immigration courts.
Keywords: access to justice, immigration courts, removal proceedings, judicial decisionmaking
Suggested Citation:
Ryo, Emily and Peacock, Ian, Represented But Unequal: The Contingent Effect of Legal Representation in Removal Proceedings (July 13, 2021). Law & Society Review, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3885995
Sessions and Barr appointed over half of the current approximately 550 U.S. Immigration Judges;
Many of those appointed had little or no immigration experience — almost none had actual experience representing asylum seekers or any other migrants in Immigration Court;
With 27 IJ appointments since taking office, AG Garland now has appointed approximately 5% of the Immigration Judiciary;
Only one of Garland’s first 27 appointments has impressive progressive immigration credentials and experience;
The balance of Garland’s appointees to date profile much like Sessions’s and Barr’s — not surprising, because Garland used the same flawed recruiting and selection criteria that Barr had been using;
An Immigration Judge is required to complete 700 cases annually, just too retain his or her job;
Unlike most civil cases in U.S. District Courts, lives and futures are at stake in almost all Immigration Court cases, with the family, communal, economic, and societal effect of each decision often extending far beyond the individual migrant whose life and/or future is at stake.
Members of the NDPA, let AG Garland, VP Harris, and President Biden know that we need a better and more aggressively progressive system for recruiting (virtually “null” right now — “Sir Jeffrey” Chase and I, along with other members of our Round Table, do more “recruiting” among “practical scholars and progressive experts” in the private sector than the Administration!), selecting, training, and retaining Immigration Judges for these life or death determining positions that, in a better functioning and wiser Administration, would be the door to, and training ground for, a better, more diverse, more representative, more progressive Article III Judiciary!
Lack of creative and aggressive recruiting for a better and more diverse expert Immigration Judiciary is a particular sore point! We now have our first immigrant family, African-American, AAPI, female Vice President, Kamala Harris, a talented lawyer! She has an important immigration and human rights portfolio!
So why isn’t she out there aggressively encouraging diverse, well-qualified, progressive “practical scholars and immigration advocates,” many of whom might not have seen themselves as potential Immigration Judges and BIA Members to apply for these critical jobs? Why aren’t the recruiting and selection criteria for IJs and Board Members both more transparent and involving of some outside expert input!
As VP Harris knows, the key to changing the composition of the power structure is for progressives, particularly female progressives of color, to see others like them in these positions to act as role models. It’s going to take aggressive positive actions by individuals like VP Harris, AAG Gupta, and Assistant AG Clarke to “change the face” of the Immigration Judiciary and the power structure for the better!
With the recent hiring of NDPA superstar Professor Cori Alonso Yoder, VP Harris’s alma mater, Howard University Law, now has it’s most high-profile “immigration and human rights presence” ever! Why isn’t VP Harris over there aggressively encouraging Howard Law grads to seek careers in immigration and human rights, eventually aspiring to the the Federal Judiciary, including the Immigration Judiciary? That’s how real change in the power structure happens!
This is becoming a totally inexcusable “blown opportunity” for progressives! Who knows if or when it will come again?
Asylum Seekers Wikimedia Commons — “Will US asylum seekers finally be treated fairly, humanely, and in accordance with full due process? Or is the Biden Administration’s recent “plan” just another “designed to fail enforcement gimmick” masquerading as legitimate asylum policy? Only time — and the details — will tell!
I found the White House “Fact Sheet” to be largely a mix of bureaucratic doublespeak, shame, blame, and few details about how it’s actually going to work. Also, not much about who is going to be responsible (and accountable) for making it work!
Will those whose cases are denied by an Asylum Officer still have a right to IJ/BIA/Judicial Review?
How will they set up dedicated dockets without pushing back cases already on the docket?
What steps will be taken to insure that Judges assigned to these dockets aren’t members of the “90% Denial Club?”
How will they screen asylum cases with Title 42 still in effect?
What will be the role of detention? If detention is used, how will reasonable access to counsel be be guaranteed in detention centers?
Who will be training the CBP Agents, Asylum Offices, and Immigration Judges to recognize asylum claims, even those that might not be well-articulated by migrants or that might involve novel applications of protection laws?
What advance coordination will take place with legal services groups to maximize representation.
How will positive asylum guidance be issued (given that the BIA has issued almost none in the past four years, and a number of negative precedents have been vacated by the AG or rejected by various Circuits)?
How will the success of this program be measured, particularly with respect to insuring full due process and fundamental fairness to all asylum applicants?
What type of resettlement opportunities or assistance will be made available for successful asylum, seekers and who will provide and fund it?
Will there be any role for the UNHCR? If so, what?
How will DHS and EOIR solve the “effective notice problems” that have plagued the Immigration Court system for years and resulted in far too many “bogus in absentia removal orders.”
Who will insure the accuracy of statistics and that “gamed” or manipulated statistics are not used (as the Trump regime did) to create false narratives about “success” by the Administration or to promote unfair and inaccurate “myths” about asylum seekers.
U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General
(1) Matter of A-C-A-A-, 28 I&N Dec. 84 (A.G. 2020) (“A-C-A-A- I”), is vacated in its entirety. Immigration judges and the Board should no longer follow A-C-A-A- I in pending or future cases and should conduct proceedings consistent with this opinion and the opinions in Matter of L-E-A-, 28 I&N Dec. 304 (A.G. 2021) (“L-E-A- III”), and Matter of A-B-, 28 I&N Dec. 307 (A.G. 2021) (“A-B- III”).
(2) The Board’s longstanding review practices that A-C-A-A- I apparently prohibited, including its case-by-case discretion to rely on immigration court stipulations, are restored.
***************
Way to go Judge Garland!
Yes, I feel good about this! This was one of the “Sessions-Barr follow-ons” to A-B-, L-E-A-, and Castro-Tum that had undermined due process and fundamental fairness while inhibiting sound case management. It was part of a virulent, racist, anti-asylum agenda promoted by Trump and Miller and unethically carried out by Sessions and Barr. It was a backlog-building, due-process-denying national disgrace to be sure! One that unethically targeted people of color and sought to improperly eradicate our legal (and moral) obligations to protect refugees — without any legislative authority!
Prohibiting an appellate body from accepting party stipulations below or honoring concessions on appeal is simply insane! Why would any party stipulate to an issue if it will simply be ignored on appeal?
Stipulations are a really important part of encouraging efficiency in litigation and reducing backlog. I used them all the time at both the BIA and the Arlington Immigration Court!
Why on earth would the BIA revisit an issue that was so well-established and logical that the parties had already agreed upon it below? Why would an already overwhelmed tribunal be required to decide issues that were uncontested by the litigants?
No wonder the Immigration Court system was completely out of control and counterproductive during the Trump Administration!
“Floaters — How The World’s Richest Country Responds To Asylum Seekers” — The Biden Administration still can’t get beyond this “vision” of appropriate treatment of legal asylum seekers. This is the “human face (down)” of “deterrence-only policies.” Six months in, and the Administration still has nobody in leadership who understands human rights, refugees, asylees, and the relationship of scenes like this one to the overall failure of equal justice and dimishment of the rule of law in America. EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT – The bodies of Salvadoran migrant Oscar Alberto Mart??nez Ram??rez and his nearly 2-year-old daughter Valeria lie on the bank of the Rio Grande in Matamoros, Mexico, Monday, June 24, 2019, after they drowned trying to cross the river to Brownsville, Texas. Martinez’ wife, Tania told Mexican authorities she watched her husband and child disappear in the strong current. (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)
However, lest we start thinking that the Biden Administration finally “gets it” on asylum policy, DHS immediately countered with a totally tone-deaf announcement on “punishing” asylum seekers for the Administration’s failure to live up to it’s campaign promises ands re-establish a viable legal asylum system at the border:
DHS Statement on the Resumption of Expedited Removal for Certain Family Units
Release Date:
July 26, 2021
Beginning today, certain family units who are not able to be expelled under Title 42 will be placed in expedited removal proceedings. Expedited removal provides a lawful, more accelerated procedure to remove those family units who do not have a basis under U.S. law to be in the United States.
Attempting to cross into the United States between ports of entry, or circumventing inspection at ports of entry, is the wrong way to come to the United States. These acts are dangerous and can carry long-term immigration consequences for individuals who attempt to do so. The Biden-Harris Administration is working to build a safe, orderly, and humane immigration system, and the Department of Homeland Security continues to take several steps to improve lawful processing at ports of entry and reforms to strengthen the asylum system.
Perhaps somebody needs to tell these DHS/Biden Administration scofflaws that: 1) we have no functioning legal asylum system at ports of entry right now; and 2) refugees and asylees can’t wait for the Administration to get its act together. As one asylum seeker from the Northern Triangle stated in a recent Courtside post: “Nobody wants to die.”
Deterrence always has been and always will be a failure, both in terms of legal policy and morality. We need some progressive experts with some guts and ability “on the inside” to fix this system before more lives are lost.
Enough with the inane “wait to die” deterrence statements that actually insult the intelligence of asylum seekers and demean their dire situations! Fixing this system is not rocket science! But, it requires some progressive human rights leadership and expertise now sadly lacking in the Biden Administration’s approach!
“Floaters — How The World’s Richest Country Responds To Asylum Seekers” — The Biden Administration’s continuation of the Trump regime’s illegal and deadly anti-asylum policies at the border is totally unacceptable! EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT – The bodies of Salvadoran migrant Oscar Alberto Mart??nez Ram??rez and his nearly 2-year-old daughter Valeria lie on the bank of the Rio Grande in Matamoros, Mexico, Monday, June 24, 2019, after they drowned trying to cross the river to Brownsville, Texas. Martinez’ wife, Tania told Mexican authorities she watched her husband and child disappear in the strong current. (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)
FROM SPLC:
The message was loud and clear: “Do not come.”
This would be the Biden administration’s initial attempt to deter migrants who fled danger in their home countries from seeking protection in the U.S.
First, President Biden in March discouraged migrants from trekking north to the U.S.-Mexico border to seek asylum. He suggested they stay in their home countries – where many face violence and persecution – as the administration addressed an increase in the number of unaccompanied migrant children crossing the southwestern border.
Then, the administration continued to rely on the contested Trump-era Title 42 order by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to reject migrants at ports of entry and expel those who cross the U.S.-Mexico border without authorization, thereby denying their legal right to seek asylum.
And in June, the administration delivered another warning to would-be asylum seekers from Guatemala: “Do not come,” said Vice President Kamala Harris during a news conference alongside Guatemalan President Alejandro Giammattei. “The United States will continue to enforce our laws and secure our borders. If you come to our border, you will be turned back.”
Sarah Rich, senior supervising attorney with the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Immigrant Justice Project, said the vice president’s comments were strikingly similar to rhetoric employed by the Trump administration.
“Seeking protection from violence and persecution is a fundamental human right, and the right to seek asylum is protected by U.S. and international law,” Rich said. “These remarks fly in the face of the right to seek asylum in the U.S. and indicate a disturbing continuity between the Trump administration and the Biden-Harris administration.”
For many migrants in peril, waiting in their home countries for a better time to seek asylum in the U.S. is not – nor could ever be – a viable option.
“I fled my country because I wanted to survive,” Emiliana Doe, whose name has been changed in this story to protect her identity, told the SPLC in Spanish. “I want to live. I want to be somebody. Nobody wants to die.”
Speak out against the Biden Administration’s continuation of Trump’s illegal, inhumane, anti-asylum policies at the border! Demand that AG Garland replace unqualified “Miller Lite” anti-asylum Immigration Judges, who happily furthered the past regime’s xenophobic, anti-due-process policies, with far better qualified progressive experts! Demand a BIA that will be a courageous leader in granting legal protection and reducing backlogs through best practices and full due process! Demand that Garland stop dragging his feet and finally fulfill the original EOIR vision of “guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” Demand an Attorney General with the backbone and integrity to tell Biden, Harris, & Mayorkas that their continued abrogation of asylum laws and international obligations, not to mention Constitutional protections, is grossly illegal and must end NOW!
By contrast with Garland’s timid, dilatory, and often apparently indifferent approach to the rule of law for migrants, not to mention human lives, Jeff Sessions had absolutely no problem intervening, without invitation, in any agency’s programs and policies to advance his White Nationalist, nativist, xenophobic mis-interpretations of the law!
“Today, a federal district court judge in Oakland, California, approved a final settlement in the case of Vangala v. USCIS, providing relief to over sixty thousand applicants for humanitarian immigration benefits. The lawsuit, filed on November 19, 2020, against U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), challenged an agency policy adopted under the Trump administration specifically targeting humanitarian benefits for survivors of domestic violence and human trafficking and asylum seekers. Under the policy, USCIS rejected applications that left any question in the application unanswered, even where the question was not applicable—for example where the applicant failed to include a response for middle name because they have no middle name. Additionally, USCIS rejected applications where the applicant wrote “none” or “not applicable” instead of “N/A.”
The lawsuit was filed by Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP), the National Immigration Litigation Alliance (NILA), and the Van Der Hout law firm, on behalf of three applicants who sought to represent a nationwide class of individuals whose applications were rejected under the policy. They alleged that the policy was nothing more than a pretextual basis for denying applicants the opportunity to obtain humanitarian benefits provided by Congress.
On December 22, 2020, the agency agreed to suspend the policy, and the parties then entered settlement discussions to address the tens of thousands of applications that USCIS previously rejected. The U.S. district court adopted and approved the final settlement agreement on July 20, 2021.
Under the settlement agreement, USCIS will accept the original submission date of the more than sixty thousand applications it has identified as having been rejected under the policy. USCIS will send notices to these applicants explaining the steps they can take to ensure that their applications for humanitarian benefits are recorded as having been filed as of the date they were originally submitted. Without this relief, these applicants not only would suffer the delays caused by USCIS’ rejection of their applications, but many applicants or their family members would be rendered ineligible because they were unable to file the required forms by timelines specified in the statute.
In addition, the settlement agreement prevents the agency from adopting a similar rejection policy with respect to other immigration forms unless authorized by statute or lawfully implemented through regulations.
“It was an outrageous policy clearly aimed to impede individuals from obtaining the humanitarian benefits that Congress has provided,” said Matt Adams, Legal Director for NWIRP. “It aptly demonstrates the Trump administrations’ utter disregard of the law.”
“USCIS’ rejection policy served no legitimate purpose,” said Mary Kenney, Deputy Director for NILA. “Tens of thousands of applicants will now, finally, be able to move forward with applications that the agency should have accepted in 2020.”
The settlement agreement is here and order approving the settlement agreement can be found here.
#####
Media contacts:
Trina Realmuto, National Immigration Litigation Alliance
Cruelty, stupidity, illegality, wasting Government resources! So, what else is new about the Trump kakistocracy’s immigration policies and procedures? Wonder why all immigration agencies are running out of control backlogs? Don’t blame the victims — the migrants exercising their legal rights!
In direct contravention of the intent of Congress in structuring DHS so that the “customer services” to migrants and their families would be separate, and no longer subordinate to, immigration enforcement, the Trump kakistocracy turned USCIS into a semi-useless branch of their corrupt, yet inept, White Nationalist enforcement agenda. So incompetent and inappropriate were Trump’s actions that his lackeys managed to “repurpose” USCIS, once one of the few self-sustaining independently funded agencies within Government, into a deficit promoting, bankrupt, money pit.
And, it was a cesspool that failed miserably in its primary mission of serving those seeking legal immigration status, their families, and their employers. A primary reason why the Biden Administration is having difficulties with immigration and human rights is the illegal eradication by the Trump regime of the U.S. legal immigration system, particularly our refugee and asylum systems.
That leaves those suffering from persecution and torture in need of legal protection with no choice but to use the “extralegal system.” Far from their stunningly false claim to have “enhanced” immigration enforcement, the GOP nativists have also destroyed rational, practical, targeted enforcement with their nonsense. Don’t let them get away with blaming the Biden Administration and the victims of their cruel and often illegal behavior which produced the results that many of us predicted!
The next time you hear Ted Cruz, Tom Cotton, or some other GOP nativist restrictionist disingenuously blabbering on about “rewarding lawbreakers” or “doing it the right way,” remember that largely because of them and the Trump regime, America has no functional immigration system for refugees, asylees, or any other type of legal immigrants, nor do we have a functioning Immigration Court system!
Elizabeth Gibson Attorney, NY Legal Assistance Group Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
THE GIBSON REPORT — 07-19-21 — Compiled By Elizabeth Gibson Esquire, NY Legal Assistance Group
ALERTS
Note: Policies are rapidly changing, so please verify information with the government and colleagues.
DACA: We are still waiting for more information on how USCIS will address the new decision freezing initial DACA applications (more details below), but it sounds like biometrics for pending applications have been canceled.
Telephonic & Video Hearings at Varick Immigration Court: See list of IJ preferences at the end of today’s briefing.
EOIR Portal: There is now a “View All” button that allows representatives to view a list of their cases in the EOIR portal. Also, the forms for entering appearances have been relocated to a tab at the top titled “Appearances.”
NYT: The judge, Andrew S. Hanen of the United States District Court in Houston, said President Barack Obama exceeded his authority when he created the program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, by executive order in 2012. But the judge wrote that current program recipients would not be immediately affected, and that the federal government should not “take any immigration, deportation or criminal action” against them that it “would not otherwise take.”
Reuters: Garland in a four-page opinion said Sessions’ 2018 ruling in Matter of Castro-Tum, which has been rejected by three federal appeals courts, improperly parted from decades of practice by concluding that no federal law or regulation authorized so-called “administrative closure.”
CGRS: On July 14, on stipulation of the parties, the Board of Immigration Appeals finally granted asylum to Ms. A.B., the Salvadoran woman at the center of the Trump administration’s assault on asylum for domestic violence survivors.
Appropriations Committee: The bill additionally includes further responsible and effective investments in state and local justice, including:… $50 million for legal representation of immigrant children and families
AP: On immigration alone, the party will need solid support from vulnerable swing-district Democrats and moderates, whom Republicans are certain to accuse of favoring amnesty and open borders in next year’s elections for congressional control.
Law360: President Joe Biden’s nominee to lead U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement told lawmakers on Thursday that he won’t end collaboration between the agency and local law enforcement officials, despite having done so as sheriff in Texas’ most populous county.
NYT: About 2,500 Afghan interpreters, drivers and others who worked with American forces will be sent to Fort Lee, Va., south of Richmond, to complete their processing for formal entry into the United States, the officials said.
WaPo: The government’s tally of individual people stopped at the border, as opposed to total apprehensions, shows 455,000 have been taken into custody so far this fiscal year, compared with nearly 490,000 at this time in 2019.
WaPo: Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas on Tuesday warned citizens of Cuba and Haiti against trying to flee to the United States amid unrest in those nations, saying they would be repatriated or referred to other countries for resettlement.
WaPo: The exodus has picked up pace this month, with net outflows of residents regularly exceeding 1,000 a day, according to government figures compiled by activist investor David Webb, even as the pandemic continues to disrupt travel.
Intercept: Under council rules, bills with supermajority support are guaranteed a public hearing within 60 days. No hearing is yet scheduled, but activists say they’re working to get something on the calendar.
Vice: One in five surveyed individuals reported getting electric shocks from the ICE-mandated shackles, according to a new report by Freedom for Immigrants, the Immigrant Defense Project, and the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. The finding is “alarming and worrisome,” according to Layla Razavi, Deputy Executive Director of Freedom For Immigrants.
The Attorney General stated that while the rulemaking proceeds and except when a court of appeals has held otherwise, IJs and the BIA should apply the standard for administrative closure set out in Avetisyan and W-Y-U-. Matter of Cruz-Valdez, 28 I&N Dec. 326 (A.G. 2021) AILA Doc. No. 21071534
The court upheld the BIA’s denial of the petitioner’s withholding of removal claim, finding that the IJ sua sponte considered the social groups now identified by petitioner, and that the IJ’s decision to deny withholding was supported by substantial evidence. (Quintanilla v. Garland, 7/9/21) AILA Doc. No. 21071432
Lexisnexis: Valarezo-Tirado v. A.G. “We have previously granted a petition for review in which the alleged basis for the BIA’s denial of relief was that “the evidence is insufficient” and “the arguments made by the [government] on appeal . . . are persua[sive]” because we could not “perform meaningful review of [such an] order.” Here, we have even less to work with.
The court held that the BIA and IJ erred in concluding that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate that she was persecuted in Honduras on account of her membership in her proposed particular social group, namely her nuclear family. (Perez Vasquez v. Garland, 7/9/21) AILA Doc. No. 21071434
The court found that the IJ’s incredibly high denial rate for asylum applications, along with her noncompliance with Matter of R-K-K-, presented a substantial likelihood that petitioner would be entitled to relief upon full consideration by a merits panel. (Singh v. Garland, 7/12/21) AILA Doc. No. 21071435
The court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s conclusion that the petitioner’s experience in Ukraine did not rise to the level of persecution, and that she had failed to show that the new Ukrainian government would persecute her if she returned. (Chuchman v. Garland, 7/12/21) AILA Doc. No. 21071436
The court upheld the BIA’s affirmance of the IJ’s denial of asylum, finding that the IJ had articulated specific, cogent reasons for concluding that the petitioner’s testimony was not credible, and that those reasons were supported by substantial evidence. (Coto-Albarenga v. Garland, 7/12/21) AILA Doc. No. 21071437
Granting in part the petition for review, the court held that the IJ erred by failing to credit evidence showing that proof of the petitioner’s alienage was tainted because it was obtained from his juvenile court records in violation of California privacy laws. (B.R. v. Garland, 7/12/21) AILA Doc. No. 21071439
The court held that petitioner’s forgery conviction under section 470a of the California Penal Code categorically constituted an aggravated felony offense “relating to forgery” under INA §101(a)(43)(R), thus rendering him ineligible for voluntary departure. (Escobar Santos v. Garland, 7/9/21) AILA Doc. No. 21071438
Law360: The Ninth Circuit doubled back on a previous order that reactivated a policy requiring green card applicants to prove they had health insurance within 30 days of arriving in the U.S., vacating its earlier decision as moot Friday.
A district court found that DHS violated the APA with the creation of DACA and its continued operation, stating that the DACA memo and the DACA program that created it are hereby vacated and remanded to DHS for further consideration. (Texas v. United States, 7/16/21) AILA Doc. No. 21071636
A district court granted final approval of a settlement agreement in Saravia v. Barr, which applies to a class of unaccompanied minors, who were detained by HHS or ORR, and have a removability warrant based in whole or in part on allegations of gang affiliation. AILA Doc. No. 21071539
Law360: A U.S. citizen and a green card holder separately sued U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, accusing the agency of unlawfully delaying their foreign spouses’ green card applications for over 17 months.
AIC: The American Immigration Council filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against DHS and its two primary immigration enforcement agencies requesting information about the obscure network of databases, information systems, and data sharing methods that are largely shielded from public view.
DHS announced an 18-month extension and re-designation of Somalia for TPS, effective from 8/18/21 through 3/17/23. A Federal Register notice explaining the procedures necessary to re-register or submit an initial registration application and apply for an EAD will be published soon. AILA Doc. No. 21071935
EOIR: Attorney General Merrick B. Garland appointed Megan R. Jackler, Justin S. Dinsdale, Alexander H. Lee, Loi L. McCleskey, Edwin E. Pieters, Artie R. Pobjecky, Jodie A. Schwab, Kenneth S. Sogabe, Lydia G. Tamez, and Romaine L. White.
Varick IJ Motion for Remote Accommodation Preferences
Judge Auh (for NYV cases): No motion required. Parties may appear via Open Voice.
Judge Burnham: No motion required. Parties may appear via Open Voice.
Judge Conroy: Motion required, with evidence, indicating specific reasons party is requesting remote accommodation. If motion is granted, the party may appear via Open Voice.
Judge Drucker: Motion required, with evidence, indicating specific reasons party is requesting remote accommodation. If motion is granted, the party may appear via Open Voice.
Judge Haq: No motion required for UAC docket. Parties may appear via WebEx. To the extent Judge Haq covers any other judge’s docket, he will follow that judge’s practice.
Judge Henderson: No motion required. Parties may appear via WebEx or Open Voice.
Judge Hoover: Motion required, with evidence, indicating specific reasons party is requesting remote accommodation. If motion is granted, the party may appear via Open Voice.
Judge Kolbe: Motion required, with evidence, indicating specific reasons party is requesting remote accommodation. If motion is granted, the party may appear via Open Voice or other technical means, such as WebEx, as appropriate.
Judge Ling: Motion required, with evidence, indicating specific reasons party is requesting remote accommodation. If motion is granted, the party may appear via WebEx.
Judge Mulligan: Motion required, with evidence, indicating specific reasons party is requesting remote accommodation. If motion is granted, the party may appear via WebEx.
Judge Mungoven: Motion required, with evidence, indicating specific reasons party is requesting remote accommodation. If motion is granted, the party may appear via Open Voice.
Judge Norkin: Motion required, with evidence, indicating specific reasons party is requesting remote accommodation. If motion is granted, the party may appear via Open Voice.
Judge Prieto: No motion required. Parties may appear via Open Voice.
Judge Reid: No motion required. Parties may appear via Open Voice.
Judge Sagerman (for NYV cases): No motion required. Parties may appear via Open Voice.
