PUBLIC INVITED TO ABA COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION PANEL ON US IMMIGRATION COURT REFORM: FRIDAY, MAY 4, 2018 9:00 AM – 10:30 AM

Featured Panelists:

(Ret.) Immigration Judge Paul Schmidt, Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law

Center Heidi Altman, Policy Director, National Immigration Justice Center James R. McHenry, Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review Judge Denise Slavin, President Emeritus, National Association of Immigration Judges

James R. McHenry, Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review

Judge Denise Slavin, President Emeritus, National Association of Immigration Judges

Karen Grisez, Special Advisor to the ABA Commission on Immigration; Public Service Counsel, Fried Frank LLP

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

This event is FREE & OPEN TO ALL. I believe there will be a “public comment” opportunity. So, this is your chance to weigh in on the US Immigration Court “Train Wreck” and the Attorney General’s recent actions!🚂🚂🚂🚂🚂🚂🚂🚂🚂

Seating might be limited, and I would expect interest to be high. So, I strongly recommend arriving early!

PWS

04-25-18

MICHAEL GERSON @ WASHPOST: ICE IS GETTING DOWN IN THE GUTTER WITH TRUMP – Why Would We Tolerate Either A President Or A USG Agency Who Glories In & Gloats About “Mean & Nasty” Treatment Of Other Human Beings? — By Accepting Trump’s & ICE’s Inappropriate Conduct, We Diminish Ourselves As A Nation & As Human Beings!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ice-has-become-trumps-personal-bullying-squad/2018/04/23/5197541e-472d-11e8-8b5a-3b1697adcc2a_story.html?utm_term=.692cc352c144

Gerson writes:

The attitude of President Trump toward federal law enforcement is, to put it mildly, mixed. The FBI refused to bend to his will. So the special counsel team is composed of “hardened Democrats” engaged in a “WITCH HUNT.” The FBI was, according to Trump, too preoccupied with the Russia investigation to prevent the Parkland, Fla., school shooting. The agency’s reputation “is in Tatters — worst in History!”

But Immigration and Customs Enforcement has passed the loyalty test. ICE’s enforcement surge “is merely the keeping of my campaign promise,” the president tweeted. Referring to ICE acting director Thomas Homan, Trump said, “Somebody said the other day, they saw him on television. . . . ‘He looks very nasty, he looks very mean.’ I said, ‘That’s what I’m looking for!’ ”

This is territory more familiar in political systems of personal rule. The agency that defies the ruler must be discredited. The agency that does his bidding is viewed as a kind of Praetorian Guard.

Most of the professionals working in ICE would surely deny this characterization, pointing to an important legal role independent from any individual president. But they need to understand that their work is now being conflated with Trump’s nativism.

ICE’s 40 percent increase in arrests within the United States after Trump took office is now closely associated with the president’s political priorities. His sweeping executive orders on immigration broadened the focus of enforcement beyond serious threats to public order. Arrests of immigrants without criminal convictions have spiked. Routine “check-ins” with ICE officials can end with handcuffs and deportation. “Sanctuary cities” — a recurring presidential political obsession — are being targeted with additional personnel. Hundreds of children have been removed from parents seeking asylum and detained separately — compounding their terrible ordeal of persecution and flight. ICE recently announced a new policy that makes it easier to detain pregnant women. Asylum seekers have often been denied “humanitarian parole” while their cases are decided, effectively jailing them without due process.

Officials of the agency insist that their nonpolitical mandate hasn’t changed. But Homan has praised the Trump administration for taking “the handcuffs off law enforcement.” Whatever their intention, ICE agents are being used by the president to send a message of callousness. And they are tying themselves to Trump’s political fortunes in the process.

The job performed by ICE is essential to American security, and not easy. Agents must prevent some truly dangerous people from entering and staying in the country — gang members, drug dealers and terrorists. But it is also their job to deal with asylum seekers — men, women and children fleeing from gangs, targeted for death by drug cartels and oppressed by terrorist states. Some of the worst people in the world, and some of the most sympathetic people in the world, are processed by immigration officials. It takes care and discernment to make this distinction.

ICE is not an agency famous for its care and discernment. In releasing an immigration activist detained by ICE early this year, U.S. District Judge Katherine B. Forrest said, “It ought not to be — and it has never before been — that those who have lived without incident in this country for years are subjected to treatment we associate with regimes we revile as unjust. . . . We are not that country.”

Accusations of abuse in ICE custody are numerous and serious, and they preexisted the Trump era. An investigation by ProPublica and the Philadelphia Inquirer reported cases of racial profiling, fabricated evidence and warrantless searches — all given little scrutiny by overwhelmed immigration courts. During the past few years, there have been hundreds of accusations of sexual abuse, racial slurs, abusive strip searches and verbal harassment in ICE jails, prisons and detention centers. For an institution that claims “zero tolerance” for such practices, it seems to get a lot of serious complaints. One asylum seeker, Gretta Soto Moreno, has called the facilities worse than normal prisons because ICE “feels like it can treat immigrants any kind of way.”

This is the bitter fruit of dehumanization — in a facility, in a system, in a country. It is unclear whether Trump would even regard such a reputation as undesirable. He has effectively given permission for bullying.

This is an issue ripe for more rigorous congressional oversight — even an independent commission to investigate charges of physical and sexual abuse in the ICE system. But this would require a critical mass of elected Republicans to give a damn about the rights and dignity of migrants. It is a distant dream.

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

Dehumanization of migrants, who are among the most human of all among us, is certainly one of the most insidious aspects of the Trump/Sessions/Nielsen,/Homan regime. When we allow individuals like these who have both forgotten their proper roles in a democratic republic and arrogantly checked their humanity at the door, we essentially dehumanize ourselves.

Not surprisingly, migrants grow in moral stature as we shrink, individually and collectively. And the restrictionist (occasionally, as in the case of folks like Rep Steve King (R-IA) “neo-Nazi”) wing of the GOP is certainly a prime enabler of this reprehensible conduct. As even some GOP commentators have noted, there is a disturbing “empathy and humanity gap” evident when GOP politicos speak in dismissive and derogatory terms about migrants.

Only time will tell how soon we will be able to remove these unworthy public officials from the positions they now hold and replace them with responsible public servants who treat others with dignity, respect, humanity, and reasonableness. But, the speed and decisiveness with which we act will say much about America’s future prospects as a nation.

PWS

04-25-18

DACA: SCOFFLAWS TRUMP & SESSIONS OUTED AGAIN — USD Judge John Bates (DC) Finds Administration’s Rationale For Terminating DACA Was Bogus – But, Gives Trumpsters 90 Days To Explain Before Restarting Program! – NAACP v. Trump!

NAACP v. Trump, U.S.D.C., D.D.C., 04-24-18 (Judge John D. Bates)

Read Judge Bates’s 60 page decision invalidating the Trump Administration’s decision to “rescind” DACA and ordering the restart of the program, but delaying the order for 90 days to give the Administration a chance to come up with a legal rationale for recision:

JugeBatesDACA

Key Quote From Judge Bates:

Executive Branch officials possess relatively unconstrained authority to enforce the law against certain violators but not others. Ordinarily, the exercise of that authority is subject to review not in a court of law, but rather in the court of public opinion: members of the public know how their elected officials have used their enforcement powers, and they can hold those officials accountable by speaking out, by petitioning their representatives, or ultimately at the ballot box. When an official claims that the law requires her to exercise her enforcement authority in a certain way, however, she excuses herself from this accountability. Moreover, if her view of the law is incorrect, she may needlessly forego the opportunity to implement appropriate enforcement priorities and also to demonstrate those priorities to the public.

Fortunately, neither Supreme Court nor D.C. Circuit precedent compels such a result. Rather, the cases are clear that courts have the authority to review an agency’s interpretation of the law if it is relied on to justify an enforcement policy, even when that interpretation concerns the lawful scope of the agency’s enforcement discretion. See Chaney, 470 U.S. at 832–33; OSG, 132 F.3d at 812; Crowley, 37 F.3d at 676–77. Under this rule, an official cannot claim that the law ties her hands while at the same time denying the courts’ power to unbind her. She may escape political accountability or judicial review, but not both.

Here, the Department’s decision to rescind DACA was predicated primarily on its legal judgment that the program was unlawful. That legal judgment was virtually unexplained, however, and so it cannot support the agency’s decision. And although the government suggests that DACA’s rescission was also predicated on the Department’s assessment of litigation risk, this consideration is insufficiently distinct from the agency’s legal judgment to alter the reviewability analysis. It was also arbitrary and capricious in its own right, and thus likewise cannot support the agency’s action. For these reasons, DACA’s rescission was unlawful and must be set aside.

For the reasons given above, then, the Court will vacate the Department’s September 5, 2017 decision to rescind the DACA program. The Court will stay its order of vacatur for 90 days, however, to afford DHS an opportunity to better explain its view that DACA is unlawful. The Court will also deny the government’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, its motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ APA claims on reviewability grounds, and its motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ substantive APA claim; grant the government’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ procedural APA claim, the NAACP plaintiffs’ RFA claim, and plaintiffs’ information-sharing claim; and defer ruling on the government’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ remaining constitutional claims.

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

So, who “won” under Judge Bate’s order? The plaintiffs won a smashing victory on all the significant legal issues. And, Judge Bates appears prepared to not only halt the termination of DACA for those already approved under the program, as other courts have done, but also to order the DHS to resume accepting new applications for those who meet the DACA criteria.

On the flip side, nothing happens for the next 90 days while the DHS searches for a rationale for terminating DACA. I think that’s going to be hard to develop. But, you never know.

This case follows a disturbingly familiar pattern. Trump, Sessions, & Co. institute actions against immigrants based on bias, racism, xenophobia, and campaign promises. They are promptly rejected by the courts as illegal.

Then, the Administration goes “to the drawing board” (they never seriously considered the law in the first place) in an attempt to come up with a legal rationale (usually a fairly obvious pretext) for their original actions.

That’s why it’s so infuriating to hear an intellectually dishonest scofflaw like Jeff Sessions constantly pontificating about a “rule of law” that actually represents only his own distorted and biased view of the law — likely drawn up for him by one of the restrictionist or White Nationalist groups he likes to hang around with.

Of course, even if Judge Bates eventually rules against the Administration, there no doubt will be an appeal to the DC Circuit. But, without a further stay pending appeal (which seems unlikely given the Supreme Court’s declination to give one in other DACA litigation) DACA would be restarted while the case is working its way through the lower courts, perhaps to the Supremes.

The Administration could easily have avoided this mess by agreeing to a “clean” DACA bill. They likely could even have gotten some “Wall” funding and other enforcement enhancements (short of more unneeded agents or more inhumane and unnecessary detention) thrown in with the deal. But, Trump blew the chance.

So now the fate of DACA is likely to be tied up in the Federal Courts for the indefinite future.

PWS

04-24-18

ROBERT BARNES @ WASHPOST: “Trump v. State of Hawaii” Is Actually “Trump v. Trump” — The President’s Constant Barrage Of Un-Presidential Behavior Has Always Been The Real Issue — Will Court Impose Limits Or Wash Its Hands & Let Voters Deal With A President Who Undermines Our Republic? — Most Observers Expect Supremes’ Majority To Punt On Trump’s Biased Agenda!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/in-travel-ban-case-supreme-court-considers-the-president-vs-this-president/2018/04/22/f33f1edc-44cb-11e8-8569-26fda6b404c7_story.html?utm_term=.223d08cb0950

Robert Barnes reports for WashPost:

The Supreme Court’s final oral argument of the term will be one of its most important and potentially far-reaching, an examination of the president’s authority to protect the country by banning some foreigners who seek entry.

But, similar to a debate that has consumed Washington for the past 15 months, a major issue for the court is separating “the president” from “this president.”

The justices on Wednesday will consider President Trump’s third iteration of a travel ban that bars most nationals from a small group of mostly Muslim nations. It is the first time the court has considered the merits of a policy that has consumed the administration since its start, and raises deep questions about the judiciary’s role in national security issues usually left to the political branches.

The first version of the ban was issued just a week after Trump took office, and lower courts have found that it and each reformulated version since exceeded the authority granted by Congress and was motivated by Trump’s prejudice — animus, as courts like to say — toward Muslims.

The state of Hawaii, which is leading the challenge of the ban, told the Supreme Court:

“For over a year, the president campaigned on the pledge, never retracted, that he would ban Muslims from entering the United States.

“And upon taking office, the president issued and reissued, and reissued again, a sweeping and unilateral order that purports to bar over 150 million aliens — the vast majority of them Muslim — from entering the United States.”

Hawaii’s brief, by Washington lawyer Neal K. Katyal, cites not only Trump’s campaign comments, but also his actions as president, including the time he retweeted “three anti-Muslim propaganda videos” from a widely condemned far-right British organization.

This led to a response by the solicitor general of the United States to the justices of the Supreme Court that could have been written only in this era, about this chief executive:

“The president’s retweets do not address the meaning of the proclamation at all.”

Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco urged the court not to get distracted by the president’s bluster — he has said nice things about Muslims, too, the brief states — and to keep its examination on the law.

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

Read Barnes’s full article at the link.

Trump has never shown any actual justification for the “bogus ban.” But, the standard of “facially bona fide and legitimate” is very permissive. As usual, from a legal standpoint, Trump would have done better to have kept his big mouth shut!

PWS

04-24-18

TAL @ CNN: DENYING DUE PROCESS IN U.S. IMMIGRATION COURTS — Sessions’s Plans & Actions Contravene Many Key Recommendations Of Recent Independent Internal Evaluation – Feuding With Judges, Suspending Legal Orientation Program, Establishing Evaluations Based On “Quotas,” Detailing Judges To Border Detention Centers, Restricting Administrative Closing, Increasing Use Of Televideo Hearings, Emphasis On Increasing Removals Over Due Process All Run Counter To Recent Recommendations!

http://www.cnn.com/2018/04/23/politics/immigration-courts-justice-department-report/index.html

Justice report’s findings clash with Sessions’ actions

By Tal Kopan

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has made overhauling the chronically backlogged immigration courts a top priority — but some of his moves seem to run counter to recommendations in a Justice Department-commissioned report made public on Monday.

While some of the recommendations, such as increasing staffing, have been part of his efforts, other steps — such as requiring judges to process a target amount of cases — run contrary to the study’s suggestions.

The report was written by consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton last April after a yearlong analysis commissioned by the Justice Department’s immigration courts division. A redacted version was made public Monday as the result of a Freedom of Information Act request by the American Immigration Lawyers Association and American Immigration Council.

The report looks at the chronic inability of the immigration courts to keep up with the number of cases before them. Cases related to immigration status are handled in a court system separate from the typical criminal and civil courts in the US — a system that is run entirely by the Justice Department and in which the attorney general effectively functions as a one-man Supreme Court.

Because cases can take years to finish, undocumented immigrants can end up living and building lives in the US as they await a final decision on whether they are legally allowed to stay in the US — something the Trump administration has cited as a driver of illegal immigration.

The Booz Allen Hamilton analysis identifies a number of issues that contribute to the backlog, including staffing shortages, technological difficulties and external factors like an increasing number of cases.

Sessions has worked to hire more immigration judges and has ordered other upgrades like the use of an electronic filing system, as the report recommends.

But the American Immigration Lawyers Association expressed concern about a number of other recommendations that seemed ignored or on which opposite action was taken.

Responding to the report, a Justice Department official who requested not to be named said that the efforts of the department are “common-sense.”

“After years of mismanagement and neglect, the Justice Department has implemented a number of common-sense reforms in the immigration court system, a number of them address these issues and we believe that focusing our efforts on these reforms has been an effective place to start,” the official said.

The report’s recommendations include a performance review system for judges, who are hired and managed by the Justice Department, that “emphasizes process over outcomes and places high priority on judicial integrity and independence,” including in dialogue with the union that represents immigration judges. The Justice Department recently rolled out a performance metrics system, though, that requires judges to complete a certain number of cases per year and sets time goals for other procedural steps along the way, which immigration judges have strongly opposed as jeopardizing the ability of judges to make fair, independent decisions.

In a call with reporters, AILA representatives and a retired immigration judge argued that while the report doesn’t explicitly reject a quota system, it’s clear that putting one in place is contrary to the recommendation. They say that judges who are fearful of their job security and opportunity for advancement may be pressured to speed up hearing cases at the expense of due process for the immigrants, which could skew the outcome of the case.

A Justice Department official said the agency rejects the notion of a “false dichotomy” that improving efficiency sacrifices due process and said the agency has also put in place court-based metrics that lend itself to the recommendation of the report.

In another example, the report recommends that the Justice Department consider expanding legal orientation programs for immigrants and increasing their access to attorneys, so they can better navigate the system. The Justice Department recently put on hold a legal advice program for immigrants in the courts, saying it needed to be reviewed, though audits in the past had consistently shown it was productive and had saved the government money long-term. Officials say they may reinstitute the program if the audit shows it is effective.

The report also recommends limited use of video hearings, saying judges are stymied by technical difficulties and also are less able to read the subtle cues and nonverbal communications of witnesses and people involved in the hearings. Sessions’ immigration courts plan includes expanding the use of video hearings.

In another example, one of Sessions’ first moves in taking office was to send a number of judges to the border on a temporary assignment to handle cases there. The report says temporary assignments should be avoided, as they create more delays when judges have to catch up on their workloads back home.

The report also recommends administratively closing cases if they are being adjudicated in some other venue, like a visa petition or another court case. The Trump administration has sought to curtail the administrative closing of cases.

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

DOJ’s ridiculous claim that Sessions’s actions are “common sense” is refuted by virtually everyone with expertise or true understanding of the Immigration Court system including those working in it, those stuck in it, and even ICE!

There can be no effective, Due Process oriented, “actual common sense” Immigration Court reforms so long as Jeff Sessions controls those courts.

PWS

04-23-18

PRO PUBLICA: HOW OUR GOVERNMENT HAS CYNICALLY TURNED WHAT SHOULD BE A GENEROUSLY ADMINISTERED, LIFE-SAVING, PROTECTION-GRANTING ASYLUM SYSTEM INTO A “GAME OF CHANCE” WITH POTENTIALLY FATAL CONSEQUENCES FOR THE HAPLESS & VULNERABLE “PLAYERS!” –Play The “Interactive Version” Of “The Game” Here – See If You Would Survive or Perish Playing “Refugee Roulette!”

https://projects.propublica.org/asylum/#how-asylum-works

Years-long wait lists, bewildering legal arguments, an extended stay in detention — you can experience it all in the Waiting Game, a newsgame that simulates the experience of trying to seek asylum in the United States. The game was created by ProPublica, Playmatics and WNYC. Based on the true stories of real asylum-seekers, this interactive portal allows users to follow in the footsteps of five people fleeing persecution and trying to take refuge in America.

The process can be exhausting and feel arbitrary – and as you’ll find in the game, it involves a lot of waiting. Once asylum-seekers reach America, they must condense complex and often traumatic stories into short, digestible narratives they will tell again and again. Their lives often depend on their ability to convince a judge that they are in danger. Judicial decisions are so inconsistent across the country, success in complicated cases can come down to geography and luck — in New York City only 17 percent of asylum cases are denied in immigration court; in Atlanta, 94 percent are. Increasingly, many asylum-seekers are held in detention for months or even years while going through the system. The immigration detention system costs more than $2 billion per year to maintain.

The Trump administration has tried to reframe the asylum system as a national security threat and a magnet for illegal immigration. Attorney General Jeff Sessions characterizes the American asylum process as “subject to rampant abuse” and “overloaded with fake claims.” He has aimed recent reforms at expediting asylum adjudications to speed up deportations and at making it more difficult for certain groups to qualify for protection, such as Central Americans who claim to fear gender-based violence or gang persecution.

The narrative that the system is overrun with fraud has long been pushed by groups that favor limiting immigration overall. They point to some 37 percent of asylum-seekers who annually miss their immigration hearings as evidence that people without legitimate fears of persecution game the system. They argue that allowing asylum-seekers to obtain work permits while they wait for a decision on their cases — which sometimes takes years — incentivizes baseless claims.

But another picture emerged when ProPublica spoke with more than 20 experts and stakeholders who study and work in the asylum system, including lawyers, immigration judges, historians, policy experts, an asylum officer, a former border patrol agent and a former ICE prosecutor.

When asked about changes to the system they’d like to see, many suggested providing asylum-seekers with better access to lawyers to support due process, expanding the definition of a refugee to cover modern-day conflicts,providing more resources to help the system process claims in a timely manner, and improving judicial independence by moving immigration courts out of the Department of Justice.

Most acknowledged some level of asylum-claim abuse exists. “In any system, of course, there are going to be some bad actors and some weaknesses people seek to exploit,” said Doris Meissner, the former commissioner of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service from 1993 to 2000.

But they also argued for the importance of protecting and improving a national program that has provided refuge to hundreds of thousands of people. “If you are going to make a mistake in the immigration area, make this mistake,” said Bill Hing, director of the University of San Francisco’s Immigration and Deportation Defense Clinic. “Protect people that may not need protecting, but don’t make the mistake of not protecting people who need it.”

Victor Manjarrez, a former border patrol agent from the 1980s until 2011, said he had seen human smuggling networks exploit the border over the years, but also many people who genuinely needed help.

“We have a system that’s not perfect, but is designed to take refugees. That is the beauty of it,” he said. “It has a lot of issues, but we have something in place that is designed to be compassionate. And that’s why we have such a big political debate about this.”

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

Read the narrative and play the interactive “Waiting Game” at the above link!

Getting refuge often depends on getting the right:

Border Patrol Agent an Asylum Officer to even get into the system;
Lawyer;
Local Immigration Court;
Immigration Judge;
DHS Assistant Chief Counsel;
BIA Panel;
U.S. Court of Appeals jurisdiction;
U.S. Court of Appeals Panel;
Luck.

If something goes wrong anywhere along this line, your case could “go South,” even if it’s very meritorious.

I also agree with Professor Hing that given the UNHCR guidance that asylum applicants ought to be given “the benefit of the doubt,” the generous standard for asylum established by the Supremes in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca and implemented by the BIA in Matter of Mogharrabi, and the often irreversible nature of wrongful removals to persecution, the system should be designed to “error on the side of the applicant.”

Indeed, one of the things that DHS in my experience does well is detecting and prosecuting systemic asylum fraud. While a few individuals probably do get away with tricking the system, most “professional fraudsters” and their clients eventually are caught and brought to justice, most often in criminal court. Most of these are discovered not by “tough laws” or what happens in Immigration Court, but by more normal criminal investigative techniques: undercover agents, tips from informants, and “disgruntled employees or clients” who “blow the whistle” in return for more lenient treatment for themselves.

Hope YOU get protected, not rejected!

PWS

04-23-18

MORE GOOD NEWS FROM PROFESSOR ALBERTO BENITEZ @ GW LAW: Two More Northern Triangle Lives Saved By Asylum Grants in Arlington – Giving Lie To the Trump Administration/Restrictionist Claim That Northern Triangle Refugees Are “Economic Migrants” — No, The Vast Majority Are “Legitimate Refugees” Being Screwed Over By Our Government’s Skewed, Dishonest, Immoral, & Often Illegal Policies

Friends,

Please join me in congratulating GW Immigration Clinic alum Shira Zeman, ’12, who won an asylum grant for a Central American Mom and her 5 year-old son earlier this week. Please see the attached picture, which I use with permission. Gang members threatened to kill Mom if she did not allow them to use her son in gang activities. These same gang members murdered one of Mom’s neighbors, a police officer, after he refused to allow a family member to join the gang. Mom testified for over an hour, after which the ICE trial attorney told the Immigration Judge she did not oppose asylum. Shira said: “He’s 5 now, but he had just turned 3 when they tried to ‘recruit’ him so he could be used as a drug mule.”

Intense. This installation is a must-see. Being in the ‘hielera,’ and in the ‘desert’ witnessing nighttime arrests by the Border Patrol, was beyond belief. Visitors were in tears and one fell to her knees. I read this Washington Post article prior to my visit but I was unprepared for the experience.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/goingoutguide/alejandro-g-inarritus-virtual-reality-voyage-is-dcs-most-intriguing-experience-right-now/2018/04/11/d2714380-3c04-11e8-974f-aacd97698cef_story.html?utm_term=.8f8162e02386

**************************************************
Alberto Manuel Benitez
Professor of Clinical Law
Director, Immigration Clinic
The George Washington University Law School
650 20th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20052
(202) 994-7463
(202) 994-4946 fax
abenitez@law.gwu.edu
THE WORLD IS YOURS…
**************************************************

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

Congratulations to Shira Zeman, Esq., of Zeman & Petterson PLLC, Falls Church, VA. I’m awed by the legal accomplishments and lives saved by Shira and her law partner Rachel Petterson! Hard to believe that she’s only six years out of law school!

We hear it all the time from Trump, Sessions, Nielsen, CIS, FAIR, GOP White Nationalist right wingers, right-wing media, and perhaps most disturbingly sometimes officials at EOIR and Immigration Judges. These aren’t “real refugees,” just folks coming here to work.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Make no mistake about it, these are “real refugees” intentionally being given the shaft by our biased and unfair Government and in far too many cases being denied the life-saving protection to which they are entitled under both U.S. and international law!

In my experience, few individuals, particularly women and children, undertake the long, dangerous, and uncertain journey from the Northern Triangle to our Southern Border unless they are forced migrants. Indeed, I found that many of the individuals coming from the Northern Triangle were doing fine economically and would have vastly preferred to stay in their homes, rather than being relegated to sometimes menial “entry-level” jobs even when they are able to be released in the U.S. Successful students sometimes lose credit in U.S. school systems and must “start over again” in lower grades or special programs.

Indeed, perhaps ironically, their success helped make them very visible, distinct, and attractive targets for both persecution by the gangs and sometimes also for extortion and mistreatment by corrupt police and government officials in the Northern Triangle. Others were perceived by the gangs to be actual or potential political leaders in the “anti-gang movement.” Moreover, as gangs increasingly become involved in the political process in the Northern Triangle, opposition to gangs takes on heavy political implications.

No, this case is not an “aberration or an exception.” There are lots of similar or identical “moms and kids” out there from the Northern Triangle fighting every day for their very lives in a system already rigged against them and which Jeff Sessions has pledged to make even more unfair and more “user unfriendly.”

The things that allowed this “mom and child’ to succeed are:

Representation by a great lawyer like Shira;
Freedom from detention;
Adequate time to prepare and document the case;
A fair, knowledgeable Immigration Judge not biased against or dismissive of Northern Triangle asylum seekers;
An experienced DHS Assistant Chief Counsel committed to a fair application of asylum law and unafraid to recognize when further litigation or appeal would be counterproductive for both the individual and the court system.

An Attorney General truly interested in upholding the rule of law and our Constitution would be working to replicate what happened in this case elsewhere and to look for ways in which refugees like this could be recognized without having to go to a final merits hearing before an Immigration Judge. He or she would also be encouraging others in the Administration to focus on addressing the problems in the Northern Triangle causing this humanitarian migration, instead of focusing solely on fruitless attempts to discourage and deter the vulnerable migrants themselves.

But, that would an Attorney General “OTJS” — “Other Than Jeff Sessions.”

PWS

04-23-18

GOV’S CRUEL IN ABSENTIA HOAX EXPOSED – NEW CLINIC/URBAN JUSTICE CENTER REPORT SHOWS HOW DHS & EOIR INTENTIONALLY USE BROKEN SYSTEM TO CONSTRUCT A “KNOWINGLY FALSE NARRATIVE” THAT ASYLUM SEEKERS SHIRK HEARINGS – Actually, Representation & Other Very Achievable Reforms Would Raise Appearance Rate Close To 100% — Trump Administration Doubles Down On Obama’s Dishonest Due Process Travesty!

“I answered them that it was not Roman practice to hand over an accused person before he has faced his accusers and had the opportunity to defend himself against their charge.”

Acts 25: 16

HERE’S THE REPORT:

Denied-a-Day-in-Court

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Starting in the summer of 2014, the United States began experiencing an unprecedented influx of Central American families who were fleeing violence and seeking humanitarian assistance and safety. Most of these families were from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. In response, the Obama Administration ordered immigration judges to rapidly adjudicate these cases, often at the cost of

due process. Large numbers of families, unable to obtain legal representation and navigate a complex immigration system, were deported by the federal government, often back to the violence they had fled. Essential to the government’s efforts was the use of in absentia removal orders issued to families upon their missing an immigration court hearing.

In response to the unmet legal needs of this population, the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project
(ASAP) at the Urban Justice Center and the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC) began representing families ordered removed in absentia. In almost every case, ASAP and CLINIC successfully challenged the underlying in absentia order and reopened the case. Concurrently, through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, these organizations obtained previously unreleased immigration court data that reveal key metrics regarding legal representation rates and the use of in absentia removals. Client interviews and data from the FOIA together reveal a startling trend—the government ordered the removal of high numbers of unrepresented families through in absentia orders despite many of those families having passed a credible fear interview with an asylum officer.

This report highlights the high rate of unrepresented families, discusses the obstacles families face in attending their hearings, explains how the immigration system fails families seeking asylum, and provides policy recommendations for how the Administration and Congress can address these shortcomings.

The findings in this report are based on an analysis of the FOIA results regarding representation and removal of 29,808 families from July 2014 to November 2016, as well as the results of the 46 cases in which ASAP and CLINIC provided representation. These findings include the following:

• 22,270 asylum applicants, or 75 percent of the 29,808 families who entered the United States between July 2014 and November 2016, did not have legal representation.

• In 24,862 cases, or 83 percent of the 29,808 families, an immigration judge ordered a family removed. Of those ordered removed, in 21,041 cases, or 85 percent, the order was issued in absentia, i.e. the judge entered the order without the presence of a parent in the court room. Thus, immigration judges ordered the families removed without their having presented their claims for asylum or other defenses to removal.

ASAP and CLINIC successfully challenged the in absentia orders of 44 of their 46 clients (96 percent), with either an immigration judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) agreeing to rescind the in absentia order and reopen the case.

Contrary to the narrative that families purposely abscond from immigration court, ASAP and CLINIC’s clients all had legitimate reasons for being unable to attend their hearings, including lack of notice, incorrect government information, serious medical problems, language barriers,
and severe trauma or disabilities. Importantly, ASAP and CLINIC’s clients represented nationals from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras who had received removal orders from 15 different immigration courts. Most of these families were alerted to their removal orders by prior pro bono counsel who represented them while they were in detention, and who then connected them with ASAP and CLINIC’s services. The other families sought general information about asylum from ASAP and CLINIC, leading them to realize they had missed a hearing. Once families became aware of their in absentia removal orders, they overwhelmingly sought to reopen their cases to seek asylum.

ASAP and CLINIC’s high success rate suggests the federal government is deporting large numbers of families without providing them a fair opportunity to plead their cases in immigration court.While ASAP and CLINIC’s data runs through the end of the Obama Administration, in absentia removal orders continue to be issued in immigration courts throughout the country.In order to limit the deportation of families with strong asylum claims and other avenues for immigration relief, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and Congress should implement a variety of legislative and administrative changes that would remedy many of the problems identified in this report. These much-needed changes include improving communication between agencies, providing clearer guidance to families, and updating existing immigration court and enforcement practices.

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

This report’s findings certainly match my experience in the Arlington Immigration Court that:

The “no-show” rate for represented asylum seekers was pretty close to 0%.
More than 95% of “in absentia” orders for juveniles eventually were reopened, usually because of defective notice by DHS and/or EOIR.
Almost no unrepresented individuals understood the difference between the “DHS Check-In on Prosperity Avenue” and appearance at the Arlington Immigration Court in Crystal City. Clearly, it had never been explained to them in understandable fashion upon release from custody.

I also have no doubt that the very achievable recommendations for improvements in this report could be accomplished at a fraction of the cost of today’s cruel, ineffective, policies of militarizing the border, building the “New American Gulag,” prosecuting asylum seekers as criminals, and attempting to curtail important legal and Constitutional rights.

PWS

04-20-18

MULTI-TALENTED TAL @ CNN TAKES US TO THE S. BORDER IN PICTURES & WORDS!

http://www.cnn.com/2018/04/19/politics/secretary-nielsen-dhs-border-fence-wall-immigration/index.html

Snapshots from the US-Mexico border

By Tal Kopan, CNN

Updated 6:55 PM ET, Thu April 19, 2018

Here are Tal’s pictures. For whatever technical reason, you’ll have to go to the original article at the link to get the captions that go with them!

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

Wow! As those of you who read “Courtside” on a regular basis know, I’m a HUGE FAN of Tal’s timely, incisive, concise, and highly accessible reporting. I feature it on a regular basis. I’ve also seen her do a great job on TV and video. But, until now, I didn’t know about her skills as a photojournalist. Tal can do it all!

Also, as my colleague Judge and Super-Blogger Jeffrey Chase pointed out in one of his recent comments on this blog, pictures play an essential role in understanding the immigration saga in America.

Been there, done that in my career. Takes me back to the long past days of riding three wheelers, helicopters, Patrol Cars, looking through infrared night scopes, and even accompanying foot patrol during my days in the “Legacy INS General Counsel’s Office.” (Most often on the border south of San Diego.) We actually took the Trial Attorneys and some of the Assistant U.S. Attorneys prosecuting our cases with us to show them what it was really like at the “ground level.”

Actually doesn’t look all that much different decades later. What is painfully clear is that walls, fences, helicopters, detectors, unrealistically harsh and restrictive laws, and more detention centers (the “New American Gulag”) will never, ever “seal” our borders as some immigration hard-liners insist is possible.

At best, we can control, channel, and regulate the flow of migrants, but not halt it entirely. Human migration was taking place long before the U.S. became a nation, and I daresay that it will continue as long as there are humans left on earth. To think that walls, troops, concentration camps, harsh laws, and prisons are going to halt it completely is a mixture of arrogance and ignorance.

So, rather than pouring more money down the drain on the same “strategies” that have been failing for decades, a “smart” border control policy would involve:

More realistic and generous interpretations of our refugee and asylum laws that should include most of those fleeing for their lives from the Northern Triangle;
A much larger and more “market based” legal immigration system for permanent and temporary migrants that would meet the legitimate needs of U.S. employers and our economy while making it attractive for most prospective workers and employers to use the legal visa system rather than the “black market” of undocumented entry;
A larger and more robust refugee processing program for Northern Triangle refugees so most would be screened and documented outside the U.S.;
Cooperation with the UNHCR and other stable countries in the Western Hemisphere to distribute the flow of long-term and temporary refugees in an equitable manner that will help both the refugees and the receiving countries;
Working with and investing in Mexico and Northern Triangle countries to address and correct the conditions that create migration flows to the Southern Border.
Providing lawyers for asylum applicants who present themselves at the Southern Border so that their claims for protection (which actually go beyond asylum and include protection under the Convention Against Torture) can be fairly, correctly, and efficiently determined in an orderly manner in accordance with Due Process.

No, it’s unlikely to happen in my lifetime. But, I hope that future generations, including the members of the “New Due Process Army,” will find themselves in a position to abandon past mistakes, and develop the smart, wise, generous, humane, realistic, and effective immigration and refugee policies that we need to keep our “nation of immigrants” viable and vitalized for centuries to come. Until then, we’re probably going to have to watch folks repeat variations of the same painful mistakes over and over.

PWS

04-19-18

SCOFFLAW SESSIONS LOSES AGAIN ON SANCTUARY CITIES – 7TH CIRCUIT FINDS SESSIONS’S ACTIONS UNCONSTITUTIONAL “Usurpation Of Power” — City of Chicago v. Sessions

Trump and Sessions lose another sanctuary cities case

By: Tal Kopan, CNN

A federal appeals court struck another blow Thursday to the Trump administration’s efforts to pressure sanctuary cities, upholding a court order preventing the Justice Department from imposing conditions on grants to cities.

The three-judge panel from the 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s decision blocking the Justice Department from adding new conditions on policing grants that had required some cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

The ruling makes it the latest federal court, along with courts in California and Philadelphia, to restrict what the administration can try to do to pressure jurisdictions that restrict some cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

It comes as President Donald Trump has been targeting his fury on Twitter at sanctuary cities, which administration officials accuse of jeopardizing public safety.

The judges sided with the city of Chicago in the case, which had challenged Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ July effort to condition the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program on two new requirements: allowing federal immigration authorities access to local detention facilities and providing the Department of Homeland Security with at least 48 hours’ notice before local officials release an undocumented immigrant wanted by federal authorities.

The administration has been aggressive in asking cities to comply with those requests, but a number of cities and police chiefs around the country argue that cooperating in that way could jeopardize the trust police need to have with local communities, and in some cases could place departments in legal gray areas.

Like the district judge, the appellate judges found that Chicago was likely to succeed in its case that such conditions would be a violation of the Constitution and law, as Congress did not authorize those conditions when it created the grants.

The judge who wrote the opinion called the attorney general’s move a “usurpation of power.”

More: http://www.cnn.com/2018/04/19/politics/court-rules-against-trump-sessions-sanctuary-cities-chicago/index.html

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

Our Attorney General continues to thumb his nose at the Constitution while wasting judicial time. That’s what the “rule of law” means in “Gonzoland.”

Here’s a link to the 7th Circuit’s full decision written by Judge Rovner.

7thChicagoSanctuaryInjunction

PWS

0-9-18

🚂🚂 TRAIN WRECK A COMIN’ ON THE SESSIONS/DHS DEPORTATION EXPRESS – New TRAC Stats Show DHS Mindlessly Pushing More Complicated Cases Of Long-Time Residents Into Court As Sessions Moves To “Dumb Down” Quality Of Decisions!

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
==========================================
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Greetings. The latest available data from the Immigration Court reveals a sharp uptick in the proportion of cases involving immigrants who have been living in the U.S. for years. During March 2018, for example, court records show that only 10 percent of immigrants in new cases brought by the Department of Homeland Security had just arrived in this country, while 43 percent had arrived two or more years ago. Fully twenty percent of cases filed last month involved immigrants who had been in the country for 5 years or more.

In contrast, the proportion of individuals who had just arrived in new filings during the last full month of the Obama Administration (December 2016) made up 72 percent, and only 6 percent had been here at least two years.

Over time, immigration enforcement priorities have varied, as have the ebb and flow of illegal entrants, visa over-stayers, and asylum seekers. Using the court’s records on the date of entry of each individual, the report examines how long these immigrants typically had resided in the U.S. before their cases were initiated.

To read the full report covering the period from October 2000 through March 2018 go to:

http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/508/

To examine the length of stay for immigrants by state and county of residence go to:

http://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/nta/

In addition, many of TRAC’s free query tools – which track the court’s overall backlog, new DHS filings, court dispositions and much more – have now been updated through March 2018. For an index to the full list of TRAC’s immigration tools go to:

http://trac.syr.edu/imm/tools/

If you want to be sure to receive notifications whenever updated data become available, sign up at:

http://tracfed.syr.edu/cgi-bin/tracuser.pl?pub=1&list=imm

or follow us on Twitter @tracreports or like us on Facebook:

http://facebook.com/tracreports

TRAC is self-supporting and depends on foundation grants, individual contributions and subscription fees for the funding needed to obtain, analyze and publish the data we collect on the activities of the U.S. federal government. To help support TRAC’s ongoing efforts, go to:

http://trac.syr.edu/cgi-bin/sponsor/sponsor.pl

David Burnham and Susan B. Long, co-directors
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
Syracuse University
Suite 360, Newhouse II
Syracuse, NY 13244-2100
315-443-3563

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

The insanity, cruelty, lack of judgment, bias, dishonesty, and failure to respect the Constitution continues in “Gonzoland.” Unless Congress gets some backbone fast, our justice system will be in shambles!

PWS

04-19-18

“GANG OF 18” RETIRED IMMIGRATION JUDGES WEIGHS IN BEFORE SENATE JUDICIARY ON SESSIONS’S ABUSES OF DUE PROCESS & NEED FOR ARTICLE I COURT — NAIJ PRESIDENT JUDGE A. ASHLEY TABADDOR PRESENTS STUNNING EVIDENCE OF SESSIONS’S ALL OUT ATTACK ON JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE, PROFESSONALISM, & FAIRNESS TO THOSE APPEARING BEFORE THESE COURTS!

With the help of the amazing Laura Lynch, Senior Policy Counsel at AILA (picture above), here’s the statement filed by our (ever-growing) “Gang of 18” Retired Judges:

Statement of Retired Immigration Judges and former members of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Border Security and Immigration

Hearing on “Strengthening and Reforming America’s Immigration Court System”

April 18, 2018

This statement for the record is submitted by retired immigration judges and former members of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Drawing upon our many years of combined service, we have an intimate knowledge of the operation of the immigration courts. Immigration judges and Board members are supposed to act as neutral arbiters; however, they are considered to be employees of the nation’s chief law enforcement agency, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), rather than true judges. The DOJ is run by politically appointed law enforcement officials, making EOIR vulnerable to improper political pressures. In order to restore public confidence in the immigration court system and to insulate EOIR from political pressure, the immigration court system must be removed from the DOJ to an independent article I court structure that focuses on due process and efficient court administration.

For over a decade, the immigration courts have been severely underfunded when compared to the

budget increases that Congress has provided to immigration enforcement. EOIR has been unable to keep pace with the growing number of removal proceedings. The Trump administration has further contributed to this backlog, announcing broad new immigration enforcement priorities in January of 2017 that make almost everyone who is undocumented a priority for arrest. With the immigration court case backlog approaching 700,000 cases, we can all agree that our immigration court system is in crisis.

Instead of working to improve the immigration court system, DOJ and EOIR have issued policies that will threaten the integrity and independence of the immigration courts.

Imposing case completion quotas

On March 30th, the Director of EOIR announced that immigration judges will now be subject to case completion quotas. This unprecedented change will be effective October 1, 2018, and starting then, immigration judges will be subject to performance reviews (tied to job security and raises) that focus on meaningless numbers and disregard due process. An immigration judge should be evaluated based on the quality of her decisions, not the quantity. Moreover, quotas will likely produce hastily-made decisions and result in grave errors. Poor decisions will also directly result in more appeals to the BIA and the Courts of Appeal, and more remands, causing more delays and running contrary to the goals of the Attorney General (AG).

Curbing use of docketing management tools such as use of continuances

On July 31, 2017, the Chief Immigration Judge issued a memorandum making it more difficult for judges to grant multiple continuances. This policy along with the imposition of case completion quotas heightens concerns that cases will be rushed through the immigration court system. Continuances are necessary in a

AILA Doc. No. 18041830. (Posted 4/18/18) 2

variety of circumstances, such as when an individual is facing deportation in immigration court while awaiting a decision by the U.S. Citizenship Immigration Services (USCIS) on a pending application. Examples of such applications are “U” visas for crime victims, I-601A waivers for unlawful presence, I-130 visa petitions for family members of residents or citizens, or I-751 applications for certain individuals married to U.S. citizens. By law, immigration judges cannot make a decision on these applications; USCIS has sole jurisdiction to make those decisions. But the result of those applications may be outcome determinative in removal proceedings. To date, case law supports judges granting continuances, when it makes sense, in circumstances like these. However, under the new quota system, a judge could be influenced to deny a request for a continuance he or she otherwise would have reasonably granted, solely because of concern about completion numbers and job retention. That is not justice; it seems more like an assembly line. Circuit courts will not excuse due process violations based on immigration judges having to meet arbitrary completion goals.

The AG is taking dramatic steps to rewrite immigration law.

The AG recently utilized his authority to certify two BIA decisions to himself for review to examine a judges’ authority to utilize docket management tools including use of continuances and administrative closure. As described in our amicus brief, immigration judges have inherent powers (including the power to control their own dockets, and to administratively close cases as a means of exercising such control) delegated to them by Congress, and not the Attorney General. Such authority of judges to control their dockets has been recognized by the Supreme Court and lower federal courts. Both the issuance of continuances and administrative closure are important docket management tools that allow judges to manage high caseloads. The certification of these cases signals the AG’s intent to massively curtail judicial independence. The solution is to create an independent, Article I immigration court, allowing IJs to continue to decide cases with fairness and neutrality free from such policy-driven interference.

Additional Resources from Retired Immigration Judges and Former BIA Members

● Jeffrey S. Chase, The Need For an Independent Immigration Court, Jeffrey S. Chase Opinions/Analysis on Immigration Law, (Aug. 17, 2017), https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2017/8/17/the-need-for-an-independent-immigration-court.

● Jeffrey S. Chase, IJs, Tiered Review and Completion Quotas, Jeffrey S. Chase Opinions/Analysis on Immigration Law, (Nov. 9, 2017), https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2017/11/9/ijs-tiered-review-and-completion-quotas.

● Bruce Einhorn, Jeff Sessions wants to bribe judges to do his bidding, Washington Post, (Apr. 5, 2018), https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jeff-sessions-wants-to-bribe-judges-to-do-his-bidding/2018/04/05/fd4bdc48-390a-11e8-acd5-35eac230e514_story.html?utm_term=.758f0b92e2e6.

● John F. Gossart, Time to fix our immigration courts, The Hill, (Feb. 26, 2014), http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/199224-time-to-fix-our-immigration-courts.

● Lory Rosenberg, Much Sound and Fury: Matter of E-F-H-L-, 27 I&N Dec. 226 (A.G. 2018), ILW, (Mar. 6, 2018),http://blogs.ilw.com/entry.php?10427-Much-Sound-and-Fury-Matter-of-E-F-H-L-27-I-amp-N-Dec-226-(A-G-2018)

● Paul Wickham Schmidt, Retired Immigration Judge and Former Chairman of the BIA Responds to Implementation of Production Quotas, Immigration Courtside, (Apr. 4, 2018), http://www.aila.org/infonet/retired-immigration-judge-and-former-chairman

AILA Doc. No. 18041830. (Posted 4/18/18) 3

● Paul Wickham Schmidt, We Need An Article I United States Immigration Court — NOW — Could The Impetus Come From An Unlikely Source?, Immigration Courtside, http://immigrationcourtside.com/we-need-an-article-i-united-states-immigration-court-now/.

● Robert Vinikoor, Take it From a Former Immigration Judge: Quotas Are a Bad Idea, Minsky, McCormick & Hallagan, P.C. Blog, (Apr. 12, 2018), https://www.mmhpc.com/2018/04/take-it-from-a-former-judge-quotas-for-immigration-judges-are-a-bad-idea/.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide this statement for the record and look forward to engaging as Congress considers reforming the immigration court system.

Contact with questions or concerns: Jeffrey Chase, jeffchase99@gmail.com.

Sincerely,

Honorable Steven R. Abrams

Honorable Patricia L. Buchanan

Honorable Sarah M. Burr

Honorable Jeffrey S. Chase

Honorable George T. Chew

Honorable Bruce J. Einhorn

Honorable Cecelia M. Espenoza

Honorable Noel Ferris

Honorable John F. Gossart, Jr.

Honorable William P. Joyce

Honorable Carol King

Honorable Elizabeth A. Lamb

Honorable Margaret McManus

Honorable Lory D. Rosenberg

Honorable Susan Roy

Honorable William Van Wyke

Honorable Paul W. Schmidt

Honorable Polly A. Webber

List of Retired Immigration Judges and Former BIA Members

The Honorable Steven R. Abrams served as an Immigration Judge in New York City from 1997 to 2013 at JFK Airport, Varick Street, and 26 Federal Plaza. From 1979 to 1997, he worked for the former Immigration and Naturalization Service in various capacities, including a general attorney; district counsel; a Special U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of New York and Alaska. Presently lectures on Immigration law in Raleigh, NC.

The Honorable Patricia L. Buchanan served as an Immigration Judge in New York City from June 2015 to July 2017, having responsibility for a detained docket for more than a year and a half. From December 2003 to October 2014, she served in various roles within the Immigration Unit of the Civil Division of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, including

AILA Doc. No. 18041830. (Posted 4/18/18) 4

Assistant United States Attorney and Chief of the Immigration Unit. From 2001 to 2003 she served as a trial attorney in the Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation in Washington, DC. From 1996 to 2001, she served as a trial attorney on a detained docket with the former Immigration and Naturalization Service in the New York District. During a significant period of her time as a federal court litigator, she authored a monograph analyzing hundreds of precedent decisions on process and procedural issues (including rights and limitations to continuances) in removal proceedings and presented at numerous DOJ and DHS trainings on due process issues. Prior to joining the Department of Justice, she worked as a Temporary and Volunteer Attorney at Westchester/Putnam Legal Services from 1995 to 1996 and worked at Mid-Hudson Legal Services from 1991 to 1995.

The Honorable Sarah M. Burr served as a U.S. Immigration Judge in New York from 1994 and was appointed as Assistant Chief Immigration Judge in charge of the New York, Fishkill, Ulster, Bedford Hills and Varick Street immigration courts in 2006. She served in this capacity until January 2011, when she returned to the bench full-time until she retired in 2012. Prior to her appointment, she worked as a staff attorney for the Criminal Defense Division of the Legal Aid Society in its trial and appeals bureaus and also as the supervising attorney in its immigration unit. She currently serves on the Board of Directors of the Immigrant Justice Corps.

The Honorable Jeffrey S. Chase served as an Immigration Judge in New York City from 1995 to 2007 and was an attorney advisor and senior legal advisor at the Board from 2007 to 2017. He is presently in private practice as an independent consultant on immigration law, and is of counsel to the law firm of DiRaimondo & Masi in New York City. Prior to his appointment, he was a sole practitioner and volunteer staff attorney at Human Rights First. He also was the recipient of the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s annual pro bono award in 1994 and chaired AILA’s Asylum Reform Task Force.

Honorable George T. Chew

The Honorable Bruce J. Einhorn served as a United States Immigration Judge in Los Angeles from 1990 to 2007. He now serves as an Adjunct Professor of Law at Pepperdine University School of Law in Malibu, California, and a Visiting Professor of International, Immigration, and Refugee Law at the University of Oxford, England. He is also a contributing op-ed columnist at D.C.-based The Hill newspaper. He is a member of the Bars of Washington D.C., New York, Pennsylvania, and the Supreme Court of the United States.

The Honorable Cecelia M. Espenoza served as a Member of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”) Board of Immigration Appeals from 2000-2003 and in the Office of the General Counsel from 2003-2017 where she served as Senior Associate General Counsel, Privacy Officer, Records Officer and Senior FOIA Counsel. She is presently in private practice as an independent consultant on immigration law, and a member of the World Bank’s Access to Information Appeals Board. Prior to her EOIR appointments, she was a law professor at St. Mary’s University (1997-2000) and the University of Denver College of Law (1990-1997) where she taught Immigration Law and Crimes and supervised students in the Immigration and Criminal Law Clinics. She has published several articles on Immigration Law. She is a graduate of the University of Utah and the University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law. She was recognized as the University of Utah Law School’s Alumna of the Year in 2014

AILA Doc. No. 18041830. (Posted 4/18/18) 5

and received the Outstanding Service Award from the Colorado Chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association in 1997 and the Distinguished Lawyer in Public Service Award from the Utah State Bar in 1989-1990.

The Honorable Noel Ferris served as an Immigration Judge in New York from 1994 to 2013 and an attorney advisor to the Board from 2013 to 2016, until her retirement. Previously, she served as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York from 1985 to 1990 and as Chief of the Immigration Unit from 1987 to 1990.

The Honorable John F. Gossart, Jr. served as a U.S. Immigration Judge from 1982 until his retirement in 2013 and is the former president of the National Association of Immigration Judges. At the time of his retirement, he was the third most senior immigration judge in the United States. Judge Gossart was awarded the Attorney General Medal by then Attorney General Eric Holder. From 1975 to 1982, he served in various positions with the former Immigration Naturalization Service, including as general attorney, naturalization attorney, trial attorney, and deputy assistant commissioner for naturalization. He is also the co-author of the National Immigration Court Practice Manual, which is used by all practitioners throughout the United States in immigration court proceedings. From 1997 to 2016, Judge Gossart was an adjunct professor of law at the University of Baltimore School of Law teaching immigration law, and more recently was an adjunct professor of law at the University of Maryland School of Law also teaching immigration law. He has been a faculty member of the National Judicial College, and has guest lectured at numerous law schools, the Judicial Institute of Maryland and the former Maryland Institute for the Continuing Education of Lawyers. He is also a past board member of the Immigration Law Section of the Federal Bar Association. Judge Gossart served in the United States Army from 1967 to 1969 and is a veteran of the Vietnam War.

The Honorable William P. Joyce served as an Immigration Judge in Boston, Massachusetts. Subsequent to retiring from the bench, he has been the Managing Partner of Joyce and Associates with 1,500 active immigration cases. Prior to his appointment to the bench, he served as legal counsel to the Chief Immigration Judge. Judge Joyce also served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, and Associate General Counsel for enforcement for INS. He is a graduate of Georgetown School of Foreign Service and Georgetown Law School.

The Honorable Carol King served as an Immigration Judge from 1995 to 2017 in San Francisco and was a temporary Board member for six months between 2010 and 2011. She previously practiced immigration law for ten years, both with the Law Offices of Marc Van Der Hout and in her own private practice. She also taught immigration law for five years at Golden Gate University School of Law and is currently on the faculty of the Stanford University Law School Trial Advocacy Program. Judge King now works as a Removal Defense Strategist, advising attorneys and assisting with research and writing related to complex removal defense issues.

The Honorable Elizabeth A. Lamb was appointed to the immigration bench in 1992. Previously she served as EEO counsel to the St. Regis paper company and was of counsel to Catholic Charities in New York City for immigration matters. Before law school she served as press secretary for then Congressman Hugh L. Carey and later for commissioner Bess Myerson at the New York City Department of Consumer

AILA Doc. No. 18041830. (Posted 4/18/18) 6

Affairs. Her first job after graduation from law school was for the New York State Department of Criminal Justice Services. She retired on January 6, 2018.

The Honorable Margaret McManus was appointed as an Immigration Judge in 1991 and retired from the bench after twenty-seven years in January 2018. She received a Bachelor of Arts degree from the Catholic University of America in 1973, and a Juris Doctorate from Brooklyn Law School in 1983. Judge McManus was an attorney for Marion Ginsberg, Esquire from 1989 to 1990 in New York. She was in private practice in 1987 and 1990, also in New York. Judge McManus worked as a consultant to various nonprofit organizations on immigration matters including Catholic Charities and Volunteers of Legal Services from 1987 to 1988 in New York. She was an adjunct clinical law professor for City University of New York Law School from 1988 to 1989. Judge McManus served as a staff attorney for the Legal Aid Society, Immigration Unit, in New York, from 1983 to 1987. She is a member of the New York Bar.

The Honorable Lory D. Rosenberg served on the Board from 1995 to 2002. She then served as Director of the Defending Immigrants Partnership of the National Legal Aid & Defender Association from 2002 until 2004. Prior to her appointment, she worked with the American Immigration Law Foundation from 1991 to 1995. She was also an adjunct Immigration Professor at American University Washington College of Law from 1997 to 2004. She is the founder of IDEAS Consulting and Coaching, LLC., a consulting service for immigration lawyers, and is the author of Immigration Law and Crimes. She currently works as Senior Advisor for the Immigrant Defenders Law Group.

The Honorable Susan Roy started her legal career as a Staff Attorney at the Board of Immigration Appeals, a position she received through the Attorney General Honors Program. She served as Assistant Chief Counsel, National Security Attorney, and Senior Attorney for the DHS Office of Chief Counsel in Newark, NJ, and then became an Immigration Judge, also in Newark. Sue has been in private practice for nearly 5 years, and two years ago, opened her own immigration law firm. Sue is the NJ AILA Chapter Liaison to EOIR, is the Vice Chair of the Immigration Law Section of the NJ State Bar Association, and in 2016 was awarded the Outstanding Pro Bono Attorney of the Year by the NJ Chapter of the Federal Bar Association.

The Honorable William Van Wyke

The Honorable Paul W. Schmidt served as an Immigration Judge from 2003 to 2016 in Arlington, virginia. He previously served as Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals from 1995 to 2001, and as a Board Member from 2001 to 2003. He authored the landmark decision Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1995) extending asylum protection to victims of female genital mutilation. He served as Deputy General Counsel of the former INS from 1978 to 1987, serving as Acting General Counsel from 1986-87 and 1979-81. He was the managing partner of the Washington, D.C. office of Fragomen, Del Rey & Bernsen from 1993 to 1995, and practiced business immigration law with the Washington, D.C. office of Jones, Day, Reavis and Pogue from 1987 to 1992, where he was a partner from 1990 to 1992. He served as an adjunct professor of law at George Mason University School of Law in 1989, and at Georgetown University Law Center from 2012 to 2014 and 2017 to present. He was a founding member of the International Association of Refugee Law Judges (IARLJ), which he presently serves as Americas Vice President. He also serves on the Advisory Board of AYUDA, and assists the National Immigrant

AILA Doc. No. 18041830. (Posted 4/18/18) 7

Justice Center/Heartland Alliance on various projects; and speaks, writes and lectures at various forums throughout the country on immigration law topics. He also created the immigration law blog immigrationcourtside.com.

The Honorable Polly A. Webber served as an Immigration Judge from 1995 to 2016 in San Francisco, with details in Tacoma, Port Isabel, Boise, Houston, Atlanta, Philadelphia, and Orlando Immigration Courts. Previously, she practiced immigration law from 1980 to 1995 in her own private practice in San Jose, California, initially in partnership with the Honorable Member of Congress, Zoe Lofgren. She served as National President of AILA from 1989 to 1990 and was a national officer in AILA from 1985 to 1991. She has also taught Immigration and Nationality Law for five years at Santa Clara University School of Law. She has spoken at seminars and has published extensively in this field, and is a graduate of Hastings College of the Law (University of California), J.D., and the University of California, Berkeley, A.B., Abstract Mathematics.

AILA Doc. No. 18041830. (Posted 4/18/18

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

It was a great honor and privilege to be part of this distinguished group. To our other retired colleagues out there, we’re always more than happy to have join the group an continue the fight to “guarantee fairness and due process to all.” (Actually, the long-forgotten mission of EOIR). It also provides a great opportunity to chat online with each other and catch up on some of the amazing “post-bench” achievements of our colleagues.

And, once again, that’s to Laura Lynch without whose support, skill, and expertise, this effort could never have happened.

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

Here’s the detailed and deeply disturbing statement of Judge A. Ashley Tabaddor, of the United States Immigration Court in Los Angeles, CA, in her capacity as President of the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”). It’s impossible to read Judge Tabaddor’s heartfelt words without being totally outraged by the all-out assault on fairness to, and the human dignity of, those seeking justice from the Immigration Courts and those trying to help them present their cases; the intentional demeaning and de-professionalization of U.S. Immigration Judges struggling to provide impartial justice in a system intentionally rigged against it; the patently dishonest attempt to shift blame for the Immigration Court’s current dysfunction from the politicos who caused it to their victims; and the all out disrespect for truth, the law, ethics, our Constitution, and basic human rights and decency shown by Jeff Sessions.

Statement of

Judge A. Ashley Tabaddor, President

National Association of Immigration Judges

April 18, 2018

Before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Border Security and Immigration Subcommittee

Hearing on “Strengthening and Reforming America’s Immigration Court System”

INTRODUCTION

I am Ashley Tabaddor, President of the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), and an Immigration Judge.1 For the past twelve years I have served in the Los Angeles Immigration Court. My current pending case load is approximately 2000 cases. Chairman Cornyn, Ranking Member Durbin and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee.

1 I am speaking in my capacity as President of the NAIJ and not as employee or representative of the U.S. Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). The views expressed here do not necessarily represent the official position of the United States Department of Justice, the Attorney General, or the Executive Office for Immigration Review. The views represent my personal opinions, which were formed after extensive consultation with the membership of NAIJ.

I am pleased to represent the NAIJ, a non-partisan, non-profit, voluntary association of United States Immigration Judges. Since 1979, the NAIJ has been the recognized representative of Immigration Judges for collective bargaining purposes. Our mission is to promote the independence of Immigration Judges and enhance the professionalism, dignity, and efficiency of the Immigration Courts, which are the trial-level tribunals where removal proceedings initiated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) are conducted. We work to improve our court system through: educating the public, legal community and media; testimony at congressional oversight hearings; and advocating for the integrity and independence of the Immigration Courts and Immigration Court reform. We also seek to improve the Court system and protect the interests of our members, collectively and individually, through dynamic liaison activities with management, formal and informal grievances, and collective bargaining. In addition, we represent Immigration Judges in disciplinary proceedings, seeking to protect judges against 2

unwarranted discipline and to assure that when discipline must be imposed it is imposed in a manner that is fair and serves the public interest.

I am here today to discuss urgently needed Immigration Court Reform and the unprecedented challenges facing the Immigration Courts and Immigration Judges. Immigration Courts have faced structural deficiencies, crushing caseloads and unacceptable backlogs for many years. Many of the “solutions” that have been set forth to address these challenges have in fact exacerbated the problems and undermined the integrity of the Courts, encroached on the independent decision-making authority of the Immigration Judges, and further enlarged the backlogs. I will be focusing my discussion on the inherent structural defect of the Immigration Court system, the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) misguided “solutions” to the current court backlog, and proposed solutions to the challenges facing the court, including the only enduring solution: restructuring of the Immigration Court as an independent Article I Court.

THE FUNDAMENTAL FLAW

⦁ The Placement of a Neutral Court in a Law Enforcement Agency

The inherent conflict present in pairing the law enforcement mission of the DOJ with the mission of a court of law that mandates independence from all other external pressures, including those of law enforcement priorities, has seriously compromised the very integrity of the Immigration Court system and may well lead to the virtual implosion of this vital Court.

Immigration Judges make the life-changing decisions on whether or not non-citizens are allowed to remain in the United States. Presently, approximately 330 Immigration Judges in the United States are responsible for adjudicating almost 700,000 cases. The work is hard. The law is complicated; the labyrinth of rules and regulations require expertise in an arcane field of law. The stories people share in court are frequently traumatic and emotions are high because the stakes are so dire. The proceedings are considered “civil” cases, in contrast to “criminal” cases. Thus, people are not provided attorneys and must either pay for one, find a volunteer, or represent themselves. Last year, approximately 40 percent of the individuals who appeared in our courtrooms represented themselves, a figure that rises to 85 percent when only detained cases are considered. Further complicating the situation, only 15 percent of immigration cases are conducted in the English language. Finally, our courtrooms and systems lack modern technology and unlike federal courts, the Immigration Courts still rely on paper records.

But here’s the core of the problem: Immigration Judges wear two hats. On the one hand, we are statutorily recognized as “Immigration Judges,” wear judicial robes, and are charged with conducting ourselves consistently with canons of judicial ethics and conduct, in order to ensure our role as impartial decision-makers in the cases over which we preside. In every sense of the word, on a daily basis, when presiding over our case in our courts, we are judges: we rule on the admissibility of evidence and legal objections, make factual findings and conclusions of law, and 3

decide the fate of thousands of respondents each year. Last year, our decisions were final and unreviewed in 91% of the cases we decided.

In addition, and in contrast to our judicial role, we are considered by the DOJ to be government attorneys, fulfilling routine adjudicatory roles in a law enforcement agency. With each new administration, we are harshly reminded of that subordinate role and subjected to the vagaries of the prevailing political winds.

At first glance, this may not seem too damaging; after all, our government structure is resilient and must respond to changes demanded by the public. However, this organizational structure is the fundamental root cause of the conflicts and challenges that have plagued the Immigration Court system since its inception and now threatens to cripple it entirely because the very mission of a neutral court is to maintain balance despite political pressures.

⦁ Politicization of the Immigration Courts

Examples of where this conflict of interest has led to the infringement on the independence of the Immigration Court are numerous throughout the past decades and under administrations of both political parties. It is no secret that the DHS, whose attorneys appear before the Court, regularly engages in ex-parte communication with the DOJ. On the macro level, these communications have directly led to the use of the Immigration Court system as a political tool in furtherance of law enforcement policies.

One common use of the Courts as a political tool has been the incessant docket shuffling in furtherance of various law enforcement “priorities.” For example, during the last administration, the mandated “surge” dockets prioritized recent arrivals, such as unaccompanied minors and adults with children, over pending cases before the Court. Similarly, this administration uprooted approximately one third of all Immigration Judges in the 2017 calendar year to assign them temporarily to “border courts” to create the “optics” of a full commitment to law enforcement measures, even at the expense of delaying hundreds of cases at each home. The DOJ claimed that the border surge resulted in an additional completion of 2700 cases. This number is misleading as it does not account for the fact that detained cases at the border are always completed in higher numbers than non-detained cases over a given period. Thus, the alleged 2700 additional completions was a comparison of apples to oranges, equating proceedings completed for those with limited available relief to those whose cases by nature are more complicated and time consuming as they involve a greater percentage of applications for relief. Moreover, many questioned the veracity of the Agency’s reported numbers because so many judges who went to the border courts had no work to do and faced malfunctioning equipment, often with no internet connection, or files. Meanwhile the dockets of these Immigration Judges at their home courts were reset to several years later, not to mention the unnecessary additional 4

financial costs of these details. Such docket shuffling tactics have led to further increases in delays and to the backlog of cases before the Immigration Court system as a whole.

On the micro level, individual judges have been tasked with responding to complaints voiced by DHS to the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) management about how a particular pending case or cases are being handled, in disciplinary proceedings without the knowledge of the opposing party.

⦁ DOJ Priorities

One of the most egregious and long-standing examples of the structural flaw of the Courts’ placement in the DOJ is that Immigration Judges have never been able to exercise the congressionally mandated contempt authority statutorily authorized by Congress in 1996. This is because the DOJ has never issued implementing regulations in an effort to protect DHS attorneys (who it considers to be fellow federal law enforcement employees). However, as Congress recognized in passing contempt authority, misconduct by both DHS and private attorneys has long been one of the great hindrances to adjudicating cases efficiently and fairly. For example, it is not uncommon for cases to be continued due to private counsel’s failure to appear or be prepared for a hearing, or DHS’ failure to follow the Court’s orders, such as to conduct pre-trial conferences to narrow issues or file timely documents and briefs. Just a couple of months ago, when I confronted an attorney for his failure to appear at a previous hearing, he candidly stated that he had a conflict with a state court hearing, and fearing the state court judge’s sanction authority, chose to appear at that hearing over the immigration hearing in my court. Similarly, when I asked a DHS attorney why she had failed to engage in the Court mandated pre-trial conference or file the government’s position brief in advance of the hearing, she defiantly responded that she felt that she had too many other work obligations to prioritize the Court’s order. These examples represent just a small fraction of the problems faced by Immigration Courts, due to the failure of the DOJ, in over 20 years, to implement the Congress approved even-handed contempt authority..

Similarly, Immigration Judges are subject to regulations that provide a one-sided veto of a judge’s decision by DHS. Title 8 C.F.R. section 1003.19 provides that the DHS, who appears as a party before the Immigration Court, can effectively vacate an Immigration Judge’s bond decision through automatic stay powers that override an Immigration Judge’s decision to set or reduce bond for certain individuals.

In a separate failure to safeguard the Immigration Courts, the DOJ has consistently proven to be ineffective in the timely appointment of judges. Historically, this was due, in part, to the Court’s placement in a law enforcement agency where for years, the Court was treated as an afterthought in DOJ, receiving scraps instead of full allotments of needed resources. However, even after the 9/11 tragedy, the DOJ has still visibly struggled with filing Immigration Judge positions, many 5

of which have taken almost two years to fill. Hiring practices by the Agency have a demonstrated history of politically motivated appointment practices, as evidenced by the Office of the Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility reports exposing political concerns and nepotism that have crept into the hiring process.2 And now, the DOJ surreptitiously has made substantive changes to the qualification requirements for judges, over-emphasizing litigation experience to the exclusion of other relevant immigration law experience. This has created even more skewed appointment practices that largely have favored individuals with law enforcement experience over individuals with more varied and diverse backgrounds, such as academics and United States Citizenship and Immigration Service attorneys, who are perceived as not sufficiently law enforcement oriented.

2 An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring by Monica Goodling and Other Staff in the Office of the Attorney General, DOJ OIG and OPR, July 28, 2008; Report Regarding Investigation of Improper Hiring Practices by Senior Officials of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, DOJ OIG, November 2014.

Another example of the structural problem of placing a Court in the DOJ has been the application of federal employee performance evaluations on Immigration Judges. Many courts have performance reviews for Judges, but the overwhelming majority of these reviews follow a judicial model – a transparent, public process where performance is evaluated by input from the stakeholders (attorneys, witnesses, and court staff) based on quality and temperament, not quantity, and is not tied to discipline. However, despite strenuous objections and warnings of conflicts of interest from the NAIJ, the EOIR has chosen to use a traditional federal employee performance review system. These evaluations are not public and are conducted by a management official who is often not located in the same court and does not consider input from the public, and can result in career-ending discipline to a Judge who makes a good faith legal decision that his or her supervisor considers to be insubordinate. This is the flawed current performance evaluation model for Immigration Judges, without the added, soon to be implemented, disastrous production quotas and time-based deadlines that were recently announced by the Department, which I will discuss shortly.

⦁ EOIR’s Decision to Halt the LOP Program

Another stark example of the mismanagement of the Immigration Court due to its placement in an agency with a competing mission is the recently announced EOIR decision to halt the Legal Orientation Program (LOP), despite its proven track record of increased efficiency and enhanced fundamental fairness for pro se respondents in detention facilities. This population of respondents, who are being held in custody, are frequently in extremely remote locations, and often lack the resources or the means to secure counsel or even to properly represent themselves due to language access issues. The lack of assistance in these areas delays their proceedings, often needlessly for those who seek merely a brief legal consultation before making an informed and timely decision to accept an order of removal. Thus in cases where the respondents lack 6

viable relief, the LOP can be instrumental in helping respondents make an informed decision to accept a final order of removal, dramatically minimizing costly detention time and expense.

Competent counsel, when available, can assist the Court in efficiently adjudicating cases before it. In the absence of competent counsel, the LOP provides the necessary bridge to ensure a minimum standard of due process is quickly and efficiently provided. The LOP helps respondents better understand the nature of these proceedings and the steps they need to take to present their cases when in court, understand and complete their applications for relief, and obtain evidence in their case. Without such assistance, judges are required by regulation to spend time and resources explaining these proceedings, soliciting the necessary information for the case, and providing respondents the opportunity to obtain evidence once they become aware it is needed.

Ironically, even the DOJ website has publicly supported the LOP program, citing the positive effects on the Immigration Court process, and the fact that cases are more likely to be completed faster, resulting in fewer court hearings and less time spent in detention. However, once again without consultation with NAIJ, EOIR has made a decision seemingly ignoring the ramifications of how this will likely play out in the remote court locations, further undermining the structural integrity and the smooth functioning of the Court.

⦁ EOIR’s Recent Severe Restriction of Immigration Judge Speaking Engagements

In September 2017, the Agency issued a new memorandum almost eliminating personal capacity speaking engagements for Immigration Judges on any matters relating to the Court or immigration law.

The primary role of a court is to be a neutral and transparent arbiter, and this perception is reinforced when the court is accessible to the community it serves. Public access and understanding of what courts do is essential to build the understanding and trust needed for the judicial system to function smoothly. Judges are the face of that system and serve as role models who should be encouraged to engage with the community to inspire, educate and support civic engagements. Many of our Immigration Judges are active members of the legal and civil community who are sought out to speak in schools, universities, and bar associations as role models and mentors. They help the community better understand our Immigration Courts and their function in the community, helping to demystify the system and bring transparency about our operations to the public. In the past, the DOJ had permitted Immigration Judges to publicly speak in their personal capacity on issues related to the Court and their Immigration Judge roles, (with the use of their title and a disclaimer that they are not speaking on behalf of the Agency).

This new policy brought a 180-degree reversal on many existing programs that included participation of Immigration Judges, from the Model Hearing Program, the Stakeholder 7

Meetings, to appearing as guest lecturer at one’s Alma Mater, etc. Judges who have been engaged in the community are now being deprived of the opportunity to fulfil those roles. This ill-advised move is yet another example of the misguided instincts of a law enforcement agency, which endeavors to keep its operations opaque, leading to an absolutely wrong result for a court system where transparency is essential to build public trust and confidence. This is yet another example which underscores the structural flaw that plagues our courts.

MISGUIDED SOLUTIONS TO THE BACKLOG

⦁ IJ Production Quotas and Deadlines

Based on a completely unsupported assertion that this action will help solve the Court’s backlog, DOJ has taken an unprecedented move that violates every tenet of an independent court and judges, and has announced that it will subject all Immigration Judges to individual production quotas and time-based deadlines as a basis for their performance reviews. A negative performance review due to failure to meet quotas and deadlines may result in termination of employment. This is despite the legal duty of Immigration Judges, codified by regulation, to exercise independent judgement and discretion in each of the matters before them. The havoc this decision will wreak cannot be understated or underestimated.

To fully understand the import of this approach, one must make the critical distinction between court-wide “case completion goals” or “benchmarks” versus individual production quotas and time-based deadlines for judges. The Immigration Court system has had “case completion goals” of some sort for over two decades. These are tools used as resource allocation metrics to help assess resource needs and distribute them nationally so that case backlogs are within acceptable limits and relatively uniform across the country. In fact, when individual performance evaluations were first applied to Immigration Judges over a decade ago, the EOIR agreed to a provision that prevented any rating of the judges based on number or time based production standards, in recognition of the fact that quotas or deadlines placed on an individual Immigration Judge are inconsistent with his or her independent judicial role. The public comments at that time made clear that otherwise quantitative priorities or time frames could abrogate the party’s right to a full and fair hearing. At that time, the DOJ assured the public that case completion goals would not be used this way and that judges would maintain the discretion to set hearing calendars and prioritize cases in order to assure they had the time needed to complete the case.

This tool of court-based evaluation metrics stands in stark contrast to the individual production quotas and completion deadlines which are now being proposed by EOIR. Introduction of individual Immigration Judge production quotas is tantamount to transforming a judge into an interested party in the proceedings. It is difficult to imagine a more profound financial interest than one’s very livelihood being at stake with each and every ruling on a continuance or need for additional witness testimony which would delay a completion. Yet production quotas and time- based deadlines violate a fundamental canon of judicial ethics which requires a judge to recuse 8

herself in any matter in which she has a financial interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding.

This basic principle is so widely accepted that the NAIJ is not aware of a single state or federal court across the country that imposes the type of production quotas and deadlines on judges like those that EOIR has now announced. A numeric quota or time-based deadline pits the judge’s personal livelihood against the interests both the DHS and the respondent. Every decision will be tainted with the suspicion of either an actual or subconscious consideration by the judge of the impact his or her decision would have regarding whether or not he or she is able to fulfill a personal quota or a deadline.

In addition to putting the judges in the position of violating a judicial ethical canon, such quotas pits their personal interest against due process considerations. Recently, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals noted in a case addressing imposition of case completion goals – not quotas – that there may be situations that such goals, even though they are not tied to a judge’s performance evaluation, could so undermine decisional independence as to create a serious issue of due process.

If allowed to be implemented, these measures will take the Immigration Courts out of the American judicial model and place it squarely within the model used by autocratic and dictatorial countries, such as China, which began instituting pilot quota programs for their judges in 2016.3 NAIJ does not believe that such courts should serve as a good blueprint for EOIR or for any court in a democratic society.

3See www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2017-02/27/content_28361584_6.htm.

⦁ Unintended Consequences of Misguided Solutions

The DOJ has touted the imposition of a quota system on judges as a solution to the crushing backlogs facing the Immigration Courts. It is critical to recognize that the current backlog of cases is not due to lack of productivity of Immigration Judges; it is due, in part, to the Department’s consistent failure, spanning more than a decade to hire enough judges to keep up with the caseload. In 2006, after a comprehensive review of the Immigration Courts by Attorney General Gonzales, it was determined that a judge corps of 230 Immigration Judges was inadequate for the caseload at that time (approximately 168,853 pending cases) and should be increased to 270. Despite this finding, there were less than 235 active field Immigration Judges at the beginning of FY 2015. Even with a recent renewed emphasis on hiring, the number of Immigration Judges nationwide as of April 2018 stood at approximately 330 sitting judges, well below authorized hiring levels of 384. From 2006 to 2018, while the caseload has quadrupled (from 168,853 to 684,583 as of March 1, 2018), the number of Immigration Judges has not even doubled! Additionally, up to 40 percent of the Immigration Judge Corps are retirement eligible 9

and are exercising that right at a much higher rate than previously seen. Thus, hiring by the Agency has also failed to keep pace with the loss of judges by retirement or attrition.

Moreover, the 2017 GAO report on Actions Needed to Reduce Case Backlog and Address Long-Standing Management and Operational Changes (GAO-17-438) shows that Immigration Judge related continuances have decreased (down 2 percent) in the last ten years. GAO Report at 124. The same report shows that continuances due to “operational factors” and details of Immigration Judges were up 149% and 112%, respectively. GAO Report at 131, 133. These continuances which occurred primarily due to politically motivated changing court priorities, forced Judges to reset cases that were near completion in order to address the cases which were the priority “du jour,” and have had a tremendous deleterious effect on case completion rates. The same report shows that continuances attributed to the needs of the judge was responsible for only 11% of the continuances granted, clearly debunking the myth that Immigration Judges are significantly contributing to the backlog.

The cause of the increasing backlog is obvious: the ever-ballooning budget for immigration law enforcement which has not been accompanied by concomitant resources to the Immigration Courts. In the period that the budget for DHS saw an increase of 300 percent, the Immigration Court’s budget was only modestly increased by 70 percent. This is tantamount to increasing the lanes in a highway from one to three but failing to increase the number of exit ramps for everyone, then claiming that the exit ramps are the cause of the increased congestion and traffic. Simple common sense tells us otherwise.

Finally, the imposition of numeric quotas and time-based deadlines will have the unintended consequence of further adding to the backlog. A similar measure proposing to “streamline” the adjudications of immigration removal cases was introduced post 9/11 during the Attorney General John Ashcroft era. In the face of a ballooning backlog (which pales in comparison to the current one), the DOJ implemented streamlining measures at the Board of Immigration Appeals that significantly increased the number of case completions at the expense of reasoned decisions. This action caused a flood of appeals to the circuit courts, to a five-fold increase, from 1764 filings in 2002, when the program was announced, to 8446 in 2003 and onwards. Many of these cases were ultimately reversed or remanded all the way back to the trial court level, due to actual or perceived insufficiencies of the process or paucity of reasoning in the decisions. The “streamlining” program was quietly put to rest many years later when its failure was no longer deniable. If Immigration Judges are subjected to production quotas and time-based deadlines, the result will be the same: appeals will abound, repeating a history which was proven to be disastrous. Rather than making the overall process more efficient, this change will encourage individual and class action litigation, creating even longer adjudication times and greater backlogs. 10

Another unintended consequence if these quotas and deadlines are applied, is that judicial time and energy will be diverted to documenting performance rather than deciding cases. Immigration Judges will become bean-counting employees instead of fair and impartial judges, and their supervisors will become traffic cops monitoring whether the cases are completed at the correct speed. What a waste of skilled professional expertise! Judges’ job security will be based on whether or not they meet these unrealistic quotas and their decisions will be subjected to increased appeals based on suspicion regarding whether any actions they take, such as denying a continuance or excluding a witness, are legally sound or motivated to meet a quota. It is difficult to find a shred of practical justification in this approach.

SHORT TERM SOLUTIONS

⦁ Clarify the Definition of the Immigration Judge Position

The most pressing matter threatening the integrity and efficiency of the Immigration Court system which can quickly and easily be remedied is the DOJ’s decision to impose Immigration Judge production quotas and deadlines. If permitted to be implemented, as planned, on October 1, 2018, the Immigration Courts as we know them will cease to exist. Immigration Judges will no longer be able to serve as impartial and independent decision-makers over the life-altering cases before them.

To preserve the judicial independence of Immigration Courts Congress can:

(1) Amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify the definition of an Immigration Judge as follows:

“The term “immigration judge” means an attorney whom the Attorney General appoints as an administrative judge within the Executive Office for Immigration Review, qualified to conduct specified classes of proceedings, including a hearing under section 1229a of this title, whose position shall be deemed to be judicial in nature and whose actions shall be reviewed only under rules and standards pertaining to judicial conduct.”

This definitional change was offered by Senators Gardner and Bennet as part of their bipartisan immigration amendment earlier this year. Senator Hirono’s recent immigration amendment also included this language;

(2) Alternatively, Congress can add Immigration Judges to the short list of federal government employees whose positions are exempt from performance evaluation due to the nature of their duties, as are Administrative Law Judges (ALJs). 5 U.S.C. § 4301(2)(D). Recognizing that federal employee performance evaluations are antithetical to judicial independence, Congress exempted ALJs from performance appraisals and ratings by including them in the list of 11

occupations exempt from performance reviews. To provide that same exemption to Immigration Judges, all that would be needed is an amendment to 5 U.S.C. § 4301(2) to add a new paragraph (I) including Immigration Judges as an additional category in the list of exempt employees.

Extension of 5 U.S.C. § 4301(2)(D) to Immigration Judges is not an indication that NAIJ is opposed to performance evaluation of Immigration Judges. To the contrary, NAIJ fully supports performance evaluations that are based on judicial models, such as those recommended by the American Bar Association. These models stress judicial improvement as the primary goal, emphasizes process over outcomes, and places a high priority on maintaining judicial integrity and independence. Moreover, to the extent that any numeric metrics are included in such models, they would not and “should not be used for judicial discipline.”4 We encourage EOIR to abandon its myopic focus on numerical metrics and instead institute a judicial performance evaluation based on these models.

4https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/judicial_division/aba_blackletterguidelines_jpe.authcheckdam.pdf.

Continued enhancement of resources will be an exercise in futility and will fail to reduce the crippling backlogs plaguing the Immigration Courts if the integrity and independence of the Immigration Judge decision-making authority is not protected. Without much needed protection, the inevitable increase in individual and class action litigation and the circuit court backlash (similar to the “streamlining” era) is virtually certain to ensue.

⦁ Additional Resources

NAIJ appreciates the additional judges and staff that Congress has provided and the recent allocation of an additional 100 Immigration Judge teams in the appropriations bill. This is a welcome move in the right direction. However we would be remiss if we failed to point out that even if all the appropriated judge positions are filled promptly (which is a task the DOJ has been unable to accomplish for decades), the pressing crisis of the backlog will not be resolved. The backlog of pending cases has almost quadrupled in the last twelve years. Yet, the number of judges has not even doubled (even with the inclusion of the recently allocated 100 judges). Thus, it is not unreasonable to conclude that with the continued flood of cases being filed with the Court due to increased law enforcement action, the need to match that rate of increased resources with the Courts is a necessary condition of addressing the challenge of the backlog.

Moreover, the Courts are woefully behind the times in technology. The Courts’ computer systems and printers are outdated. The software programs are several generations behind and lag in processing speed. Also, we depend on digital audio recording to capture our hearing audio in lieu of in-person transcribers, and in many locations we function with heavy reliance on tele video equipment. Yet these technologies are no longer state of the art, causing not infrequent 12

delay and malfunctions. We have yet to arrive in the 21st century in technology at EOIR. Unlike other courts who have embraced electronic filings and records, we are still under the weight of hardcopy files, some of which can weigh up to 10 to 15 pounds per case. Increasingly adequate space for Court locations has become an issue, leaving many Courts bursting at the seams due to thousands of files, with staff having to share cubicles, and cramped, unhealthy and unsafe spaces that were never intended to be used as work space.

ENDURING SOLUTION

⦁ An Article I Immigration Court is the Clear Consensus Solution that is Urgently Needed

While it cannot be denied that the short term solutions cited above are needed immediately, Band-Aid solutions alone cannot solve the persistent problems facing our Immigration Courts. The problems compromising the integrity and proper administration of a court highlighted above underscore the need to remove the Immigration Court from the political sphere of a law enforcement agency and assure its judicial independence. Structural reform can no longer be put on the back burner. The DOJ has been provided years of opportunity to forestall the impending implosion at the Immigration Courts. Instead of finding long term solutions to our problems, DOJ’s political priorities and law enforcement instincts have led our Courts to the brink of collapse. With the latest misguided initiative to impose Immigration Judge production quotas and deadlines, DOJ has put accelerant on the fire; if these changes are implemented the integrity of the Immigration Court will be all but destroyed and paralyzing dysfunction will ensue.

Since the 1981 Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy, the idea of creating an Article I court, similar to the U.S. Tax Court, has been advanced. Such a structure solves a myriad of problems which now plague our Court: removing a politically accountable Cabinet level policy maker from the helm; separating the decision makers from the parties who appear before them; protecting judges from the cronyism of a too close association with DHS; assuring a transparent funding stream instead of items buried in the budget of a larger Agency with competing needs; and eliminating top-heavy Agency bureaucracy. In the last 35 years, a strong consensus has formed supporting this structural change. For years experts debated the wisdom of far-reaching restructuring of the Immigration Court system. Now most immigration judges and attorneys agree the long-term solution to the problem is to restructure the immigration court system. Examples of those in support include the American Bar Association, the Federal Bar Association, the National Association of Women Judges, and the American Immigration Lawyers Association. These are the recognized legal experts and representatives of the public who appear before us. Their voices deserve to be heeded.

To that end, the Federal Bar Association has prepared proposed legislation setting forth the blueprint for the creation of an “Article 1” or independent Immigration Court. This proposal will remove the Immigration Court from the purview of the DOJ to form an independent Court. The legislation would establish a “United States Immigration Court” with responsibility for functions 13

of an adjudicative nature that are currently being performed by the judges and Board members in the Executive Office for Immigration Review. The new court would consist of appellate and trial level judges. The appellate judges would be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and the immigration trial judges would be appointed by the appellate judges. The substantive law of immigration and corresponding enforcement and policy-determining responsibilities of the DHS and DOJ under the INA would be unchanged. Final decisions of the new court would be subject to review in the circuit court of appeals similar to the current model. However, in the new court, the Department of Homeland Security would be able to seek review of the court’s decisions to the same extent as the individuals against whom charges were filed. Practically, the transition to the new “United States Immigration Court” would involve minimal transitional or financial challenges as much of the physical structures and personnel would already be in place.

NAIJ has endorsed this bill5 and urges you to take immediate steps to protect judicial independence and efficient resolution of cases at the Immigration Courts by enacting legislation as described above. Failure to act will result in irreparable harm to the immigration law community as we know it. Action is needed now!

5 https://www.naij-usa.org/images/uploads/publications/NAIJ_endorses_FBA_Article_I_proposal_3-15-18.pdf

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

Here are links to the other statements submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee, all well worth a read:

Other Statements:

Law Professor Statement: Immigration Law Professors Issue Statement on Strengthening and Reforming America’s Immigration Court System
AILA National Statement: AILA Statement on Strengthening and Reforming America’s Immigration Court System Hearing

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

It’s no secret that White Nationalist and “21st Century Jim Crow” Sessions was totally unqualified to be the Attorney General of the United States. Yet, the GOP Senate put in him that position knowing full his extremist views, lack of executive qualifications, and history of racially insensitive words and actions.

The Obama Administration’s indolent, sometimes disingenuous, and often highly politicized mis-handling of the Immigration Court System also contributed to the current sad state of justice for immigrants. To paraphrase the words of one of my colleagues, the Obama Administration’s poor handling of the Immigration Courts didn’t cause Jeff Sessions and his toxic policies, but it certainly did nothing to dissuade or prevent them and in many ways set the stage for the current due process disaster.

Congress also stood by and watched this unfolding disaster in a court system they created without providing any effective assistance (except for too few additional positions too late to help) and in many cases making things worse by ramping up enforcement without thinking about the consequences for the judicial system.

We need to elect legislators pledged to due process, fairness to all including immigrants, strong effective oversight of the DOJ, investigation of Sessions’s blatant attempt to “deconstruct” the U.S. justice system (particularly as it applies to immigrants and vulnerable minorities) which should eventually lead to his removal from office, and the transfer of the U.S. Immigration Courts out of the DOJ into an independent structure where they never again can be compromised by the likes of Jeff Sessions.

Join the New Due Process Army and fight to give real meaning to the Constitutional guarantee of Due Process for all in America.

PWS

04-19-18

SESSIONS’S ATTACK ON DUE PROCESS IN THE CRUMBLING U.S. IMMIGRATON COURT SYSTEM FRONT PAGE NEWS IN LA TIMES — Joseph Tanfani’s Article Makes Page One Headlines As Session’s Outrageous Actions Deepen, Aggravate Court Crisis!

I had already posted the online version of Joseph’s article, which quoted me, among other sources: http://immigrationcourtside.com/2018/04/07/joseph-tanfani-la-times-more-critical-reaction-to-sessionss-immigration-court-quotas-if-youve-got-a-system-that-is-producing-defective-cars-making-the-system-run-fas/

Today, it’s on the front page of the “hard copy” edition of the LA Times where it belongs.

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=99ce5eb1-0b1e-4e1a-9afd-5bf75d1

Thanks to great reporting from Joseph and others like him, Session’s outrageous war on the rights of the most vulnerable among us and his evil plan to destroy Due Process in the United States Immigration Courts is getting the nationwide attention it deserves. Whether the Immigration Courts will be saved and Sessions held accountable for his abusive behavior and mocking of our Constitution and the rule of law remains to be seen. But, it’s critically important to publicly record his invidious motivations and the corrupt misuse of Government authority that’s really going on here.

PWS

04-18-18

HELL ON ICE IN PA – OUT OF CONTROL ICEMEN SPREAD CORRUPTION, LAWLESSNESS, CRUELTY WITHOUT CONTROL OR ACCOUNTABILITY — So, Why Is This Surprising In Trump’s White Nationalist Empire? – Check Out This Explosive Pro Publica Series By Investigative Reporters Deborah Sontag & Dale Russakoff!

Here are links to the complete series:

NO SANCTUARY

The Unshackling of ICE

The Trump administration has unshackled ICE, making all undocumented immigrants fair game for deportation — even those with no criminal records, who have sunk roots into their communities. Nowhere has this new era of enforcement been more ruthless than in Pennsylvania. This is a collaboration with the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Who Polices the Immigration Police?

Claims of unjust arrests by ICE agents and cops often disappear into an overwhelmed immigration court system.

by Deborah Sontag and Dale Russakoff for ProPublica

April 16, 5 a.m. EDT

In Pennsylvania, It’s Open Season on Undocumented Immigrants

ICE’s Philadelphia office is fanning out into communities across its three-state region and making more “at-large” arrests of immigrants without criminal convictions than anywhere else in America.

by Deborah Sontag and Dale Russakoff for ProPublica

April 12, 4:59 a.m. EDT

For Cops Who Want to Help ICE Crack Down on Illegal Immigration, Pennsylvania Is a Free-for-All

Without guidelines or oversight, some officers are using traffic stops to question Hispanics and turn over undocumented immigrants to ICE.

by Dale Russakoff and Deborah Sontag for ProPublica

April 12, 4:59 a.m. EDT

From Border-Crosser to Felon

The Trump administration encouraged prosecutors to seek felony charges against those who re-enter the U.S. after being deported. In the case of this Bucks County gardener, government employees felt halfhearted about turning an immigrant into a criminal.

by Deborah Sontag

April 12, 4:58 a.m. EDT

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

Powerful support for my oft stated position that under no circumstances should Congress authorize any additional unneeded enforcement agents for DHS without a complete accounting for what is being done with the current positions and without requiring evidence of real changes in training, policy, and supervision to eliminate the types of abuses described in these articles. Otherwise, we’ll be handing the Trump Administration an unrestrained, untrained, out of control “internal police force.” I can’t think of anything much worse for individual rights under our Constitution. It’s also making the argument for the complete abolition of ICE in its current structure look more and more reasonable.

PWS

04-18-18

SUPREME BOMBSHELL: JUSTICE GORSUCH PROVIDES CRITICAL FIFTH VOTE FOR OVERTURNING DEPORTATION STATUTE FOR UNCONSTITUTIONAL VAGUENESS! — Administration Suffers Yet Another Legal Setback, This Time At the High Court! – Sessions v. Dimaya — Get The Full Opinion, Court Syllabus, Key Quotes, & My “Instant Analysis” HERE!

Dimaya–15-1498_1b8e

Sessions v. Dimaya, No. 15–1498, 04-17-18 (5-4 Decision)

Syllabus By Court Staff:

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) virtually guarantees that any alien convicted of an “aggravated felony” after entering the Unit- ed States will be deported. See 8 U. S. C. §§1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), 1229b(a)(3), (b)(1)(C). An aggravated felony includes “a crime of violence (as defined in [18 U.S.C. §16] . . . ) for which the term of imprisonment [is] at least one year.” §1101(a)(43)(f). Section 16’s definition of a crime of violence is divided into two clauses—often referred to as the elements clause, §16(a), and the residual clause, §16(b). The residual clause, the provision at issue here, defines a “crime of violence” as “any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.” To decide whether a person’s conviction falls within the scope of that clause, courts apply the categorical approach. This approach has courts ask not whether “the particular facts” underlying a conviction created a substantial risk, Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U. S. 1, 7, nor whether the statutory elements of a crime require the creation of such a risk in each and every case, but whether “the ordinary case” of an offense poses the requisite risk, James v. United States, 550 U. S. 192, 208.

Respondent James Dimaya is a lawful permanent resident of the United States with two convictions for first-degree burglary under California law. After his second offense, the Government sought to deport him as an aggravated felon. An Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals held that California first-degree bur- glary is a “crime of violence” under §16(b). While Dimaya’s appeal was pending in the Ninth Circuit, this Court held that a similar re-

2

SESSIONS v. DIMAYA Syllabus

sidual clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA)—defining “violent felony” as any felony that “otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another,” 18 U. S. C. §924(e)(2)(B)—was unconstitutionally “void for vagueness” under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Johnson v. United States, 576 U. S. ___, ___. Relying on Johnson, the Ninth Circuit held that §16(b), as incorporated into the INA, was also unconstitu- tionally vague.

Held: The judgment is affirmed.

803 F. 3d 1110, affirmed.
JUSTICE KAGAN delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to

Parts I, III, IV–B, and V, concluding that §16’s residual clause is un- constitutionally vague. Pp. 6–11, 16–25.

(a) A straightforward application of Johnson effectively resolves this case. Section 16(b) has the same two features as ACCA’s residu- al clause—an ordinary-case requirement and an ill-defined risk threshold—combined in the same constitutionally problematic way. To begin, ACCA’s residual clause created “grave uncertainty about how to estimate the risk posed by a crime” because it “tie[d] the judi- cial assessment of risk” to a speculative hypothesis about the crime’s “ordinary case,” but provided no guidance on how to figure out what that ordinary case was. 576 U. S., at ___. Compounding that uncer- tainty, ACCA’s residual clause layered an imprecise “serious poten- tial risk” standard on top of the requisite “ordinary case” inquiry. The combination of “indeterminacy about how to measure the risk posed by a crime [and] indeterminacy about how much risk it takes for the crime to qualify as a violent felony,” id., at ___, resulted in “more unpredictability and arbitrariness than the Due Process Clause tolerates,” id., at ___. Section 16(b) suffers from those same two flaws. Like ACCA’s residual clause, §16(b) calls for a court to identify a crime’s “ordinary case” in order to measure the crime’s risk but “offers no reliable way” to discern what the ordinary version of any offense looks like. Id., at ___. And its “substantial risk” thresh- old is no more determinate than ACCA’s “serious potential risk” standard. Thus, the same “[t]wo features” that “conspire[d] to make” ACCA’s residual clause unconstitutionally vague also exist in §16(b), with the same result. Id., at ___. Pp. 6–11.

(b) The Government identifies three textual discrepancies between ACCA’s residual clause and §16(b) that it claims make §16(b) easier to apply and thus cure the constitutional infirmity. None, however, relates to the pair of features that Johnson found to produce imper- missible vagueness or otherwise makes the statutory inquiry more determinate. Pp. 16–24.

(1) First, the Government argues that §16(b)’s express require-

Cite as: 584 U. S. ____ (2018) 3

Syllabus

ment (absent from ACCA) that the risk arise from acts taken “in the course of committing the offense,” serves as a “temporal restriction”— in other words, a court applying §16(b) may not “consider risks aris- ing after” the offense’s commission is over. Brief for Petitioner 31. But this is not a meaningful limitation: In the ordinary case of any of- fense, the riskiness of a crime arises from events occurring during its commission, not events occurring later. So with or without the tem- poral language, a court applying the ordinary case approach, whether in §16’s or ACCA’s residual clause, would do the same thing—ask what usually happens when a crime is committed. The phrase “in the course of” makes no difference as to either outcome or clarity and cannot cure the statutory indeterminacy Johnson described.

Second, the Government says that the §16(b) inquiry, which focus- es on the risk of “physical force,” “trains solely” on the conduct typi- cally involved in a crime. Brief for Petitioner 36. In contrast, ACCA’s residual clause asked about the risk of “physical injury,” requiring a second inquiry into a speculative “chain of causation that could possibly result in a victim’s injury.” Ibid. However, this Court has made clear that “physical force” means “force capable of causing physical pain or injury.” Johnson v. United States, 559 U. S. 133, 140. So under §16(b) too, a court must not only identify the conduct typically involved in a crime, but also gauge its potential consequenc- es. Thus, the force/injury distinction does not clarify a court’s analy- sis of whether a crime qualifies as violent.

Third, the Government notes that §16(b) avoids the vagueness of ACCA’s residual clause because it is not preceded by a “confusing list of exemplar crimes.” Brief for Petitioner 38. Those enumerated crimes were in fact too varied to assist this Court in giving ACCA’s residual clause meaning. But to say that they failed to resolve the clause’s vagueness is hardly to say they caused the problem. Pp. 16– 21.

(2) The Government also relies on judicial experience with §16(b), arguing that because it has divided lower courts less often and resulted in only one certiorari grant, it must be clearer than its ACCA counterpart. But in fact, a host of issues respecting §16(b)’s application to specific crimes divide the federal appellate courts. And while this Court has only heard oral arguments in two §16(b) cases, this Court vacated the judgments in a number of other §16(b) cases, remanding them for further consideration in light of ACCA decisions. Pp. 21–24.

JUSTICE KAGAN, joined by JUSTICE GINSBURG, JUSTICE BREYER, and JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, concluded in Parts II and IV–A:

(a) The Government argues that a more permissive form of the void-for-vagueness doctrine applies than the one Johnson employed

4

SESSIONS v. DIMAYA Syllabus

because the removal of an alien is a civil matter rather than a crimi- nal case. This Court’s precedent forecloses that argument. In Jor- dan v. De George, 341 U. S. 223, the Court considered what vague- ness standard applied in removal cases and concluded that, “in view of the grave nature of deportation,” the most exacting vagueness standard must apply. Id., at 231. Nothing in the ensuing years calls that reasoning into question. This Court has reiterated that deporta- tion is “a particularly severe penalty,” which may be of greater con- cern to a convicted alien than “any potential jail sentence.” Jae Lee v.United States, 582 U. S. ___, ___. Pp. 4–6.

(b) Section 16(b) demands a categorical, ordinary-case approach. For reasons expressed in Johnson, that approach cannot be aban- doned in favor of a conduct-based approach, which asks about the specific way in which a defendant committed a crime. To begin, the Government once again “has not asked [the Court] to abandon the categorical approach in residual-clause cases,” suggesting the fact- based approach is an untenable interpretation of §16(b). 576 U. S., at ___. Moreover, a fact-based approach would generate constitutional questions. In any event, §16(b)’s text demands a categorical ap- proach. This Court’s decisions have consistently understood lan- guage in the residual clauses of both ACCA and §16 to refer to “the statute of conviction, not to the facts of each defendant’s conduct.”Taylor v. United States, 495 U. S. 575, 601. And the words “by its na- ture” in §16(b) even more clearly compel an inquiry into an offense’s normal and characteristic quality—that is, what the offense ordinari- ly entails. Finally, given the daunting difficulties of accurately “re- construct[ing],” often many years later, “the conduct underlying [a] conviction,” the conduct-based approach’s “utter impracticability”— and associated inequities—is as great in §16(b) as in ACCA. John- son, 576 U. S., at ___. Pp. 12–15.

JUSTICE GORSUCH, agreeing that the Immigration and Nationality Act provision at hand is unconstitutionally vague for the reasons identified in Johnson v. United States, 576 U. S. ___, concluded that the void for vagueness doctrine, at least properly conceived, serves as a faithful expression of ancient due process and separation of powers principles the Framers recognized as vital to ordered liberty under the Constitution. The Government’s argument that a less-than-fair- notice standard should apply where (as here) a person faces only civ- il, not criminal, consequences from a statute’s operation is unavail- ing. In the criminal context, the law generally must afford “ordinary people . . . fair notice of the conduct it punishes,” id., at ___, and it is hard to see how the Due Process Clause might often require any less than that in the civil context. Nor is there any good reason to single out civil deportation for assessment under the fair notice standard

Cite as: 584 U. S. ____ (2018) 5

Syllabus

because of the special gravity of its penalty when so many civil laws impose so many similarly severe sanctions. Alternative approaches that do not concede the propriety of the categorical ordinary case analysis are more properly addressed in another case, involving ei- ther the Immigration and Nationality Act or another statute, where the parties have a chance to be heard. Pp. 1–19.

KAGAN, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, III, IV–B, and V, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and GORSUCH, JJ., joined, and an opin- ion with respect to Parts II and IV–A, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined. GORSUCH, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. ROBERTS, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which KENNEDY and ALITO, JJ., joined as to Parts I–C–2, II–A–1, and II–B.

Key Quote From Justice Kagan’s Majority (Pt. V):

Johnson tells us how to resolve this case. That decision held that “[t]wo features of [ACCA’s] residual clause con- spire[d] to make it unconstitutionally vague.” 576 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 5). Because the clause had both an ordinary-case requirement and an ill-defined risk thresh- old, it necessarily “devolv[ed] into guesswork and intui- tion,” invited arbitrary enforcement, and failed to provide fair notice. Id., at ___ (slip op., at 8). Section 16(b) possesses the exact same two features. And none of the minor linguistic disparities in the statutes makes any real difference. So just like ACCA’s residual clause, §16(b) “produces more unpredictability and arbitrariness than the Due Process Clause tolerates.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 6). We accordingly affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Key Quote From Justice Gorsuch”s Concurring Opinion:

Vague laws invite arbitrary power. Before the Revolu tion, the crime of treason in English law was so capa ciously construed that the mere expression of disfavored opinions could invite transportation or death. The founders cited the crown’s abuse of “pretended” crimes like this as one of their reasons for revolution. See Declaration of Independence ¶21. Today’s vague laws may not be as invidious, but they can invite the exercise of arbitrary power all the same—by leaving the people in the dark about what the law demands and allowing prosecutors and courts to make it up.

The law before us today is such a law. Before holding a lawful permanent resident alien like James Dimaya sub ject to removal for having committed a crime, the Immi gration and Nationality Act requires a judge to determine that the ordinary case of the alien’s crime of conviction involves a substantial risk that physical force may be used. But what does that mean? Just take the crime at issue in this case, California burglary, which applies to everyone from armed home intruders to door-to-door salesmen peddling shady products. How, on that vast spectrum, is anyone supposed to locate the ordinary case and say whether it includes a substantial risk of physical force? The truth is, no one knows. The law’s silence leaves judges to their intuitions and the people to their fate. In my judgment, the Constitution demands more.

Key Quote From Chief Justice Roberts’s Dissenting Opinion:

The more constrained inquiry required under §16(b)— which asks only whether the offense elements naturally carry with them a risk that the offender will use force in committing the offense—does not itself engender “grave uncertainty about how to estimate the risk posed by a crime.” And the provision’s use of a commonplace sub- stantial risk standard—one not tied to a list of crimes that lack a unifying feature—does not give rise to intolerable “uncertainty about how much risk it takes for a crime to qualify.” That should be enough to reject Dimaya’s facial vagueness challenge.4

Because I would rely on those distinctions to uphold

——————

4 The Court also finds it probative that “a host of issues” respecting §16(b) “divide” the lower courts. Ante, at 22. Yet the Court does little to explain how those alleged conflicts vindicate its particular concern about the provision (namely, the ordinary case inquiry). And as the Government illustrates, many of those divergent results likely can be chalked up to material differences in the state offense statutes at issue. Compare Escudero-Arciniega v. Holder, 702 F. 3d 781, 783–785 (CA5 2012) (per curiam) (reasoning that New Mexico car burglary “requires that the criminal lack authorization to enter the vehicle—a require- ment alone which will most often ensure some force [against property] is used”), with Sareang Ye v. INS, 214 F. 3d 1128, 1134 (CA9 2000) (finding it relevant that California car burglary does not require unlaw- ful or unprivileged entry); see Reply Brief 17–20, and nn. 5–6.

14 SESSIONS v. DIMAYA ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting

§16(b), the Court reproaches me for not giving sufficient weight to a “core insight” of Johnson. Ante, at 10, n. 4; seeante, at 15 (opinion of GORSUCH, J.) (arguing that §16(b) runs afoul of Johnson “to the extent [§16(b)] requires an ‘ordinary case’ analysis”). But the fact that the ACCA residual clause required the ordinary case approach was not itself sufficient to doom the law. We instead took pains to clarify that our opinion should not be read to impart such an absolute rule. See Johnson, 576 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 10). I would adhere to that careful holding and not reflexively extend the decision to a different stat- ute whose reach is, on the whole, far more clear.

The Court does the opposite, and the ramifications of that decision are significant. First, of course, today’s holding invalidates a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act—part of the definition of “aggravated felony”—on which the Government relies to “ensure that dangerous criminal aliens are removed from the United States.” Brief for United States 54. Contrary to the Court’s back-of-the-envelope assessment, see ante, at 23, n.12, the Government explains that the definition is “critical” for “numerous” immigration provisions. Brief for United States 12.

In addition, §16 serves as the universal definition of “crime of violence” for all of Title 18 of the United States Code. Its language is incorporated into many procedural and substantive provisions of criminal law, including provisions concerning racketeering, money laundering, domestic violence, using a child to commit a violent crime, and distributing information about the making or use of explosives. See 18 U. S. C. §§25(a)(1), 842(p)(2), 1952(a), 1956(c)(7)(B)(ii), 1959(a)(4), 2261(a), 3561(b). Of special concern, §16 is replicated in the definition of “crime of violence” applicable to §924(c), which prohibits using or carrying a firearm “during and in relation to any crime of violence,” or possessing a firearm “in furtherance of any such crime.” §§924(c)(1)(A), (c)(3). Though I express no view on whether §924(c) can be distinguished from the provision we consider here, the Court’s holding calls into question convictions under what the Government warns us is an “oft-prosecuted offense.” Brief for United States 12.

Because Johnson does not compel today’s result, I respectfully dissent.

Key Quote From Justice Thomas’s Dissent:

I agree with THE CHIEF JUSTICE that 18 U. S. C. §16(b), as incorporated by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), is not unconstitutionally vague. Section 16(b) lacks many of the features that caused this Court to invalidate the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) in Johnson v. United States, 576 U. S. ___ (2015). ACCA’s residual clause—a provision that this Court had applied four times before Johnson—was not unconstitu tionally vague either. See id., at ___ (THOMAS, J., concur ring in judgment) (slip op., at 1); id., at ___–___ (ALITO, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 13–17). But if the Court insists on adhering to Johnson, it should at least take Johnson at its word that the residual clause was vague due to the “‘sum’” of its specific features. Id., at ___ (majority opinion) (slip op., at 10). By ignoring this limitation, the Court jettisonsJohnson’s assurance that its holding would not jeopardize “dozens of federal and state criminal laws.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 12).

While THE CHIEF JUSTICE persuasively explains why respondent cannot prevail under our precedents, I write separately to make two additional points. First, I continue to doubt that our practice of striking down statutes as unconstitutionally vague is consistent with the original meaning of the Due Process Clause. See id., at ___–___ (opinion of THOMAS, J.) (slip op., at 7–18). Second, if the Court thinks that §16(b) is unconstitutionally vague be cause of the “categorical approach,” see ante, at 6–11, then the Court should abandon that approach—not insist on reading it into statutes and then strike them down. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

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

Gee whiz, those Trumpsters and GOP Senators who were overflowing with their praise of Justice Gorsuch’s brilliance during his confirmation hearings must be beside themselves now that he joined the “Gang of Four” in striking down a statute in an immigration enforcement case!

I predicted early on that Gorsuch might surprise those on both sides who expected him to be a “complete Trump toady.” Indeed, the case that drove today’s decision in Dimaya, Johnson v. United States, was written by none other than Justice Scalia, one of Justice Gorsuch’s “juridical role models.” At bottom, Dimaya is all about strict adherence to the Constitution and separation of powers, two things that Gorsuch as extolled in past decisions.

No, I don’t think that Justice Gorsuch is likely to team up with Justices Kagan, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor on most future immigration cases. But, I am encouraged that he seems to be going where his legal principles, whether one agrees with them or not, take him, rather than just voting to support the Administration’s hard-line immigration agenda as many had predicted and some had hoped or assumed would happen.

There are other important immigration cases before the Supremes where adherence to the literal language of a statute and skepticism about giving the Executive unbridled power under separation of powers could aid the respondent’s position. So, while this might not be a “normal” majority configuration, it could well be repeated in some future immigration case. Let’s hope so!

Interestingly, I had this issue come up in one of the last cases I wrote before retiring from the Arlington Immigraton Court. I noted that the respondent made a strong argument for unconstitutionality under Johnson v, United States. However, as an Immigration Judge, I had no authority to hold a statute unconstitutional (although, ironically, under today’s convoluted system, the respondent was required to make his constitutional argument before me to “preserve” it for review by the Court of Appeals). So, I merely “noted” the constitutional issue for those higher up the “judicial food chain” and decided the issue on the basis that burglary as defined under the state law in question was not categorically a “crime of violence” under the so-called “categorical approach.”

Two other points worth mentioning:

In this particular case, the Supremes upheld the ruling of the much maligned (particularly by Trump & Sessions) 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, having jurisdiction over California ;
This type of issue is frequently recurring in Immigration Court where many, perhaps the majority, of respondents are unrepresented. How would an unrepresented individual who does not even speak English make the type of sophisticated legal arguments that a) got this case to the Supremes in the first place, and b) persuaded the majority of the Court? Of course, they couldn’t. That’s why much of what is going on in today’s U.S. Immigration Courts is a farce — a clear violation of constitutional Due Process that the Federal Courts have been doing their best to ignore or gloss over for many decades.
As more light is shed on the much misunderstood U.S. Immigration Court system, both Congress and the Article III Courts must come to grips with the procedural, ethical, and fairness inadequacies built into today’s “captive” Immigration Courts and the utter lack of any concern about protecting the legal rights of migrants shown by Jeff Sessions and the rest of the Trump Administration. Shockingly, they have actually pledged to stomp on migrants already unfulfilled rights to fair hearings in the name of a “false efficiency.”
Join the “New Due Process Army” and help stop the continuing abuses of human rights, statutory rights, and constitutional rights of migrants by Sessions and the rest of the “Trump Scofflaws!”

PWS

04-17-18

Featured Panelists:

(Ret.) Immigration Judge Paul Schmidt, Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law

Center Heidi Altman, Policy Director, National Immigration Justice Center James R. McHenry, Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review Judge Denise Slavin, President Emeritus, National Association of Immigration Judges

James R. McHenry, Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review

Judge Denise Slavin, President Emeritus, National Association of Immigration Judges

Karen Grisez, Special Advisor to the ABA Commission on Immigration; Public Service Counsel, Fried Frank LLP

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

“I answered them that it was not Roman practice to hand over an accused person before he has faced his accusers and had the opportunity to defend himself against their charge.”

Acts 25: 16

Related posts:

Snapshots from the US-Mexico border

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Join the New Due Process Army and fight to give real meaning to the Constitutional guarantee of Due Process for all in America.

PWS

Related posts:

Related posts:

Claims of unjust arrests by ICE agents and cops often disappear into an overwhelmed immigration court system.

ICE’s Philadelphia office is fanning out into communities across its three-state region and making more “at-large” arrests of immigrants without criminal convictions than anywhere else in America.

Without guidelines or oversight, some officers are using traffic stops to question Hispanics and turn over undocumented immigrants to ICE.

The Trump administration encouraged prosecutors to seek felony charges against those who re-enter the U.S. after being deported. In the case of this Bucks County gardener, government employees felt halfhearted about turning an immigrant into a criminal.

Related posts:

Related posts: