🇺🇸⚖️🗽 W&M IMMIGRATION CLINIC STUDENTS SHOW ESSENTIAL ROLE OF GREAT REPRESENTATION IN A SYSTEM GEARED TO “REJECT, NOT PROTECT!”

https://wmimmigrationclinicblog.com/2024/05/07/our-clients-story-sang-instead-of-whispered-immigration-clinic-students-represent-client-in-asylum-trial/

From the William & Mary Law School Immigration Clinic Blog:

“Our Client’s Story Sang Instead of Whispered”: Immigration Clinic Students Represent Client in Asylum Trial

7MAY 2024

Caitlin Parets, J.D. ’24 (left) and Alison Domonoske, J.D. ’24 (right) after their trial in Immigration Court (Spring 2024).

During the last week of Law School classes, Immigration Clinic Students Caitlin Parets, J.D. Class of 2024 and Alison Domonoske, J.D. Class of 2024 represented their client in a four-hour asylum trial. The students traveled with Clinic Professors Nicole Medved and Stacy Kern-Scheerer to appear before the Department of Justice on behalf of the Clinic’s client, Ms. B*.

Ms. B fled to the United States from Central America after suffering death threats at the hands of the powerful maras. After moving to Hampton Roads to find safety with her family, Ms. B reached out to the Immigration Clinic for assistance with her case before the Immigration Court.

Simply having representation in a case before the Immigration Court makes a difference in an asylum seeker’s case. Currently, there is no right to an appointed lawyer in Immigration Court. This means that, if someone cannot afford an attorney or find a nonprofit or law school clinic to represent them, they must represent themselves in court. As of January 2024, less than half of all immigrants facing deportation in immigration court in Virginia had a lawyer. Those who do have representation are significantly more likely to win their case. A 2016 study by the American Immigration Council “found that immigrants were five times more likely to obtain legal relief if they were represented by counsel.” Knowing the impact of representation on cases like Ms. B’s, the Clinic accepted Ms. B as a client.

In the Fall 2023 semester, Alison Domonoske, J.D. Class of 2024, was assigned to work with Ms. B on her asylum case. Alison first got to work preparing to take pleadings in the Immigration Court at Ms. B’s first hearing, called a Master Calendar Hearing. At that hearing, after pleadings were taken, the Immigration Judge scheduled Ms. B for her trial, known as an Individual Hearing, on April 25, 2024. Now, with the trial scheduled, the Clinic jumped into action. At the beginning of the Spring 2024 semester, Caitlin Parets, J.D. Class of 2024, joined the case to prepare for the trial.

In every asylum case, country conditions evidence is critical to provide context for each asylum seeker’s claim, helping the adjudicator understand why an asylum seeker deserves protection. Federal Courts of Appeals again and again have found this information critical in their decisions. In Central American cases, especially those involving violence by the maras like MS-13 and Barrio 18, country conditions are essential to helping judges consider the case beyond American conceptions of “gangs” and “gang violence.” Dr. Thomas Boerman, an expert on Central American gangs best summarized these misunderstandings in his 2018 article in Immigration Briefings:

“[U]nless one has extensively researched and witnessed firsthand the ways in which gang culture manifests in Central America, it is not possible to possess a comprehensive understanding of their influence, the level of control that they exert, or the level of terror, trauma, desperation, and helplessness that they engender in the population in areas under their control.”

These general misunderstandings of life in Central America presented unique challenges to Alison and Caitlin in preparing Ms. B’s case. Not only did they have to show how the facts of Ms. B’s case meet the high standards for asylum, but they also had to overcome misunderstandings of Central American gang violence in order to make their case.

Alison and Caitlin faced these challenges head-on. They conducted extensive country conditions research and legal research to write a brief in support of Ms. B’s case for asylum. They also met regularly with Ms. B to better understand her experience and focus their research. Alison and Caitlin also met weekly with their supervising attorney, Professor Nicole Medved, to discuss each step of their progress.

“Alison and Caitlin worked so hard to prepare a thorough, detailed, and nuanced record for the case,” said Professor Medved. “Preparing a record for trial, always with an eye toward preserving the record for appeal, is difficult for practicing attorneys. It is even moreso difficult for law students as they work on their cases, classwork, and other responsibilities as law students. In spite of all of this, Alison’s and Caitlin’s work product on this case was exemplary.”

“I could not have appreciated at the beginning of the semester how much our understanding and our arguments would evolve and grow in stature and creativity until we were left with the robust and finely crafted case we presented to the judge,” shared Caitlin.

After submitting their brief and supporting evidence, Alison and Caitlin prepared the case for trial. Alison carefully drafted direct examination questions for Ms. B, while Caitlin wrote the closing argument to address the complex legal issues and the extensive evidence in the record. Throughout April, Alison and Caitlin continued to meet regularly with Professor Medved to review their progress.

Alison (left) and Caitlin (right) during the mock hearing (Spring 2024).

As part of their preparation, Caitlin and Alison also had a mock hearing in mid-April. Ashley Warmeling graciously volunteered her time to serve as the judge for their mock hearing, Professor Kern-Scheerer was opposing counsel, and classmate Christina Kim, J.D. Class of 2024 served as the client. After the hearing, Ms. Warmeling provided feedback on the case and what they could expect from a judge in court and offered her advice on their preparation. This mock hearing was a critical step in the students’ preparation for the April 25 trial.

“I was impressed by the students’ preparation and commitment to their client,” said Ms. Warmeling. “This mock hearing–especially when played out in a courtroom setting–gave them a safe space to respond to unexpected curveballs that could come up at their actual trial. Without the Clinic’s intervention, this client would have likely had to navigate the immigration system alone. She would not have been able to assert the creative arguments set forth by these law students. No matter the outcome, this client is so fortunate to have had the advocacy of such a devoted legal team.”

During the trial, Alison and Caitlin represented Ms. B under Professor Medved’s supervision in a four-hour hearing. Alison conducted direct examination of Ms. B through an interpreter and asked redirect questions after cross-examination. Through her questions, she laid the factual foundation needed for closing argument. At the end of the hearing, Caitlin gave her closing argument, showing how Ms. B’s testimony, the record evidence, and Fourth Circuit case law supported a grant of asylum. At the end of the hearing, the Immigration Judge decided to issue a written decision in the case, which will be sent to the Clinic at a later time.

“I’m very grateful for the learning experience of clinic and being able to see Ms. B’s case from the beginning in the Clinic through her individual hearing,” said Alison. “That feels unique since it was such a quick turn-around with the individual hearing date. I’m also happy that I feel like I built good rapport with Ms. B through our interviews and that she trusted me as an advocate. It was challenging but I’m really proud of what we were able to do.”

“As I sat in the courtroom and watched the proceedings unfold, I kept thinking about all the people who do not have an attorney in immigration court,” said Caitlin. “Ours was a case that the judge probably would not have bat an eye at denying after first glance, but because we were able to fully listen to our client’s story, peel back its layers, dig into the facts, and articulate the nuances of her case, our client’s story sang instead of whispered.”

“I could not be prouder of Alison and Caitlin and all of their hard work this semester,” said Professor Medved. “Alison and Caitlin put in so many hours to prepare so thoroughly to be such extraordinary advocates for our client. Trials are always a roller coaster, requiring advocates to be nimble and responsive to the Judge’s concerns and opposing counsel’s arguments. Alison and Caitlin never broke their stride and advocated thoughtfully and zealously for our client. I am so proud of everything they accomplished. Regardless of the judge’s decision, Alison and Caitlin gave Ms. B the best chance possible at winning asylum.”

Experiences like these are made possible by the Clinic’s generous supporters. You can make more student experiences like this possible by donating to the Immigration Clinic.

The Clinic cannot guarantee any particular results for any particular individual or particular case. While the Clinic celebrates our victories and hard work, we recognize that each case is unique. Every noncitizen should consult with a licensed attorney about their case if they are concerned about their situation or are interested in applying for any form of immigration relief. The Clinic cannot promise any particular outcome or any timeframe to any client or potential client.

*All client names and initials have been changed for confidentiality and security

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

This is a great illustration of why more gimmicks, such as the ones recently proposed by the Biden Administration, intended to cut off access to both representation and a hearing process at which proof and informed legal arguments can overcome anti-asylum biases built into the system, will result in more denials of due process, wrong decisions, and improper returns of bona fide refugees.

The Biden Administration and Congress should be focusing on improving our asylum adjudication system so that it provides fundamentally fair, timely, and correct decisions. Instead, far too much attention and too many resources are devoted to a futile attempt to institutionalize cruelty and over-denial as “deterrents.”

Congrats and great appreciation to the students and faculty at the W&M Law Clinic for “getting the message on due process,” even if our political leaders ignore it! The “youth brigade” of the NDPA is our hope for America’s future! 🇺🇸

🇺🇸 DUE PROCESS FOREVER!

PWS

05-13-24

⚖️ LAW YOU CAN USE! — 1st Cir. & Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase Combine To Provide Expert Guidance On How To Handle BIA’s Inexpert Treatment Of Experts! 👍🏼

Star Chamber Justice — Experts find the BIA’s treatment of expert witnesses to be unduly harsh!

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2023/7/28/expert-guidance-from-the-first-circuit-2

JEFFREY S. CHASE | OPINIONS/ANALYSIS ON IMMIGRATION LAW

Blog Archive Press and Interviews Calendar Contact

Expert Guidance from the First Circuit

For Immigration Judges, country experts serve as the lens through which a confusing jumble of evidence becomes a clearer picture. No judge can be an expert on all countries; it is therefore by way of the country expert’s testimony that a determination can be made as to whether the asylum seeker’s predicament is a unique or a common one; a dispute is merely personal or possesses a political dimension; the home country’s government is truly likely to provide adequate protection; and why relocating within the country may or may not be reasonable.

However, Immigration Judges are provided remarkably little guidance on how to assess expert testimony. A 2020 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Castillo v. Barr,1 illustrates the problem. In that case, both the Immigration Judge and the BIA chose to discount the testimony of a qualified country expert because his testimony was not corroborated by other evidence of record. As the Ninth Circuit noted, “If an expert’s opinion could only be relied upon if it were redundant with other evidence in the record, there would be no need for experts.”2 Obviously, this simple, logical rule should have been incorporated in a BIA precedent decision by now.

When attorneys SangYeob Kim and Gilles Bissonnette of the ACLU of New Hampshire brought an appeal involving this issue with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, our Round Table of Former Immigration Judges was most happy to file an amicus brief in the matter. We used the opportunity to inform the court “how IJs and the BIA need, and lack, a clear standard for whether to admit—and how to weigh— expert evidence.”

Although the court issued an unpublished decision (and explained why it was precluded by Supreme Court precedent from establishing the uniform standard that we had requested), I believe the opinion offers wisdom on the topic that Immigration Judges might find useful in spite of its nonbinding nature. The case name is G.P. v. Garland, No. 21-2002 (1st Cir., July 13, 2023).

Rather than review the entire decision, in the hope of increased convenience, I have instead listed the issues raised in the case that are likely to arise in removal proceedings, and then summarized how the First Circuit addressed each issue.

The recency of the expert’s knowledge:

May an Immigration Judge discount an expert’s country knowledge as “stale” due to the passage of time since the expert’s last visit to the country in question or contact with its government’s officials?

In G.P., the court found no support for such approach where: (1) the record contained no evidence of changed conditions over the period of time in question; (2) the expert testified to the lack of significant changes in country conditions over that same time period; (3) such testimony regarding the lack of significant change went unchallenged by ICE, which did not call its own expert or offer other country evidence to the contrary; and (4) the conclusion was not contradicted by the petitioner.

The basis of the expert’s knowledge

Can an expert’s testimony be discounted for lack of firsthand “knowledge, research, or connections” to the country in question?

In G.P., the court pointed to the BIA’s own precedent decision in Matter of J-G-T- in which the Board adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence standard that an expert’s testimony is reliable when it is “`based on sufficient facts or data’ that the expert `has been made aware of or personally observed’ or from sources that `experts in the particular field would reasonably rely on.'”3

In addition to finding that the IJ had overlooked sources of firsthand knowledge, the court in G.P. found further error in the IJ’s failure to either mention or explain why sources that experts in the field would rely on that were mentioned by the expert in his voir dire, which included crime rates, DEA reports, and U.S. Department of State Country Reports, were not sufficient to credit the expert’s testimony.

The expert’s lack of personal knowledge of a specific criminal organization

Can an expert’s testimony be discredited where the expert lacked personal knowledge of the specific criminal organization that the applicant fears?

In G.P., the court found that the IJ erred in discounting the expert’s testimony for this reason. The court again referenced the Board’s statement in J-G-T- quoted above, and cited another BIA precedent, Matter of Vides Casanova, in which the Board held that an expert “need not have personal knowledge of the facts underlying” their opinion.4

Applying the above BIA guidance, the court observed that the expert witness learned specifics about the organization in question from reading the respondent’s affidavit, and importantly, that the facts contained in the respondent’s testimony and later testified to in court “were never challenged by the government or questioned by the IJ, who found G.P. credible.” The court added that “An expert cannot be ‘undermined by his reliance on facts . . . that have not been disputed’” (quoting from the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Castillo, supra at 1284).

The feared persecutors are based outside of the country of expertise

Can an expert’s testimony about a crime group based in the U.S. be discredited where the witness was qualified as an expert on organized crime in the Dominican Republic?

In G.P., although the group in question was based in New England, connected to a cartel based in Sinaloa, Mexico, and “served as a conduit between the Mexican drug cartels and customers in Northern New England,” the group did not fall outside of the witness’s area of expertise (i.e. organized crime in the Dominican Republic) where the expert testified to the Sinaloa Cartel’s strong presence in the Dominican Republic, influence over government officials there, and treatment of government cooperators.” The court therefore found that the IJ’s statement that the expert lacked direct knowledge of the criminal organization “mischaracterizes the evidence as a whole” and was not supported by substantial evidence of record.

Prior statements of the expert

How should a prior statement of the expert that is offered by ICE be treated by the IJ?

In G.P., ICE introduced a quote from the expert’s 2011 book in which he wrote that he “couldn’t honestly say that torture is something deportees [to the Dominican Republic] should expect.”

However, the First Circuit found error in the IJ’s reliance on the quote, because (1) the quote was in the context of an entirely different set of facts and employed a highly narrow definition of torture; (2) the expert was only asked whether he recalled the quote and to provide its context, and not whether he agreed with it; (3) the quote addressed the general risk of torture faced by deported noncitizens, and not the specific risk faced by G.P.; and (4) the IJ failed to explain why the 2011 book deserved significant weight when it was older than other evidence the IJ found to be stale.

Conclusion

Petitioner’s counsel has moved the First Circuit to publish the decision. But regardless of the outcome, counsel may wish to bring the court’s analysis to the attention of Immigration Judges, who in turn may find it highly useful in navigating the treatment of experts in cases before them.

– –

Hats off to SangYeob Kim and Gilles Bissonnette on their outstanding litigation in the First Circuit, which led to this satisfying decision. Our Round Table is most thankful to attorneys Adam Gershenson, Alex Robledo, Angela Dunning, Marc Suskin, Robby L.R. Saldaña, and Greg Merchant of the law firm of Cooley LLP, for their expert drafting of our amicus brief in this case.

Copyright 2023 by Jeffrey S. Chase. All Rights Reserved.

Notes

980 F.3d 1278 (9th Cir. 2020).

Id. at 1284.

Matter of J-G-T-, 28 I&N Dec. 97, 102 (BIA 2020) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 702(b), 703).

Matter of Vides Casanova, 26 I&N Dec. 494, 499 (BIA 2015). Interestingly, in VIdes Casanova, the country expert had been called by DHS to establish that the respondent was a persecutor of others. Under those circumstances, the BIA in its decision noted that an expert “is permitted to base her opinion on hearsay evidence and need not have personal knowledge of the facts underlying those opinions.”

JULY 28, 2023

Republished with permission

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

The BIA spends far too much time cooking up bogus ways to deny asylum and other forms of protection. This leaves a “vacuum” on providing sound advice and needed guidance for effectively presenting and fairly analyzing the large untapped potential for more grants of protection currently “bouncing around the EOIR backlog” or alternatively being mindlessly rushed through “dedicated deterrence dockets” with neither time for advocates to properly prepare nor opportunity for thoughtful analysis by IJs! It’s a real (totally preventable) “lose-lose” for our justice system and asylum applicants!

Fortunately those from outside EOIR, including Article III Judges, subject matter experts like Judge Sir Jeffrey, and his loyal colleagues in the Round Table 🛡 have stepped in to fill the void. Wouldn’t it be better (and easier) to just aggressively recruit and hire the right expert, experienced, due-process-focused candidates for EOIR judgeships in the first place?

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-30-23

🏴‍☠️👎🏻WITH KAKISTOCRACY HEADING INTO FINAL MONTH, BIA CONTINUES TO ISSUE NEGATIVE GUIDANCE ON EXPERT TESTIMONY — Matter of M-A-M-Z-, 28 I&N Dec. 173 (BIA 2020)

EYORE — “Eyore In Distress”
Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”

The Board of Immigration Appeals has issued a decision in Matter of M-A-M-Z-, 28 I&N Dec. 173 (BIA 2020).

(1) Expert testimony is evidence, but only an Immigration Judge makes factual findings.

(2) When the Immigration Judge makes a factual finding that is not consistent with an expert’s opinion, it is important, as the Immigration Judge did here, to explain the reasons behind the factual findings.

PANEL: MULLANE, CREPPY, and LIEBOWITZ, Appellate Immigration Judges

OPINION BY: Judge MULLANE

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

So, with the overt politicization and precipitous decline in reliability of DOS Country Reports, expert opinions have become of increasing importance in asylum cases. And, the are many great experts and groups providing alternatives to the skewed DOS reports these days.

So, what’s really needed in NOT more encouragement for IJs, many of whom lack real asylum expertise, to find ways to downgrade or dismiss experts. What is essential, is new guidance: 1) honestly recognizing that this Administration’s anti-asylum and inappropriate ideological agendas have undermined the credibility of DOS reports; and 2) describing ways in which IJs should be using alternatives, like expert testimony and reports, to support grants of protection to applicants who need and deserve them.

Credible applicants are supposed to be given the benefit of the doubt. Today’s EOIR has “made mincemeat” of that principle.

It is time to rethink the evidence so often submitted and relied upon in asylum claims, to dial back the corroboration demands, and to return to a core principle of refugee law – the need to afford asylum seekers the benefit of the doubt. We need a better way to establish asylum eligibility and challenge stereotypes.

https://clinics.law.harvard.edu/blog/2020/07/refugee-eligibility-challenging-stereotypes-and-reviving-the-benefit-of-the-doubt/

Appropriate guidance is not going to happen until the present BIA is replaced by real appellate judges who are experts on asylum law, due precess, fundamental fairness,and who have experience representing asylum seekers in the real world. Hopefully, that long overdue day, is within sight: “Hey hey, ho, the EOIR Clown Show has got to go!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-20-20

EOIR Clown Show Must Go T-Shirt — “EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept

🤮👎🏻EOIR’S CONTEMPT FOR CIRCUITS, UNPROFESSIONAL ABUSE OF EXPERTS, PRO-DHS BIAS EARNS STRONG REBUKE FROM 9TH! — End The Star Chambers!☠️ — No More “Governmental Malpractice” From The New Administration!

Kangaroos — BIA Members Unwind After Harassing Another Expert, Overruling Circuit Court, & Aiding Their “Partners” At ICE In Demeaning Justice
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/
Creative Commons License

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/11/18/19-72745.pdf

Castillo v.Barr, 9rh Cir., 11-18-20, published

Summary by court staff:

Granting Juan Mauricio Castillo’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of his application for protective status pursuant to the Convention Against Torture, and remanding, the panel held that the Board erred in giving reduced weight to the testimony of Dr. Thomas Boerman, a specialist in gang activity in Central America and governmental responses to gangs.

Castillo is a former gang member with tattoos who fears torture by gangs and/or Salvadoran officials because of his former gang memberships, his criminal conviction, and his later cooperation with law enforcement against La Mara Salvatrucha or MS-13. In a prior petition, the same panel concluded that the immigration judge and the Board improperly discounted Dr. Boerman’s testimony.

The panel addressed two initial matters. First, the panel stated that the Board’s rejection on remand of the panel’s prior interpretation of the immigration judge’s decision was ill-advised, explaining that its prior disposition was not an advisory opinion, but a conclusive decision not subject to disapproval or revision by another branch of the federal government. Second, the panel rejected the Board’s reliance on Vatyan v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir. 2007), to support its conclusion that Dr. Boerman’s testimony should be given reduced weight, because Vatyan addressed an IJ’s

** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

CASTILLO V. BARR 3

discretion to weigh the “credibility and probative force” of an authenticated document, whereas the issue in this case involved the testimony of an expert that the agency had ostensibly concluded was fully credible.

Even assuming the agency could accord reduced weight to Dr. Boerman’s testimony and declaration, the panel disagreed with the Board’s new justifications. First, the panel rejected the Board’s reliance on alleged inconsistencies regarding Dr. Boerman’s familiarity with Castillo’s prison gang, where Dr. Boerman explicitly wrote in his declaration that his comments on Castillo’s prison gang were based on facts provided by Castillo, and the Board did not cite any reason to doubt Castillo’s testimony regarding rival gangs.

Second, the panel disagreed with the Board’s conclusion that Dr. Boerman’s testimony did not warrant full weight because he did not submit a copy of a video referenced in his testimony, where the video was neither the sole nor primary basis for his opinion, and the Board failed to explain why the absence of one video diminished the weight of Dr. Boerman’s expert opinion, when his opinion had an independent factual basis.

Finally, the panel concluded that the Board’s decision to give Dr. Boerman’s opinion reduced weight, because it was not corroborated by other evidence in the record, was erroneous. The panel observed that the country report did provide support for Castillo’s claim, and it noted that Dr. Boerman’s expert testimony was itself evidence that could support Castillo’s claim.

The panel remanded to the Board, directing it to give full weight to Dr. Boerman’s testimony regarding the risk of

4 CASTILLO V. BARR

torture Castillo faces if removed to El Salvador. The panel explained that if the Board determines once again that Castillo is not entitled to relief, it must provide a reasoned explanation for why Dr. Boerman’s testimony is not dispositive on the issue of probability of torture. The panel further explained that once it gives full weight to Dr. Boerman’s testimony, the remaining issue for the Board is to determine whether Castillo has established the government acquiescence element of his CAT claim.

***********

Essentially, EOIR has been unethically misusing their authority to harass Dr. Boerman and respondents’ advocates by systematically teaming up with ICE to devalue and defeat their efforts. Remarkably, this is even though Dr. Boerman and the advocacy community are “busting their tails” trying to help the system function properly and achieve justice! How screwed up, perverted, and cowardly is that?

Obviously justice and a functioning system have been antithetical to this regime and their toadies at DOJ and EOIR. With the degradation of the DOS Country Reports by political hacks, expert testimony has become essential in most asylum cases. Disgraceful performances by EOIR, as in this case, undermine the system and add to the backlog.

This case should have been completed in a single hearing. The BIA’s open contempt for the Circuits and failure to send strong signals to IJs (and the dilatory litigators at ICE) about issues that clearly should be resolved in the respondent’s favor is a mockery of justice!

Put the experts from the NDPA in charge of EOIR! Replace the BIA with real judges from the NDPA — asylum, human rights, and due process experts who will courageously stand up for the rule of law and hold both Immigration Judges and ICE accountable for scofflaw performances (and resist improper political interference from the DOJ — regardless of Administration).

Judges who will re-establish judicial independence and stop flooding the Circuit Courts (and even the U.S. District Courts) with cases and issues that should be resolved in favor of respondents at the trial level, consistently and efficiently. That’s how to stop DHS’s and DOJ’s frivolous, unethical, anti-immigrant “litigation positions” in immigration matters that are bogging down our justice system at all levels.

That’s also how to cut, rather than astronomically increase, backlogs (along with drastic pruning of all the “deadwood” mindlessly and improperly piled onto the EOIR docket by Sessions, Barr, and an out of control ICE acting as an arm of “White Nationalist nation”). The backlogs can be reduced and eventually eliminated without stomping on anyone’s rights or adversely affecting “real” law enforcement — as opposed to the bogus (and fiscally irresponsible) version we have seen from DHS over the past four years.

Stop “churning” cases! Stop the “denial factory! Create a model, best judicial practices, due-process oriented court system of which we all can be proud! Grant asylum expeditiously and consistently to those who qualify for protection under Cardoza-Fonseca, Mogharrabi, Kasinga, and A-R-C-G- (after vacating the A-B- travesty and reissuing it as a precedent for clear grants in all similar cases)! Encourage the Asylum Offices to do likewise! Make “equal justice for all” part of the new Administration’s legacy!

Think of what a great “teaching tool” that will be for future generations! I always treated my “courtroom as a classroom,” teaching law, history, practical problem solving, best interpretations, and best practices. I can’t think of a more powerful “real life” teaching and doing tool for improving the future of American justice — from the “retail level” of the Immigration Courts to the failing Supremes.

Due Process Forever! A weaponized and dysfunctional EOIR, never!

It’s time for a sea change at EOIR. End the kakistocracy and the “malicious incompetence!” Time for action by the Biden Administration — not just hollow promises and more endless studies and discussions of what we already know and have known for years!

It’s not rocket science! The practical scholars and steadfast defenders of due process and democracy in the NDPA who can fix EOIR are out here and prepared to take over and hit the ground running for due process and fundamental fairness at EOIR! (Amazingly, those were once the goals and vision for EOIR, now trampled, degraded, mocked, and forgotten!) Leaving them on the sidelines again would be “governmental malpractice!” And we’ve already had more than enough of that!

PWS

11-19-20

DERELICTION OF DUTY: 4th Cir. Exposes BIA’s Incompetence & Anti-Asylum Bias, Yet Fails To Confront Own Complicity — SINDY MARILU ALVAREZ LAGOS; K.D.A.A., v. WILLIAM P. BARR

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/172291.P.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0V6wyNPGePFSgscsU5Qw-PQxasjIHuwnGXYQr4RraWbpMse6GOc4bAJqY

DIAZ, 4th Cir., 06-14-19, published

PANEL: GREGORY, Chief Judge, and DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

OPINION BY: PAMELA HARRIS, Circuit Judge

KEY QUOTE:

Sindy Marilu Alvarez Lagos testified credibly that she and her then-seven-year-old daughter, natives and citizens of Honduras, were threatened with gang rape, genital mutilation, and death if they did not comply with the extortionate demands of a Barrio 18 gang member. Unable to meet those demands and fearing for their lives, Alvarez Lagos and her daughter fled to the United States, where they sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

Now, almost five years later, an immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals have issued a total of three separate decisions denying Alvarez Lagos’s claims. The government defends none of those decisions, including the most recent, which came after we agreed, at the government’s request, to remand the case for reconsideration. Instead, the government admits that errors remain, but argues that we should leave them unaddressed and simply remand once again so that the agency may have a fourth opportunity to analyze Alvarez Lagos’s claims correctly.

We decline that request. A remand is required here on certain questions that have yet to be answered, or answered fully, by the agency. But we take this opportunity to review the agency’s disposition of other elements of Alvarez Lagos’s claims. For the reasons given below, we reverse the agency’s determination with respect to the “nexus” requirement for asylum and withholding of removal. And so that they will not recur on remand, we identify additional errors in the agency’s analysis of the “protected ground” requirement for the same forms of relief, and in the agency’s treatment of Alvarez Lagos’s claim under the Convention Against Torture.

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

It’s partially on the Article IIIs. Great decision in many ways. But, this type of injustice occurs daily in our unconstitutional U.S. Immigration Courts. How many Central American asylum applicants get this type of representation—Steve Shulman of Akin Gump for a pro bono lawyer, Tom Boerman as an expert? Not very many.

How many can be this persistent, particularly if detained or sent to Mexico to wait? Almost none! I think that if these respondents were in “Return to Mexico” they would have long ago been forced to give up and accept “Death Upon Return.”

This case should have been a “no brainer grant” five years ago. Could have been done at an Asylum Office (under a more rational system) or by DHS stipulation. THIS abuse of the legal system and gross waste of public resources by DHS and DOJ is the reason why we have unmanageable Immigration Court backlogs, not because asylum applicants and their representatives assert their legal rights.

The Office of Immigration Litigation (“OIL”) didn’t even bother to defend any of the EOIR actions here! So, after five years why is it “Due Process” for the Fourth Circuit to give the BIA yet another opportunity to come up with bogus reasons to deny asylum.

An Article III Court fulfilling its oath to uphold the laws and Constitution could have ordered this case to be granted and either exercised contempt authority against those at DOJ responsible for this mess or ordered an independent investigation into the judicial incompetence and bias evident here. At the least, the court should have removed any judge having had a role in this abomination from any future proceedings involving these respondents.

Cases such good as this also illustrate the continuing dereliction of duty by Article III Courts who continue to “go along top get along” with the absurdly unconstitutional position that unrepresented asylum applicants can receive “Due Process” in today’s overtly unfair and biased Immigration Courts. The Due Process clause applies to all persons in the U.S., and the right to a fair asylum hearing exceeds the rights at stake in 98% of the civil litigation and most of the criminal litigation in the Federal Courts. If the Article III Courts actually viewed asylum applicants as “persons,” that is “fellow human beings,” rather than dehumanized “aliens,” this farce would have ended decades ago! Folks represented by Steve Schulman and Akin Gump can’t get a “fair shake” from EOIR; what chance does any unrepresented applicant have?

You reap what you sow, and what goes around comes around! If Article III Courts want to be taken seriously and respected, they must step up to the plate and stop the systematic bias against asylum applicants (particularly women and children from Central America) and the abuses like this occurring every day in our unconstitutional U.S. Immigration Courts!

History is watching and making a record, even if those wronged by the Article IIIs all too often don’t survive or aren’t in a position to confront them with their dereliction of legal duties and the obligations human beings owe to each other.

PWS

06-17-19

TWO NEW FROM HON. JEFFREY CHASE — 8TH Cir. Blows Away BIA For Failure To Enforce R’s Right To Cross-Examine — The Importance Of Expert Testimony In Immigration Court!

Here’s Jeffrey”s analysis of the 8th Circuit case, Patel v. Sessions:

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2017/8/31/a-reasonable-opportunity-to-cross-examine

And here are his practice tips on expert witnesses:

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2017/8/24/theimportance-of-expert-witnesses

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

I love Jeffrey’s clear, concise, practical analysis of complex issues!

The Patel case raises a recurring issue: How can a supposedly “expert” tribunal obviously hurrying to produce final orders of removal for the Administration’s deportation machine (thereby, probably not coincidentally, insuring their own job security) keep ignoring clear statutory and constitutional rights of individuals as well as their own precedents and those of Courts of Appeals? Unfortunately, the situation is likely to get worse before it gets better.

The Administration has announced that it’s looking for ways to deal with the backlog not by any rational means, but by ramming still more cases through the already overloaded system. Although the DOJ mouths “due process” that’s not true. As long as we have “gonzo enforcement” with hundreds of thousands of cases on the Immigration Courts’ dockets that should be settled out of court through grants of relief or prosecutorial discretion, there will continue to be insurmountable backlogs. And, as long as the Immigration Courts are part of the Executive Branch, lacking true judicial independence to put a stop to some of the more outrageous ICE and DOJ policies and practices, the problem will not be solved. Due process can’t be put on an assembly line. The only questions are if and when the Article III Courts will put a stop to the due process travesty in the Immigration Courts. Or will they adopt the EOIR approach and “go along to get along.” Clearly, the Administration is banking on the latter.

I also note that the 8th Circuit is “hardly the 9th Circuit or even the 7th or 2d Circuits.” Indeed, the 8th routinely defers to the BIA. Many critics say that the 8th gives the BIA far too much deference. So, when the 8th Circuit starts finding gaping holes in the BIA’s approach to due process in Immigration Court, we know that “we’ve got trouble, right here in River City.”

PWS

09-01-17

From the William & Mary Law School Immigration Clinic Blog:

“Our Client’s Story Sang Instead of Whispered”: Immigration Clinic Students Represent Client in Asylum Trial

🇺🇸 DUE PROCESS FOREVER!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! A weaponized and dysfunctional EOIR, never!

It’s time for a sea change at EOIR. End the kakistocracy and the “malicious incompetence!” Time for action by the Biden Administration — not just hollow promises and more endless studies and discussions of what we already know and have known for years!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: