https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/
Creative Commons License.
Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:
CA3 on Mandatory Detention: Gayle v. Warden
“Under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), the Government must detain noncitizens who are removable because they committed certain specified offenses or have connections with terrorism, and it must hold them without bond pending their removal proceedings. This appeal asks us to decide what process is due when such detainees contend that they are not properly included within § 1226(c) and whether noncitizens who have substantial defenses to removal on the merits may be detained under § 1226(c). Because the District Court granted relief in the form of a class-wide injunction, we must also decide whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) permits class-wide injunctive relief. For the reasons set forth below, we agree with the District Court that § 1226(c) is constitutional even as applied to noncitizens who have substantial defenses to removal. But for those detainees who contend that they are not properly included within § 1226(c) and are therefore entitled to a hearing pursuant to In re Joseph, 22 I. & N. Dec. 799 (BIA 1999), we hold that the Government has the burden to establish the applicability of § 1226(c) by a preponderance of the evidence and that the Government must make available a contemporaneous record of the hearing, consisting of an audio recording, a transcript, or their functional equivalent. Because we also conclude that § 1252(f)(1) does not authorize class-wide injunctions, we will reverse the District Court’s order in part, affirm in part, and remand for the entry of appropriate relief.”
******************
As as interesting footnote, like most of my colleagues at the Arlington Immigration Court, I always recorded bond hearings, long before this court ordered it as required by due process. One of the first things one of my colleagues told me when I arrived at Arlington was “record everything that happens in open court.” Recording protects everyone in the courtroom, including the judge!
It also helped our Judicial Law Clerks and interns “reconstruct” the bond record and understand our reasoning in the infrequent event that a “bond appeal” were filed. Otherwise, the “bond memorandum” would have to be based on the IJ’s notes and his or her recollection of what had transpired.
Talk about a defective system that should have been changed ages ago! But, that’s EOIR! And, it’s not going to improve without some major personnel changes and dynamic leadership that actually understands what happens in Immigration Court and is willing to think creatively, progressively, and change long-outdated practices and procedures, many of them in effect since EOIR was created in the early 1980s!
Here’s my favorite quote from Judge Krause’s opinion:
Having considered the standards urged by the Government and by Plaintiffs, we settle on one in between: To comport with due process, the Government must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the detainee is properly included within § 1226(c) as both a factual and a legal matter. See Addington, 441 U.S. at 423–24. It must show, in other words, that it is more likely than not both that the detainee in fact committed a relevant offense under § 1226(c) and that the offense falls within that provision as a matter of law. Cf. Joseph, 22 I. & N. Dec. at 809 (Schmidt, Chairman, dissenting) (contending that the Government must “demonstrate[] a likelihood of success on the merits of its charge” at the Joseph hearing).
Here’s a link to the full opinion, including my separate opinion, in Matter of Joseph, 22 I&N Dec. 799 (BIA 1999) (Joseph II):
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2014/07/25/3398.pdf
Here’s the full text of my concurring/dissenting opinion (very “compact,” if I do say so myself):
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION: Paul W. Schmidt, Chairman; in which Fred W. Vacca, Gustavo D. Villageliu, Lory D. Rosenberg, and John Guendelsberger, Board Members, joined
I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part.
I join entirely in the majority’s rejection of the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s appellate arguments and in the unanimous conclusion that, on this record, the Service is substantially unlikely to prevail on the merits of the aggravated felony charge. Therefore, I agree that the respondent is not properly included in the category of aliens subject to mandatory detention for bond or custody purposes.
However, I do not share the majority’s view that the proper standard in a mandatory detention case involving a lawful permanent resident alien is that the Service is “substantially unlikely to prevail” on its charge. Matter of Joseph, 22 I&N Dec. 3398, at 10 (BIA 1999). Rather, the standard in a case such as the one before us should be whether the Service has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its charge that the respondent is removable because of an aggravated felony.
Mandatory detention of a lawful permanent resident alien is a drastic step that implicates constitutionally-protected liberty interests. Where the lawful permanent resident respondent has made a colorable showing in cus- tody proceedings that he or she is not subject to mandatory detention, the Service should be required to show a likelihood of success on the merits of its charge to continue mandatory detention. To enable the Immigration Judge to make the necessary independent determination in such a case, the Service should provide evidence of the applicable state or federal law under which the respondent was convicted and whatever proof of conviction that is available at the time of the Immigration Judge’s inquiry.
The majority’s enunciated standard of “substantially unlikely to prevail” is inappropriately deferential to the Service, the prosecutor in this matter. Requiring the Service to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of its charge would not unduly burden the Service and would give more appropriate weight to the liberty interests of the lawful permanent res- ident alien. Such a standard also would provide more “genuine life to the regulation that allows for an Immigration Judge’s reexamination of this issue,” as referenced by the majority. Matter of Joseph, supra, at 10.
The Service’s failure to establish a likelihood of success on the merits would not result in the release of a lawful permanent resident who poses a threat to society. Continued custody of such an alien would still be war- ranted under the discretionary criteria for detention.
In conclusion, mandatory detention should not be authorized where the Service has failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of its charge. Consequently, while I am in complete agreement with the decision to release this lawful permanent resident alien, and I agree fully that the Service is substantially unlikely to prevail on the merits of this aggravated felony charge, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s enunciation of “substantially unlikely to prevail” as the standard to be applied in all future cases involving mandatory detention of lawful permanent resident aliens.
“Pushback” from appellate judges actually committed to the then-EOIR vision of “guaranteeing fairness and due process for all,” was essential! Once the “Ashcroft purge” “dumbed down” the BIA and discouraged dissent and intellectual accountability, the system precipitously tanked! It got so bad that it actually provoked harsh criticism and objections from Circuit Judges across the political/ideological spectrum.
Eventually the Bush II DOJ was forced to back off a few steps from their all-out assault on immigrants’ rights. But, the damage was done, and there were no meaningful attempts to restore balance and quasi-judicial independence at EOIR thereafter. Indeed, Ashcroft’s Bush-era successors blamed the Immigration Judges for the meltdown engineered by Ashcroft, while sweeping their own role in creating “disorder in the courts” under the carpet in the best bureaucratic tradition!
EOIR continued to languish under Obama before going into a complete “death spiral” under the Trump DOJ kakistocracy.
Despite unanimous recommendations from experts that he make progressive reform and major leadership and personnel changes at EOIR one of his highest priorities, AG Garland has allowed the mess and the fatal absence of progressive, due-process-focused, expert judges and best practices at EOIR fester.
Long-deposed progressive judges willing to speak up for due process and fundamental fairness, even in the face of a “go along to get along” culture at DOJ, are still making their voices heard, even decades after they were sent packing! It’s tragic that Garland is letting the opportunity to create a long-overdue and necessary independent progressive judiciary at EOIR slip through his fingers. Progressive Dems might “dream” of transforming the Article III Judiciary; but, it’s not going to happen while Dems are running a “regressive judiciary” at the “retail level” in the one potentially powerful judiciary they do completely control.
Sadly, vulnerable individuals, many of them women, children, and people of color, will continue to suffer the brunt of Garland’s indifferent approach to judicial justice at EOIR. Beyond that, however, his failure to transform EOIR into an independent progressive court system willing to stand up for constitutional due process, equal justice, racial equity, best judicial practices, and the rule of law undermines democracy and diminishes the rights of everyone in America!
🇺🇸Due Process Forever!
PWS
09-08-21