"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
Georgetown LawProfessor Philip G. Schrag Georgetown Law Co-Director, CALS Asylum ClinicProfessor from Practice; Director, Human Rights Institute; Director, Center for Applied Legal Studies PHOTO: GeorgetownLawProfessor Jaya Ramji-NogalesAssociate Dean for Academic Affairs I. Herman Stern Research Professor Temple Law PHOTO: Temple Law
WASHINGTON – On Thursday, April 15, 2021, three law professors from Georgetown Law and Temple University will discuss their new book, The End of Asylum, the Trump administration’s legacy on asylum policy, and where the Biden administration goes from here.
WHAT
Migration at the southern border and asylum are again front page news. The Biden administration claims that mounting numbers of children and families in immigration detention facilities and shelters is attributable to the Trump administration’s destruction of the asylum system. In their new book, The End of Asylum, three law professors analyze the nature, scope, and lawlessness of that destruction and the end of the promise that Congress made, in the Refugee Act of 1980, to welcome migrants who feared persecution abroad. They also propose steps that the Biden administration can take, both alone and in cooperation with Congress, to restore and improve a robust system of asylum in America.
The event is co-sponsored by Online and On Topic, Georgetown School of Foreign Service; Migration and Refugee Policy Initiative, Georgetown McCourt School of Public Policy; Georgetown University’s Institute for the Study of International Migration; and Temple University Beasley School of Law.
WHO
Philip G. Schrag
Georgetown Law Delaney Family Professor of Public Interest Law; Co-Director, Center for Applied Legal Studies (Georgetown Law’s asylum clinic)
Andrew I. Schoenholtz
Gerogetown Law Professor from Practice; Director of the Human Rights Institute and Co-Director of Center for Applied Legal Studies at Georgetown Law
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and the I. Herman Stern Research Professor at Temple University’s Beasley School of Law
Al Bertrand (moderator)
Director of Georgetown University Press
Georgetown University Law Center is a global leader in legal education based in the heart of the U.S. capital. As the nation’s largest law school, Georgetown Law offers students an unmatched breadth and depth of academic opportunities taught by a world-class faculty of celebrated theorists and leading legal practitioners. Second to none in experiential education, the Law Center’s numerous clinics are deeply woven into the Washington, D.C., landscape. Close to 20 centers and institutes forge cutting-edge research and policy resources across fields including health, the environment, human rights, technology, national security and international economics. Georgetown Law equips students to succeed in a rapidly evolving legal environment and to make a profound difference in the world, guided by the school’s motto, “Law is but the means, justice is the end.”
Only one major problem: Phil, Andy, Jaya, and others like them should be running EOIR & the BIA by now, putting their “practical scholarship” and organizational skills into action to reform this disgracefully dysfunctional, life and democracy-threatening system and to restore due process, professional competence, and the rule of law to the U.S. Immigration Courts where it has disappeared!
As I’ve said many time before: It’s not rocket science, 🚀 but it has (quite avoidably) become “mission impossible” with the indolent, tone-deaf, approach that Judge Garland and his team have exhibited at the DOJ to date. Par for the course in Dem Administrations. But, bad news for those of us who believe in due process, social justice, and equal justice for all persons in America. (Hey, isn’t that right out of the Constitution?)
It’s like nobody in the Biden Adminhistration ever toured the “St. Louis Exhibit” or the exhibits in the “German Judiciary” sections of the Holocaust Museum. Perhaps Judge Garland and others need a “VIP Tour,” after hours!
🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!
DISCLAIMER: My views as expressed above are solely my own and do not represent the position of any of the panelists, Georgetown Law, or any person or entity, living or dead, of any importance whatsoever!
Asked repeatedly (by me and others) what accounts for Biden’s delay, White House officials have struggled to answer. Sometimes they try to blame Trump, complaining that his administration left a system in “disrepair” that requires “rebuilding.” No doubt, Trump wrought a lot of damage upon the immigration system, and more resources would be necessary to reach the much higher refugee admissions that Biden claims he wants for the next fiscal year (125,000); currently, there aren’t enough people sufficiently far along in the refugee-screening pipeline to meet that goal.
But none of this explains why the few thousand already fully vetted and deemed “travel-ready” by the State Department as of early March have not been allowed in. The only thing preventing their entry is Biden — who refuses to do the right thing and sign a simple document.
The only explanation I can fathom for what’s going on is that the White House fears ordinary Americans will confuse the refugee resettlement system with the surge of migrants at the southern border. “Refugees” and “asylum seekers” might sound synonymous, but the groups are subject to different sets of laws, screening procedures and executive authorities. One key difference is that refugees apply from abroad and are screened for eligibility before they arrive; asylum seekers apply from within our borders or at a port of entry.
In other words, refugees are doing precisely what both Biden and Republicans urge those fleeing persecution and violence to do: staying abroad, and not crossing into the United States unlawfully; proving to U.S. and international officials that their lives are indeed in danger, and that they meet the legal requirements for resettlement; enduring extensive screening to prove they don’t threaten national security or public health; and then patiently waiting their turn for admission, a process that usually takes years.
And how is Biden rewarding them? The same way Trump did: by slamming the door.
*********************
Read Catherine’s complete article at the link.
[The Biden Administration] fears ordinary Americans will confuse the refugee resettlement system with the surge of migrants at the southern border.
Wow. In 50 years of “hanging around” the migration/human rights/political scene in D.C., I’ve heard plenty of insanely lame, cowardly excuses for not doing the right thing. But, this is “Top Five” material!
I have ideas on how to solve this problem, quickly:
Invest the “big bucks” to hire Catherine as the Biden Administration’s “Head Immigration Flackie.” She can explain the situation in terms that the American people will understand. That’s what Catherine does! Brings clarity, humanity, and common sense to complicated situations that flummox politicos and press offices.
Alternatively, get a “Loaner Law Student” from the Georgetown Law CALS Asylum Clinic. In two decades of working with CALS students in court, the classroom, and elsewhere, I’ve never run into one who doesn’t have a deeper understanding of, and better ability to explain, refugee and asylum policy than any of the “inept talking heads” the Biden Administration has thrown into the fray so far.
Georgetown Law
Another alternative: Hire Don Kerwin, currently the Executive Director of the Center for Migration Studies (“CMS”) to fix and explain the Administration’s (so far) mind-boggling failure to re-establish our refugee and asylum programs — actually both legal and moral obligations (although you wouldn’t know that by listening to the mindless negative natter from politicos of both parties). Don probably knows more than any living person about the amazing, quantifiable, benefits that refugees and asylees bring to our nation and is an expert at puncturing all of the White Nationalist myths and fear-mongering that have driven these essential programs into complete failure over the past few years.
Donald M. Kerwin Executive Director Center for Migration Studies
It’s also worthy of note that because of the Trump Administration’s “malicious incompetence” combined with the Biden Administration’s “willful incompetence,” against the background of an Attorney General unwilling to speak out and stand up for the legal rights of refugees, asylum seekers, and people of color in general, (just what is the purpose of an Attorney General who won’t stand up for the people — some of us thought, erroneously I guess, that we had voted that “model” out of office last November) we have no refugee program in Latin America and we have illegally closed ports of entry to legal asylum seekers.
So there is no regular system for asylum seekers to apply in an orderly fashion in accordance with our international, statutory, and Constitutional (not to mention moral) obligations. In violation of the mandatory provisions of Article 33 of the U.N. Convention, incorporated by the Refugee Act of 1980, every day we return legitimate refugees to danger, torture, or death without any inquiry at all. The “law violators” here aren’t the desperate folks vainly, yet gamely, trying to apply for asylum under our lawless system. It’s us!
Maybe, that’s why the Biden Administration doesn’t want anyone to understand what they really are doing and how wrong-headed it is!🤮👎🏴☠️
Courtside has learned that BIA Appellate Immigration Judge Edward F. Kelly has retired. Although his retirement will not become “official” until the end of this month, his “last day on the job” was yesterday, March 18.
He has been on the BIA since 2017, and with EOIR for 31 of his 34 years of Government service. He served in a number of management positions during my tenure as BIA Chair. He also was a Deputy Chief Immigration Judge immediately prior to his BIA appointment.
Judge Kelly will continue to teach “Refugee Law & Policy” (“RLP”) at Georgetown Law as an Adjunct Professor. That class has a long and distinguished history, having been taught in the past by,among others, Professor Andy Schoenholtz, Professor Susan Forbes Martin, the late Professor (and former EOIR Director and BIA Chair) Juan Osuna, and, of course me (2012-14).
Significantly, the students in RLP were the inspiration for the “New Due Process Army” (“NDPA”). Many of them have gone on to make huge impacts on the law, human rights, and social justice literally worldwide (visiting foreign scholars were an integral part of the “RLP student body,” just as they have been in my current class “Immigration Law & Policy.”)
Congratulations and welcome to the wonderful world of retirement, Judge Kelly. Glad to have you as a faculty colleague at the Georgetown Law “Immigration Consortium” that includes, of course, CALS Asylum Clinic Co-Directors Professors Andy Schoenholtz, Phil Schrag, and others!
Here’s Judge Kelly’s bio from the Georgetown Law website:
Board Member, Board of Immigration Appeals, U.S. Department of Justice; Adjunct Professor of Law
Edward F. Kelly
B.A., Notre Dame; J.D., Notre Dame
Edward Kelly is currently an appellate immigration judge (Board Member) at the Board of Immigration Appeals, the highest administrative tribunal on immigration law in the United States and a component of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review.
He has served in several immigration positions in the Executive Office for Immigration Review over the last thirty years, including tenures as Deputy Chief Immigration Judge, Assistant Chief Immigration Judge, Senior Counsel and Chief of Staff in the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge, Acting Director of the Office of Administration, and senior legal advisor and attorney advisor to the Board of Immigration Appeals.
His experiences outside the agency include positions as an assistant counsel to the United States House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and International Law, and as a high school teacher of humane letters at Trinity School at Meadow View, Falls Church, Virginia. Prior to his legal career, he served as a volunteer teacher with the United States Peace Corps in Gabon, Africa.
******
Let’s hope that Judge Garland does a better job with his initial Appellate Immigration Judge appointments than he did with his first Immigration Judge Appointment. It’s time to treat these appointments with the seriousness they deserve and to bring in the “best and the brightest” from the NDPA to turn the BIA around and return it to the noble mission of “through teamwork and innovation, being the world’s best tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.”
Donald M. Kerwin Executive Director Center for Migration Studies
In a new essay for the Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS), CMS’s Executive Director Donald Kerwin writes:
The number of unaccompanied children and asylum-seekers crossing the US-Mexico border in search of protection has increased in recent weeks. The former president, his acolytes, and both extremist and mainstream media have characterized this situation as a “border crisis,” a self-inflicted wound by the Biden administration, and even a failure of US asylum policy. It is none of these things. Rather, it is a response to compounding pressures, most prominently the previous administration’s evisceration of US asylum and anti-trafficking policies and procedures, and the failure to address the conditions that are displacing residents of the Northern Triangle states of Central America (El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras), as well as Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, and other countries…
The real immigration crisis is not at the border, but in the failure to respond effectively to the conditions driving forced migration, to establish orderly and viable legal immigration policies, to legalize the increasingly long-tenured undocumented population, and to reform and invest sufficiently in the US asylum and immigration court systems.
Thanks Don for speaking out against the scandalous GOP complete “border BS,” all too often parroted by the so-called “mainstream press.” Read the rest of Don’s essay at the link.
Don has spent his entire career solving migration and human rights problems. The Biden Administration and everyone who believes in American democracy should listen to “practical experts” like Don, rather than ignorant, racially-motivated GOP politicos and White Nationalist nativists spouting the “same old, same old” myths, fear-mongering, and unhelpful “non-solutions.”
If xenophobic rhetoric, cruelty, officially-sanctioned child abuse, evading our own legal and humanitarian responsibilities, and “enforcement only” were the “solutions,” the “problem at the Southern Border” — which has existed in one form or another for over a half century, would long ago have been solved. We can’t solve humanitarian situations that create forced migration with unilateral law enforcement gimmicks and cruelty toward the humans fighting for their lives. Human migration long pre-existed the formation of nation states and establishment of national boundaries.
Administration after administration, of both parties, have squandered time and taxpayer money on unsuccessful efforts to “enforce their way” out of forced migration situations. Contrary to GOP blather, Democratic Administrations have been almost as fixated as the GOP with unsuccessfully “detaining, deterring, and enforcing” their way out of human problems that demand more thoughtful human solutions.
All Administrations at some point prematurely claim that their efforts have “succeeded.” None actually have succeeded in addressing the causes of the migration. Therefore, none of these “false solutions” proves “durable.”
Significantly, Don is one of the few commentators to fully grasp the integral connection between the Trump regime’s complete destruction of the integrity of the Immigration Courts and its lawless, yet highly ineffective, border policies.
Real solutions don’t kill, harm, and maim refugees and forced migrants, encourage criminal cartels and corrupt foreign officials to prey on them, and stack up desperate humans in dangerous conditions just across the border because US Government officials were too biased and incompetent to operate under any semblance of the rule of law.
We can abide by our own laws, international norms, our Constitution, human decency, and common sense. It isn’t rocket science.
But, it does require a combination of expertise, courage, humanity, and practical problem solving that has been conspicuously absent from our governing structure since 2017, and severely undervalued before that.
Also, it’s certainly not that the Biden Administration has suddenly re-established due process and the rule of law at the border. Far from it!
The vast majority of those arriving at the border, even those who are applying at legal ports of entry, are unceremoniously and summarily removed without any process at all, let alone due process of law. This is all based on a largely bogus Trump-initiated exercise of authority by the CDC to use COVID-19 as a pretext to suspend the rule of law and constitutional due process at the border.
Moreover, we shouldn’t forget that even with the Biden Administration’s gradual efforts to re-establish a legal process for asylum seekers, unaccompanied children are still being held in Government detention for far longer than the 72-hours permitted under law. This problem won’t be solved, as some GOP nativists incredibly suggest, by dumping kids back across the Mexican Border, returning them to danger in their home countries without regard to their individual situations, or forcing them to turn to smugglers to make their way to relative safety in the interior of the U.S.
Nor will it be solved by long-term detention in disgraceful and inhumane “Baby Jails!” Ask my Georgetown Law colleague and author Professor Phil Schrag of the CALS Asylum Clinic about that!
Interestingly, some of the biggest complainers spreading the “open borders myth” are Greg Abbott and other Texas GOP politicos who have prematurely “reopened their state” in the middle of a pandemic in blatant contravention of best medical and public health advice. So, you can summarily dismiss their “crocodile tears” and bogus “hand wringing” about public health and safety.
That’s particularly true since the GOP is just coming off a massive example of how their incompetent mis-governance of Texascaused unnecessary misery and loss of life among Texas residents as a result of a highly predictable and long-foreseen “weather emergency.” Why does the mainstream media often continue to treat these “political hacks,” who couldn’t “govern” their way out of a paper bag, as credible spokespersons on anything, let alone human rights situations of which they have no expertise whatsoever?
🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever! Re-Establish The Rule Of Law, Including Full, Robust Humanitarian Protections At The Border& In Our Disgracefully Dysfunctional Immigration “Courts.”
The Wrong Answer to the Right Question: How to Address the Failure of Protection for Gender-Based Claims?
By Professor Karen Musalo, Bank of America Professor of International Law, Director of the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, UC Hastings
In 1996 I was honored to litigate the first case at the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), Matter of Kasinga,[1] that opened the door to protection for women fleeing gender-based harms. To qualify for recognition as a refugee under U.S. law, an individual must establish “persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution” on account of one of five grounds – “race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.”[2] This definition in the 1980 Refugee Act essentially adopts the standard set forth in the 1951 UN Refugee Convention[3] and its 1967 U.N. Refugee Protocol,[4] which the U.S. ratified in 1968.
The woman seeking asylum in the Kasinga case fled female genital cutting and forced marriage. In a ground-breaking decision, the BIA ruled that cutting was persecution, and it was “on account of” her membership in a gender-defined social group. In so ruling, the BIA was following the guidance that UNHCR has issued over a number of years, noting that the absence of gender as a protected ground should not impede protection for women fleeing persecution, because the particular social group ground encompasses gender-defined groups.[5]
The Kasinga decision was a breakthrough for women, and a highwater mark in U.S. adjudicators following international guidance. It also raised expectations that U.S. law would continue to evolve and extend protection to women fleeing the many forms of gender-based violence to which they are subject. However, that has not been the case, and there have been retreats from protection across administrations, although undoubtedly we witnessed the most dramatic attempts to end protection in gender claims during the Trump administration, which issued extremely limiting Attorney General decisions, such as Matter of A-B- I,[6] and Matter of A-B- II –[7] as well as regulations[8] – currently enjoined[9]—that explicitly rule out gender-based claims.
The Biden administration has committed itself to reviewing the issue of protection for those fleeing gender-based violence.[10] As we consider how to remedy the issue, some argue for a legislative amendment to the refugee definition, adding gender as a sixth ground to the statute’s five protected grounds of race, religion, nationality, political opinion and membership in a particular social group. This is the wrong solution. It would not only repeat the errors of the past (amending the refugee definition in 1996, discussed below), but it would also fail to adequately protect survivors of gender-based violence. At the same time, it would lead to the quite foreseeable consequence of leaving many deserving asylum seekers outside the ambit of refugee protection. It is also likely to signal to other Convention State parties that unless they also add a sixth ground, they could deny protection to women and girls without running afoul of the treaty’s obligations.
In order to prescribe a remedy, one first has to diagnose the illness; in order to understand why the sixth ground solution is wrong, we need to examine what occurred after Kasinga that limited protection in subsequent claims involving women fleeing gender-based persecution. . . . .
**********************
Read the rest of Karen’s outstanding analysis at the link.
Here’s a question from last summer’s “Jeopardy style” final exam in Immigration Law & Policy @ Georgetown Law:
A: Judge Schmidt’s favorite case.
Q: What is Matter of Kasinga?
Happy to say that everyone got that one right! Of course, I wrote the decision in Matter of Kasinga!
Karen’s bottom line: “We should be working to bring the U.S. into compliance with UNHCR’s social group interpretation, rather than surrendering to its flawed interpretation, by adding a sixth ground.”
The key is better Federal Judges, from the Immigration Courts all the way up to the Supremes: Judges who are “practical scholars” in human rights and applied due process; judges who have represented asylum seekers, particularly women, and understand their plight.
That’s a nice gesture. But, as I always say, actions are what really counts. So here are actions that Judge Garland can take immediately as Attorney General to finally fulfill the promise of Matter of Kasinga:
Vacate the atrocious, misogynist, perversion of asylum law (not to mention facts of record) by Sessions in Matter of A-B-;
Appoint some female “practical scholars in human rights” to appellate judgeships on the BIA.
That’s how to really honor Women’s History Month!
To understand the human impact of Sessions’s grotesque misconstruction of asylum law and the relevant facts in Matter of A-B-, check out this video short featuring Karen and others along with Ms. A-B-: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRQpXRWlQL0
I generally agree with Karen’s concerns about specific gender-based legislation potentially having an unintended negative effect. That is certainly the fate of past unsuccessful attempts to include gender-based asylum in the regulations.
They essentially were “hijacked” by DOJ litigators and enforcement-oriented policy officials looking for ways to facially appease women’s rights groups, while actually proposing to restrict eligibility and make it easier for OIL and the SG’s Office to defend denials of asylum. They also sought to create hyper-technical requirements that would have effectively made it impossible for any unrepresented individual to properly set forth a “cognizable particular social group.”
These, in and of themselves, are reasons for removing the Immigration Courts from the DOJ and creating an independent Article I structure. The “ultimate insult to injury” was when EOIR enthusiastically participated in Stephen Miller’s currently-enjoined attempt to completely write gender-based asylum out of the law. Absurdly, that came at a time when gender-based persecution has become endemic throughout the world!
Not surprisingly, the DOJ, a prosecutorial agency at heart, is most often interested in “litigation strategies” to make it easier for the Government to successfully defend the burgeoning immigration litigation in Federal Court, rather than guaranteeing justice for asylum seekers and other migrants. Quite ironically, what would really reduce the volume of civil immigration litigation is more practical, expert decision making from better qualified Immigration Judges at the “retail level” of the system.
Gimmicks to “game” the Federal Court system against asylum seekers and other migrants by skirting due process and fundamental fairness have actually contributed to, rather than reduced, the amount of civil immigration litigation the Circuits. It has also generated many avoidable “Circuit conflicts” that require attention on Supremes’ limited docket. The failure of the DOJ, the Immigration Courts, and the Federal Courts to recognize and protect the due process rights of asylum seekers and other migrants has directly carried over into the failure of our justice system to achieve equal justice under law for racial minorities.
“Institutionalized racism” is inextricably linked to “Dred Scottification” of migrants of color in the Immigration Courts! The Biden Administration can’t solve the former without addressing the latter!
Bad judging and skewed policies on the “retail level” create multiple problems that adversely affect the entire Federal Justice system. I guarantee that they will not be solved by more restrictionist gimmicks and and unduly narrow and tone-deaf interpretations by judges and policy officials who lack the necessary expertise in immigration and human rights laws and the real-life understanding and perspective of the human consequences of the choices that judges make on a daily basis.
But, I also think that in addition to better judges, it is important to revise the statutory language to make it more explicitly inclusive and clarify that gender-based asylum, family based asylum, and other protected groups are examples, but not limits, of those covered by “particular social group.” Also, the statute should reverse the BIA’s stilted restrictionist interpretations (all too often incorrectly given “deference” by Circuit Courts shirking their duty) of “nexus” as a vehicle to deny asylum rather than an expansive concept that can and should be used to extend life-saving protections where necessary.
Otherwise, as Trump, Sessions, Barr, and Miller demonstrated, needed protection becomes largely a matter of who is appointing the judges at any particular point in time. Protection must and should be more durable — for all refugees including, but not limited, to those seeking gender-based protection!
Better Federal Judges are the beginning, but by no means the end, of what is needed to make due process, fundamental fairness, and genuine refugee protections the hallmarks of American law. They are also required to turn institutionalized racism into equal justice for all persons in America, regardless of race, religion, gender, or other defining personal characteristics.
🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever! Asylum Laws Must Protect, Not Reject!🧑🏽⚖️🛡
BIA Asylum Panel In Action Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons“Oh Boy! Three material mistakes in one asylum case! Do you think our superiors in the enforcement bureaucracy will give us extra credit on our ‘move ‘em out without due process quotas?’ Being a Deportation Judge sure is fun!” https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
Arita-Deras v. Wilkinson, 4th Cir., 03-05-21, Published
PANEL:GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges
OPINION BY: Judge Barbara Milano Keenan
KEY QUOTE:
Maria Del Refugio Arita-Deras, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of a final order of removal entered by the Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board).1 The Board affirmed an immigration judge’s (IJ) conclusion that Arita-Deras was not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Board: (1) agreed with the IJ that Arita-Deras failed to support her claims with sufficient corroborating evidence; (2) found that Arita-Deras failed to prove that she suffered from past persecution because she had not been harmed physically; and (3) concluded that Arita-Deras failed to establish a nexus between the alleged persecution and a protected ground.
Upon our review, we conclude that the Board improperly discounted Arita-Deras’ corroborating evidence, applied an incorrect legal standard for determining past persecution, and erred in its nexus determination. Accordingly, we grant Arita-Deras’ petition and remand her case to the Board for further proceedings.
***************************
After eight years of bouncing around the system at various levels THIS “NotQuite Good Enough For Government Work” error-fest is what we get from EOIR! As I keep saying, no wonder they are running a 1.3 million case backlog, clogging the Circuit Courts with incredibly shoddy work, and in many cases sending vulnerable refugees back to death or torture under incorrect fact findings and blatantly wrong legal interpretations!
Again, nothing profound about this claim; just basic legal and analytical errors that often flow from the “think of any reason to deny” culture. EOIR just keeps repeating the same basic mistakes again and again even after being “outed” by the Circuits!
This case illustrates why the unrealistically high asylum denial numbers generated by the biased EOIR system and parroted by DHS should never be trusted. This respondent, appearing initially without a lawyer, was actually coerced by an Immigration Judge into accepting a “final order” of removal with a totally incorrect, inane, mis-statement of the law. “Haste makes waste,” shoddy, corner cutting procedures, judges deficient in asylum legal knowledge, and a stunning lack of commitment to due process and fundamental fairness are a burden to our justice system in addition to being a threat to the lives of individual asylum seekers.
Only when she got a lawyer prior to removal was this respondent able to get her case reopened for a full asylum hearing. Even then, the IJ and the BIA both totally screwed up the analysis and entered incorrect orders. Only because this respondent was fortunate enough to be assisted by one of the premier pro bono groups in America, the CAIR Coalition, was she able to get some semblance of justice on appeal to the Circuit Court!
I’m very proud to say that a member of the “CAIR Team,” Adina Appelbaum, program Director, Immigration Impact Lab, is my former Georgetown ILP student, former Arlington Intern, and a “charter member” of the NDPA! If my memory serves me correctly, she is also a star alum of the CALS Asylum Clinic @ Georgetown Law. No wonder Adina made the Forbes “30 Under 30” list of young Americans leaders! She and others like her in the NDPA are ready to go in and start cleaning up and improving EOIR right now! Judge Garland take note!
Adina Appelbaum Director, Immigration Impact Lab CAIR Coalition PHOTO: “30 Under 30” from Forbes
Despite CAIR’s outstanding efforts, Ms. Arita-Deras still is nowhere near getting the relief to which she should be entitled under a proper application of the law by expert judges committed to due process. Instead, after eight years, she plunges back into EOIR’s 1.3 million case “never never land” where she might once again end up with Immigration Judges at both the trial and appellate level who are not qualified to be hearing asylum cases because they don’t know the law and they are “programmed to deny” to meet their “deportation quotas” in support of ICE Enforcement.
Focus on it folks! This is America; yet individuals on trial for their lives face a prosecutor and a “judge” who are on the same side! And, they are often forced to do it without a lawyer and without even understanding the complex proceedings going on around them! How is this justice? It isn’t! So why is it allowed to continue?
Also, let’s not forget that under the recently departed regime, EOIR falsely claimed that having an attorney didn’t make a difference in success rates for respondents. That’s poppycock! Actually, as the Vera Institute recently documented the success rate for represented respondents is an astounding 10X that of unrepresented individuals. In any functional system, that differential would be more than sufficient to establish a “prima facie” denial of due process any time an asylum seeker (particularly one in detention) is forced to proceed without representation.
Yet, this miscarriage of justice occurs every day in Immigration Courts throughout America! Worse yet, EOIR and DHS have purposely “rigged” the system in various ways to impede and discourage effective representation.
To date, while flagging EOIR for numerous life-threatening errors, the Article IIIs have failed to come to grips with the obvious: The current EOIR system provides neither due process nor fundamental fairness to the individuals coming before these “courts” (that aren’t “courts” at all)!
Acting AG Wilkinson has piled up an impressive string of legal defeats in immigration matters in just a short time on the job. It’s going to be up to Judge Garland to finally make it right. It’s urgent for both our nation and the individuals whose rights are being stomped upon by a broken system on a daily basis!
I am reaching out again to ask for your help in recruiting adjunct professors for VIISTA, the new online certificate program I created at Villanova University to train immigrant advocates. The program launched in the fall and will start again in May. We expect to need 3-5 additional adjunct professors to start in May, August and/or January.
The VIISTA certificate program is aimed at people who are passionate about immigrant justice but are not interested in pursuing a law degree at the moment, such as recent college grads, people seeking an encore career, retirees and the many who currently work with migrants and want to understand more about the immigration laws that impact them. It is also attractive to students seeking to take a gap year or two between college and law school or high school and college.
VIISTA is offered entirely online and is asynchronous, allowing students to work at their own pace and at times that are most convenient for them. I piloted the curriculum during last academic year and the students loved it. It launches full time in August, and will subsequently be offered each semester, so students can start in August, January, and May.
The Adjunct Professors will work with me to teach cohorts of students as they move through the 3-Module curriculum. Module 1 focuses on how to work effectively with immigrants. Module 2 is designed to teach the immigration law and policy needed for graduates to apply to become partially accredited representatives. Module 3 has more law, and a lot of trial advocacy for those who want to apply for full DOJ accreditation. Each Module is comprised of 2×7-week sessions and students report that they have worked between 10-15 hours/week on the course materials. As an adjunct professor, you will provide feedback weekly on student work product, conduct live office hours with students and work to build engagement and community among the students in your cohort. Tuition for each Module is $1270, it is $3810 for the entire 3-Module certificate program.
I would love for you to help me by sharing this with former students and immigration lawyers in your networks. Here is a link to the job posting:
Also, please note that scholarships are being offered through the Augustinian Defenders of the Rights of the Poor to select students who are sponsored to take VIISTA by recognized organizations. For more information on the scholarships, visit this page, https://www.rightsofthepoor.org/viista-scholarship-program
My best,
Michele
Michele
Michele R. Pistone
Professor of Law
Villanova University, Charles Widger School of Law
Founding Faculty Director, VIISTA: Villanova Interdisciplinary Immigration Studies Training for Advocates
Michele tells me that the time commitment is approximately 8-10 hrs/week, and significantly, the teaching can be done from anywhere you have an internet connection!
For those of you who haven’t taught law online, I was amazingly pleased by my experience last summer at Georgetown Law. Of course, I attribute that almost all to the remarkable skills of the students in creating dialogue and sharing information. They also did it with humor, creativity, and “presence,” showing that they understood the ”performing artist” aspects of lawyering, judging, and teaching!
I also benefitted from the outstanding technical support, instruction, and patience from the Georgetown Law staff! I know that Michele’s technical support is also some the most talented out there on the internet!
And, the best part of the job would, in my view, be working with Michele who is one of the best, most creative, and most “constructively disruptive”minds in American law, as well as being just a wonderful human being! I learn something new every time I speak with her!
Michele’s goal for VIISTA is to get 10,000 more trained accredited representatives out there representing asylum seekers in 10 years (or fewer). Let’s help her get there!
“Willian Rubio Barahona petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) upholding the denial of his request for asylum and withholding of removal, based on a finding that serious reasons exist to believe Barahona committed a serious nonpolitical crime outside the United States. We hold that the “serious reasons for believing” standard requires a finding of probable cause before an alien can be subject to the mandatory bar set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(iii), and 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(d)(2). Because no such finding was made below, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.”
“Plaintiff-Appellant New York Legal Assistance Group (“NYLAG”) seeks access to non-precedential “unpublished opinions” issued by Defendant-Appellee the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) in immigration cases. NYLAG wants to consult the opinions, which are not routinely made available to the public, to aid in its representation of low-income clients in removal and asylum proceedings. NYLAG asserts that the BIA’s failure to make the opinions publicly available violates the agency’s affirmative obligation under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2), to “make available for public inspection in an electronic format final opinions . . . [and] orders, made in the adjudication of cases.” In this action under FOIA’s remedial provision, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B), which authorizes district courts “to enjoin the agency from withholding agency records and to order the production of any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant,” NYLAG seeks an order requiring the BIA to make available to the public all unpublished opinions issued since November 1, 1996, as well as future unpublished opinions. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Paul A. Crotty, J.) dismissed the case, concluding that FOIA’s remedial provision does not authorize district courts to order agencies to make records publicly available. We conclude that FOIA’s remedial provision authorizes the relief NYLAG seeks. FOIA’s text, read in light of its history and purpose, empowers district courts to order agencies to comply with their affirmative disclosure obligations under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2), including the obligation to make certain documents publicly available. We therefore VACATE the judgment of the district court and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
********************
Why would the BIA even want to withhold unpublished decisions or bar someone from asylum based on less than probable cause? Why would anyone want to further impede the already difficult task of representing the most vulnerable in Immigration Court? What if the resources wasted on litigation to diminish due process were “repurposed” to working with NYLAG and other pro bono all-stars to achieve universal representation? Much of what EOIR does these days makes little or no sense unless looked at from a White Nationalist nativist perspective.
When will it end? The Biden Administration proclaimed a “new day” on immigration and human rights issues. But, you sure can’t tell from the junk continuing to come out of the BIA and being defended in court by OIL. No matter how welcome the change in tone from the President is, it requires concerted action and getting better judges, administrators, and litigators in place to actually change policies, produce fairer results, and save lives!
Congrats to Allison Heimes and the good folks at Fair Trials Americas.
Also, congrats to my former Georgetown Law superstar, Arlington Intern, & NY JLC, Elizabeth Gibson (“The Gibson Report”) and her colleagues at the NY Legal Assistance Group!
Elizabeth Gibson Attorney, NY Legal Assistance Group Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever! We need “a little less talk and a lot more action!”
As the Migration Policy Institute has shown, the Trump-era changes to the immigration system numbered in the hundreds and consisted of dramatic reinterpretations of the laws alongside seemingly clerical changes, such as revised application forms for visas, higher fees and tighter deadlines in immigration courts — all to advance a maximalist enforcement agenda and slow down the ordinary gears of immigrant admissions. High-level White House advisers, working with knowledgeable allies in the Homeland Security and Justice departments, pushed out regulation after regulation to render asylum laws more restrictive and make it harder for noncitizens to present their case in immigration courts. Trump’s attorneys general exerted unprecedented authority to define asylum laws to severely limit claims by victims of domestic and gang violence, and to constrain immigration judges’ ability to grant relief and manage their dockets in a way that provides a semblance of due process.
. . . .
And yet, the new administration’s policy agenda will not be complete unless legislative proposals are accompanied by concerted executive action across the administrative state, and not just because ambitious legislation on any issue faces an uphill climb in a Senate with the narrowest of Democratic majorities. Even when it comes to pass, legislation emerges from a bargain, leaving issues unaddressed, introducing new concepts to be interpreted and creating new programs that demand administration. Changing the direction of our government requires not only executive vision, but also multilayered strategies that make their way through the bureaucracy and down to the ground — along with the stamina and patience to see them through.
*********************
THE BATTLE FOR DUE PROCESS @ JUSTICE ISN’T OVER: Flailing, Failing Department Needs A Bureaucratic House-Cleaning, Now!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
Courtside Exclusive
Jan. 24, 2021
Read Cristina’s complete article at the link. The book that she and Adam Cox wrote The President and Immigration Law along with that of my friend and colleague Professor PhilSchrag, Baby Jails, should be required reading for all incoming Biden-Harris officials.
A “democracy” that doesn’t understand how it came to run prisons for vulnerable kids and star chambers for legal asylum seekers, and how to end them immediately, can expect little success in achieving social justice, promoting economic equality and prosperity for all, or leading and advocating for democracy abroad.
It all starts with immigration. I can draw a straight line from the Muslim Ban, to the Roberts’ Court’s disgraceful and cowardly abdication of responsibility to stop it in its tracks (grotesquely undermining the many lower court Federal Judges who had courageously “mapped it out for them”), to GOP politicos running around undermining our free and fair elections, to “magamorons” and other traitor/crazies storming the Capitol. Folks “get” the abdication of moral responsibility and legal accountability when it is delivered by those who should be standing up for democracy.
The failure of career civil servants at all levels to “just say no” and rebel against these outrageous failures of Constitutional governance and simple human decency, combined with a horribly deficient Supremes’ majority that abandoned both legal legitimacy and moral leadership, created a beyond dangerous pattern that came very close to toppling two centuries of the “democratic experiment” and still has the future of our democratic republic “on the ropes.”
Just look at what happened at the DOJ in the final weeks of the regime! Government officials who knew better settled for “heading off” a President’s treasonous acts rather than exposing them to the public, the Vice President, and leaders of Congress (perhaps other than treacherous co-conspirator Kevin McCarthy) who could have taken action for the immediate removal of this “clear and present threat” to our national security from the office for which he was so completely unqualified. Who knows, they might even have stopped the insurrection!
Look at the failed and ethically vapid Solicitor General’s Office (once, but no longer, one of the “Jewels in the Crown” of Government) that time and time again moved forward to defend unethical and unconstitutional policies before a willing Supremes’ majority based on patently false narratives and obvious pretexts (not very convincingly) concealing the overt racist, White Nationalist agenda of Trump, Miller, and the other neo-Nazis who had seized control of large portions of our governing machinery. Who, with the disgraceful complicity of the Supremes, turned American asylum law from the life-saving humanitarian refuge it was intended to be to instead an ugly weapon of racism, xenophobia, misogyny, child abuse, death, torture, unjust imprisonment, and overall dehumanization of the most vulnerable among us! What’s wrong with this picture? Everything!
Checks and balances and the courage and integrity of a professional career civil service are supposed to halt abuses like this, even in the face of failure of one of our two major political parties and our highest Court to act with integrity and adhere to democratic norms! But, with a few exceptions, courageous folks like U.S. Immigration Judge Ashley Tabaddor, Col. Alexander Vindman, and others like them, it did not happen over the past four years. That nearly cost us our country! (Note that Tabaddor, Vindmin, and others like them were punished, with the disgraceful treasonists from the GOP looking on and actually cheerleading, for speaking out and upholding their oaths of office.)
Buried in the carnage of the departed regime are the many lives unnecessarily lost, futures ruined, and lasting trauma — trauma that will continue to adversely affect our nation far into the future — caused by failure to stop the kakistocracy’s unconstitutional, cruel, and inhuman abuses. From intentionally inept COVID policies, to “politicizing” masks, to deaths in detention, to unlawful deportations to torture, to unfair, clearly political misapplications of the death penalty (basically “legalized murder”), to officially-sanctioned misogyny — this damage can’t be swept away overnight.
Like legislative and judicial failures, bureaucratic failure comes at a cost — a huge one! The fact that it might be largely “out of sight, out of mind” to the arrogant, largely white, privileged, ruling elites and ivory tower “High Court” jurists doesn’t mean the harm isn’t real. Just that our society has enabled some in power to look away and avoid meaningful contact with the human wreckage and lasting pain and damage they have caused and or tolerated!
Already, we can see how the Biden-Harris Administration’s inexplicable failure to “take charge” at a broken DOJ is undermining the long-overdue and well-thought-out progressive immigration agenda they announced with such fanfare. Here’s what’s come to light in just the past few days at the broken and dysfunctional DOJ:
Seeking the illegal deportation to Haiti of a mentally ill individual denied due process by the EOIR kakistocracy;
Failure to repudiate scurrilous, misogynist attacks on well-known refugee woman “Ms. A-B-“ by unqualified then “acting” AG Jeffrey Rosen;
Issuance by the “EOIR Clown Show” of more false narratives and anti-migrant “precedents” — basically delivering the “big, public middle finger” to the new Administration and the AG-designate;
Release of a blockbuster investigative report on misogyny and misconduct within the Immigration Judiciary — with no response or plan for corrective action from the DOJ;
Appointment of a bunch of bureaucratic nobodies to “caretaker” duties at the DOJ — including one quickly found by reporters — but apparently missed by the incoming Administration — to have had ties to the grotesque child abuse program run by White Nationalist former AG “Gonzo” Sessions;
Release by the IG of a report showing the role of Sessions, Rosenstein, and other DOJ officials in “official child abuse” – without any promise of accountability for past or future misconduct;
A treasonous plot by the President, a GOP Congressman, and a corrupt DOJ political hack that, although thwarted, went unreported until uncovered by reporters from The NY Times!
To state the obvious, why weren’t folks with known integrity, courage, and ability — professional decision-makers with track records of upholding our Constitution — like Judge Ashley Tabaddor and her colleagues in the leadership of the National Association of Immigration Judges — put in charge of the DOJ debacle to “ride herd”on this mess, restore some integrity, and prevent any more damage until “Team Garland” arrives? Few folks at Justice know as much about the “inept DOJ bureaucracy and failure of justice at Justice” than the NAIJ leadership which has been “at war” with the kakistocracy for years!
The solutions are still out there. But, it will take boldness, courage, and some “quick thinking outside the box” by “Team Garland” to get this completely (and unnecessarily) unacceptable situation under control!
That begins with an immediate clean-up of the “immigration kakistocracy/bureaucracy” throughout Justice — starting with the “EOIR Clown Shown.” Bring in the immigration/human rights/due process experts and let them start fixing the problems!
Stop defending the unprofessional garbage being aimlessly tossed into the Federal Courts by the EOIR White Nationalist deportation factory still running under orders from Miller and Hamilton. Have all these cases reviewed by experts in immigration/human rights/due process and racial justice!
Fire anyone in the SG’s office who presents bogus arguments concerning fake “immigration emergencies” and illegally promulgated “regulations” to the Supremes. End the unethical practice of using one-sided “precedents” to develop anti-immigrant “litigating positions” for OIL.
Stop appointing unqualified individuals to precious Immigration Judgeships. Remove the entire BIA and replace it with real expert appellate judges unswervingly committed to fundamental fairness and due process for all. Replace “worst practices” with “best practices.” Stop the “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” at EOIR. Cut the largely self-created Immigration Court “backlog.”
Bring in Professor Rodriguez, Professor Schrag, Professor Ingrid Eagly, Judge Dana Marks (who argued and won the landmark Cardoza-Fonseca case before the Supremes), Judge (and former BIA Judge and high-ranking DOJ official) Noel Brennan, Judge Amiena Khan, Judge Mimi Tsankov, Marielena Hincapie (NCIJ), Dean Kevin Johnson (UC Davis Law), and a “due process brain trust” of others like them! Let them start “kicking some tail,” fixing the problems, and restoring sanity, humanity, and due process to the broken immigration kakistocracy at DOJ. Now, before any more lives are lost or futures irrevocably ruined!
Let “practical scholars” like Rodriguez, Schrag, Eagly, and Johnson “turn their research and great thoughts into action.” “A little less talk, and a lot more action,” as Toby Keith would say!
The NDPA has already shown that it can out-litigate and out-strategize the Government immigration kakistocracy. In many ways, only the abject failure of the Supremes’ majority to stand up for the Constitution, rule of law, and human decency has prevented the NDPA from completely annihilating the kakistocracy, wiping out all of its misdeeds by judicial decree, and perhaps even holding criminals like Miller and Wolf accountable for their “crimes against humanity.”
Judge Garland is a smart person. The “smart thing” would be to get the “NDPA on the inside at Justice,” creating order from chaos and re-establishing justice @ Justice now!
Otherwise, smart or not, he’s likely to spend the bulk of his tenure as a “caption” on the never-ending avalanche of new legal actions filed against the deadly immigration bureaucracy by the NDPA. Because, I promise that the fight for due process in immigration and human rights isn’t over! It has just begun!
There is lots to be gained by working together to solve these problems. But if it takes litigation, continuing conflict, and a never-ending political and press crusade against an Administration I otherwise support to get the job done, so be it!
The battle isn’t over until the kakistocracy is removed, at every level, and due process, fundamental fairness, equal justice, and respect for human dignity — all both Constitutional and human rights — become a reality for all persons in America (including those physically present at our borders) rather than just the cruel, unfulfilled promises they have been to date.
Due Process Can’t And Won’t Wait! Due Process Forever!
PWS
01-24-22
*******************
GO PACK GO!
Green Bay PackersAaron Rodgers Quarterback Green Bay PackersDevante Adams Wide Receiver Green Bay Packers
PANEL: HARTZ, PHILLIPS, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
OPINION BY: Judge HARTZ
KEY QUOTE:
On this record we think it was unreasonable for the BIA and the IJ to decide that the government successfully rebutted the presumption that Petitioner has a well-founded fear of future persecution in Ghana. Their finding that Petitioner could safely relocate within Ghana is not supported by substantial evidence. See Arboleda v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 434 F.3d 1220, 1226 (11th Cir. 2006) (concluding that relocation “would not successfully shield [an asylum applicant from] persecution” because, although the applicant “relocated from his farm . . . to the capital city,” “the [persecutors] continued to threaten [the applicant] and his family . . . , [including through] frequent notes and telephone calls detailing the family’s activities and threatening them with death,” and by “burning down [the applicant’s] farm house”).
********************
Yet another in the steady stream of documented failures of basic asylum analysis — the X’s and O’s — by a supposedly “expert” tribunal that is anything but!
This decision would be an outstanding “teaching tool” for instructing Immigration Judges on the proper analysis of a “reasonably available internal alternative.” The word “reasonable” is often “read out” of the analysis by EOIR judges in their rush to find “any reason to deny” claims to please their nativist political handlers.
In my more than two decades of experience at both the trial and appellate levels of the Immigration Judiciary, I observed that it is very difficult for DHS to properly rebut the presumption of future persecution by showing “that there is a specific area of the country where the risk of persecution to the respondent falls below the well-founded fear level,” as accurately described by the 10th Circuit. Indeed, it appears that many EOIR Judges lack the skills and training necessary to grant asylum with cogent analysis that would cut off many of the semi-frivolous appeals that ICE now takes. This is truly a “judiciary in shambles” under current grossly defective leadership.
I daresay that if all Immigration Judges held the DHS to their legal burden under this standard, the presumption would seldom be rebutted, in either asylum or withholding cases. But, the lack of real asylum expertise at today’s “dumbed down” EOIR and the clear “any reason to deny and deport” message sent by corrupt regime politicos to “their captive judiciary” undoubtedly results in numerous miscarriages of justice and wrongful removals.
Note that the respondent in this case was actually removed pending appeal! Had the case been handled properly in June 2017, the respondent would have been granted asylum, be a green card holder, and on his way to achieving citizenship. Instead, Professor Hong has to hope that she can get him back to the U.S. while he’s still alive!
The costs of EOIR’s deficient “judging” and unethical “weaponization” go far beyond what meets the eye. Someday, historians and sociologists will uncover and document the true human and moral costs of this disgraceful period in American history when we let grossly unqualified and immoral leaders and their accomplices lead us down the path to inhumanity and the abuse of the rule of law.
Unnecessary escapades like this, where cases that should be granted at “first instance review” instead linger in the system, moving from level to level and back again, for years, without proper resolution, make it easy to understand why EOIR builds “artificial backlog” while failing to provide basic justice. It also shows why the solution is “better judges” at EOIR and more prosecutorial discipline at ICE, rather than just shoving yet more additional judges into a broken, dysfunctional, and intentionally inefficient system that has been run into the ground by “malicious incompetents” over the past four years. NDPA expertise at EOIR and DHS are the answers!
Perhaps the “new EOIR” should hire Professor Hong to provide some real expert training on asylum law. Or, better yet, appoint her to an Appellate Judgeship at the BIA where she can lead a “renaissance of competence” in due process and fair asylum adjudication at EOIR and “teach by example!”
Or, even better, given her outstanding credentials, practical litigation experience, scholarship, courage, and proven leadership, appoint her to an Article III Judgeship where she can help improve the performance of the entire Federal Judiciary on what is one of the key issues in the fight to achieve social justice for all in America.
We need some new faces and better “practical scholarship” at ALL levels of the Federal Judiciary, from the “retail level” of the Immigration Courts to the Supremes. Better Judges for a Better America for all! Biden-Harris Administration take note!
Thanks, Professor Hong to you and your dedicated“crew” @ BC Law for all you do for the NDPA and for American Justice! You are making a difference!
In addition to Professor Hong’s stellar efforts, I am also reminded by my good friend, and another NDPA Superstar 🌟 Michelle Mendez @ CLINIC, of the key “behind the scenes” role played by the CLINIC BIA Pro Bono Project . Brad Jenkins and Rachel Naggar helped Professor Hong prepare for oral argument. (In the “small world” category, Brad did a “textbook presentation” of an asylum case before me in Arlington while he was serving as an Accredited Representative and a fellow at CAIR. I only found out later that he was a “ringer” on his way to Harvard Law and a distinguished career in social justice!) Additionally, Tania Linares Garcia (from NIJC) was part of the “team of experts” advising Professor Hong.
This is just another example of the great teamwork and mutural support that is the hallmark of the NDPA and the pro bono immigration/human rights community. As those who have had me for a teacher at Georgetown Law or have heard me speak know, I always “preach five things:” fairness, scholarship, timeliness, respect, and teamwork. Those were once “what EOIR was suppposed to be about” before the precipitous decline and total loss of values.
But, if the Biden-Harris Team takes bold and decisive action to eliminate the current kakistrocracy and replace it with “NDPA pros,” the vision of “through teamwork and innovation becoming the world’s best tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all” can become a reality! Things don’t have to be the way they are now at EOIR!
Alex Trebek, who presided over the beloved quiz show “Jeopardy!” for more than 30 years with dapper charm and a touch of school-master strictness, died Sunday. He was 80.
Trebek, who announced in 2019 that he had advanced pancreatic cancer, died at his California home, surrounded by family and friends, “Jeopardy!” studio Sony said.
The Canadian-born host, who made a point of informing fans about his health directly, spoke in a calm, even tone as he revealed his illness and hope for a cure in a video posted March 6, 2019.
In the video, Trebek said he was joining the 50,000 other Americans who receive such a diagnosis each year and that he recognized that the prognosis was not encouraging.
Pancreatic cancer is currently the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the U.S., with an overall five-year survival rate of just 10 percent.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Rep. John Lewis also succumbed to the disease this past year.
But Trebek said he intended to fight it and keep working, even joking that he needed to beat the disease because his “Jeopardy!” contract ran for three more years. Less than a week later, he opened the show with a message acknowledging the outpouring of kind words and prayers he’d received.
“Thanks to the — believe it or not — hundreds of thousands of people who have sent in tweets, texts, emails, cards and letters wishing me well,” Trebek said. “I’m a lucky guy.”
“Jeopardy!” bills itself as “America’s favorite quiz show” and captivated the public with a unique format in which contestants were told the answers and had to provide the questions on a variety of subjects, including movies, politics, history and popular culture.
They would answer by saying “What is … ?” or “Who is …. ?”
Trebek, who became its host in 1984, was a master of the format, engaging in friendly banter with contestants, appearing genuinely pleased when they answered correctly and, at the same time, moving the game along in a brisk no-nonsense fashion whenever people struggled for answers.
He never pretended to know the answers himself if he really didn’t, deferring to the show’s experts to decide whether a somewhat vague answer had come close enough to be counted as correct.
“I try not to take myself too seriously,” he told an interviewer in 2004. “I don’t want to come off as a pompous ass and indicate that I know everything when I don’t.”
The show was the brainstorm of Juann Griffin, wife of the late talk show host-entrepreneur Merv Griffin, who said she suggested to him one day that he create a game show where people were given the answers.
“Jeopardy!” debuted on NBC in 1964 with Art Fleming as emcee and was an immediate hit. It lasted until 1975, then was revived in syndication with Trebek.
Long identified by a full head of hair and trim mustache (though in 2001 he startled viewers by shaving his mustache, “completely on a whim”), Trebek was more than qualified for the job, having started his game show career on “Reach for the Top” in his native country.
Moving to the U.S. in 1973, he appeared on “The Wizard of Odds,” “High Rollers,” “The $128,000 Question” and “Double Dare.” Even during his run on “Jeopardy!”, Trebek worked on other shows. In the early 1990s, he was the host of three — “Jeopardy!”, “To Tell the Truth” and “Classic Concentration.”
“Jeopardy!” made him famous. He won five Emmys as its host, and received stars on both the Hollywood and Canadian walks of fame. In 2012, the show won a prestigious Peabody Award.
He taped his daily “Jeopardy!” shows at a frenetic pace, recording as many as 10 episodes (two weeks’ worth) in just two days. After what was described as a mild heart attack in 2007, he was back at work in just a month.
He posted a video in January 2018 announcing he’d undergone surgery for blood clots on the brain that followed a fall he’d taken. The show was on hiatus during his recovery.
It had yet to bring in a substitute host for Trebek — save once, when he and “Wheel of Fortune” host Pat Sajak swapped their TV jobs as an April’s Fool prank.
In 2012, Trebek acknowledged that he was considering retirement, but had been urged by friends to stay on so he could reach 30 years on the show. He still loved the job, he declared: “What’s not to love? You have the security of a familiar environment, a familiar format, but you have the excitement of new clues and new contestants on every program. You can’t beat that!”
Although many viewers considered him one of the key reasons for the show’s success, Trebek himself insisted he was only there to keep things moving.
“I’m introduced as the host of ‘Jeopardy!,’ not the star,” he said in a 2012 interview. “My job is to provide the atmosphere and assistance to the contestants to get them to perform at their very best,” he explained. “And if I’m successful doing that, I will be perceived as a nice guy and the audience will think of me as being a bit of a star.”
Trebek is survived by his wife Jean and his two adult children, Emily and Matthew.
*****************
Alex has long been a part of our family. Most evenings at our house are NBC Nightly News followed by Jeopardy!
A number of years ago, we were lucky enough to see Alex in person during a live recording of “Celebrity Jeopardy” at DAR Constitution Hall. He spent lots of time chatting with the audience and answering questions during the “off camera” breaks.
In tribute to Alex, the “Zoom Edition of Immigration Law & Policy” at Georgetown Law this summer was “Immigration Jeopardy” — 100 “answers” in the familiar “you supply the questions” Jeopardy format!
Alex has actually been “grooming” his successor Jeopardy G.O.A.T. Ken Jennings over the past months. So the show will carry on the “Alex tradition.” Nevertheless, as Ken and all Jeopardy fans know, there will never be another Alex Trebek!
Thanks for all the great entertainment and knowledge over the years! R.I.P. Alex.
Heather Cox Richardson Historian Professor, Boston CollegeBill Barr Consigliere Artist: Pat Bagley Salt Lake Tribune Reproduced under license
From Heather Cox Richardson’sLetters From An American (10-16-20):
. . . .
And yet another story from the day: a third career prosecutor from the Department of Justice resigned after publicly attacking Attorney General William Barr for abusing his power to get Trump reelected. “After 36 years, I’m fleeing what was the U.S. Department of Justice,” Phillip Halpern wrote. “[T]he department’s past leaders were dedicated to the rule of law and the guiding principle that justice is blind. That is a bygone era, but it should not be forgotten.” Noting that “Barr has never actually investigated, charged or tried a case,” Halpern expressed deep concern over Barr’s “slavish obedience to Donald Trump’s will.” “This career bureaucrat seems determined to turn our democracy into an autocracy,” he warned.
Georgetown Law Professor Paul Butler, who worked as a federal prosecutor under Barr when he was George H. W. Bush’s Attorney General, told Katie Benner of the New York Times that such criticism is “unprecedented,” and reflects Trump’s pressure on the AG. “I have never seen sitting prosecutors go on the record with concerns about the attorney general,” he said.
And yet, Barr’s willingness to bend the Justice Department to Trump’s personal will may, in the end, not be enough to keep Trump’s favor. Angry that Barr did not produce a report attacking the Russia investigation before the election, Trump just yesterday said he wasn’t happy with Barr’s performance, and might not keep him on as AG if he wins a second term.
I might add that the “Courtside network” — with nationwide tentacles — has heard from numerous courageous and dedicated Immigration Judges that they are putting their careers on the line every day to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law against Billy’s corruption, White Nationalist bias, and the institutional pressures to “go along to get along.” But, few think that they can take the stress and abuse for another four years. That’s why this election is absolutely pivotal for the continued existence of our nation as a democratic republic rather than a fascist kakistocracy!
Vote ‘em out, vote em’ out! For our future and the future of the world, vote ‘em out!
Last month, a nurse at a federal immigration detention center in Irwin, Georgia, filed a whistleblower complaint detailing the abhorrent treatment of people detained there. She charged that women in detention were subjected to hysterectomies and invasive gynecological exams without their knowledge or consent, and often without assistance from interpreters.
The complaint is heartbreaking, but far from surprising. These atrocities are consistent with practices employed at U.S. detention centers for decades, and they are sadly consistent with our tragic history of forced sterilization of minority women. The implications of the complaint are perfectly clear: we must end the civil detention of immigrants, so fraught with systemic racism that undervalues the lives of Black, Indigenous and other people of color. There is no other option.
With over 200 detention centers, the United States has the largest immigration detention system in the world. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has over the past two years detained an average of 40,000 daily, an astonishing number that surpasses the population of Wisconsin cities like Brookfield and Wausau. Yet the detention of immigrants is just a microcosm of the inhumanity that characterizes our immigration system today. Many immigrants come to the U.S. to seek refuge and a better life for themselves and for their families. But when they arrive in this country, they are forced into conditions that violate human rights principles under both international and domestic standards, and that, frankly, violate our moral obligations to each other as human beings.
ICE has the authority to release most people from detention through monetary bonds or parole, and ICE policy requires that people seeking asylum are released from detention when they can establish their identity and demonstrate they are neither a danger nor a or flight risk. Instead of using these tools, though, ICE almost always chooses detention, ostensibly to deter others from coming into the country. But far from showing detention to be an effective deterrent, statistics reveal the opposite: harsher penalties have not reduced the numbers of undocumented migrants crossing U.S. borders. What the data does show is how immigrant detention has become a big business, with taxpayer dollars helping to subsidize a billion-dollar private prison industry that profits from human trauma.
Often located in remote places, immigrant detention facilities are ripe for the abuse of detained migrants. There is no community oversight and little — often no — access to legal representation. People in detention will only have an attorney if they can afford one or are lucky enough to find pro bono representation.
. . . .
***********************
Read the rest of Erin’s article at the link! Erin reinforces points that I make often here on Courtside: the real objectives of unnecessary and highly cost-ineffective “civil detention” are to deprive migrants of access to counsel, coerce them into abandoning potentially successful claims, punish them for exercising legal rights, and deter others from asserting legal rights.
All of these are clear violations of Constitutional due process and equal protection! The conditions under which these non-criminals are held to “punish” them for their audacity to assert their legal rights also violate the Eighth Amendment, as some lower Federal Court Judges have found.
Unfortunately, too many Article III Judges have abdicated their oaths to uphold the Constitutional rights of the most vulnerable persons among us in the face of improper political pressure and a regime overtly out to undo American democracy and institute a far-right reactionary, white nationalist kakistocracy.
And, here’s info on a great “virtual event” that Erin helped organize to raise awareness of the existence and devastating effects of “Baby Jails” in the U.S. Allowing such cruel and inhuman abominations to flourish in our nation is beyond disgraceful! (See also the recent book Baby Jails: The Fight to End the Incarceration of Refugee Children in America, by my good friend and Georgetown Law colleague Professor Phil Schrag).
The Flores Exhibit: Stories of Children Held in Immigrant Detention Facilities
WHEN
Wednesday, October 14, 2020
7:30 pm to 8:30 pm
WHERE
Virtual
EVENT DESCRIPTION
Artists, lawyers, advocates and immigrants read the sworn testimonies of young people under the age of 18, who were held in two detention facilities near the U.S./Mexico border in June 2019. Followed by a discussion with panelists.
Organized by the Immigrant Justice Clinic, Latinx Law Student Association, and American Constitution Society at UW Law School.
Zoom link will be sent to via email to those who register.
I proudly note that my good friend Judge (Ret.) Jeffrey S. Chase and other distinguished members of our Round Table of Former Immigration Judges are “readers” in “The Flores Exhibit.”
I am also inspired by all that Erin has accomplished and the lives she and her students have saved through the Immigrant Justice Clinic at my alma mater, UW Law!
Erin and others like her are exactly the type of progressive, practical, scholar-problem solvers that we need as Federal Judges and in key Government policy-making positions. We need to replace the reactionary kakistocracy with a progressive, equal justice oriented, practical, problem-solving humanitarian meritocracy.
“Equal Justice For All” isn’t just a “throwaway slogan.” It’s a vision of a better, more efficient, more effective, more tolerant, more inclusive, more diverse, more representative Government that will work with people of good faith everywhere to maximize opportunities for all and promote a brighter future for everyone in America! It’s in our power to make it happen,and the necessary change starts this Fall.
The Center for Applied Legal Studies (CALS) at Georgetown Law announces that it is now accepting applications for its annual fellowship program in clinical legal education. CALS will offer one lawyer a two year teaching fellowship (July 2020 June 2022), providing a unique opportunity to learn how to teach law in a clinical setting.
At CALS, our two fellows and faculty members work as colleagues, sharing responsibilities for designing and teaching classes, supervising law students in their representation of clients, selecting and grading students, administering the clinic, and all other matters. In addition, the fellow will undertake independent legal scholarship, conducting the research and writing to produce a law review article of publishable quality.
This fellowship is particularly suitable for lawyers with some degree of practice experience who now want to embark upon careers in law teaching. Most of our previous fellows are now teaching law or have done so for substantial portions of their careers.
Since 1995, CALS has specialized in immigration law, specifically in asylum practice, and our docket focuses on presenting asylum claims in immigration court. Applicants with experience in U.S. immigration law will therefore, be given preference. The fellow must be a member of a bar at the start of the fellowship period.
The fellow will receive full tuition and fees in the LL.M. program at Georgetown University, and a stipend of 57,000 in the first year and 60,000 in the second year. On successful completion of the requirements, the Fellow will be granted the degree of Master of Laws (Advocacy) with distinction.
To apply, send a resume, an official or unofficial law school transcript, a writing sample, and a detailed statement of interest (approximately 5 pages). The materials must arrive by December 2, 2019. The statement should address: a) why you are interested in this fellowship; b) what you can contribute to the Clinic; c) your experience with asylum and other immigration cases; d) your professional or career goals for the next five or ten years; e) your reactions to the Clinic’s goalsand teaching methods as described on its website, https://www.law.georgetown.edu/experiential-learning/clinics/center-for-applied-legal-studies/; and f) anything else that you consider pertinent. Address your application to Directors, Center for Applied Legal Studies, Georgetown Law, 600 New Jersey Avenue, NW, Suite 332, Washington, D.C. 20001, or electronically to lawcalsclinic@georgetown.edu.
Georgetown University is an equal opportunity affirmative action employer. We are committed to diversity in the workplace. If you have any questions, call CALS at (202) 662-9565 or email to lawcalsclinic@georgetown.edu.
*******************************************
Great opportunity, at a great school, with great Clinical Professors! (Full disclosure: I am an Adjunct Professor @ Georgetown Law.)
The “CALS Alumni List Above” reads like the “All-Star Team of Social Justice.” They are doing great things and teaching others, literally from coast to coast.
There is only one place where they can’t be found – yet! That’s the Federal Government, particularly our failing Federal Judiciary!
One of the reasons our nation is in turmoil, governed by a kakistocracy, with failing institutions, is the glaring lack of immigration and human rights expertise and the concomitant courageous commitment to Constitutional principles of Due Process, Fundamental Fairness, Equal Justice for All, and practical problem solving that it brings! The stunning and disgraceful lack of all these necessary qualities for a successful, prosperous, vibrant 21st Century democratic republic runs throughout the Executive, Legislature, and particularly the Judiciary – including both the Article IIIs and the “wannabes” (like Immigration “Courts” that don’t function like “courts” but could be fixed with better leadership and a merit-based judiciary.)
So, what about teaching and advocacy? Aren’t they supposed to be the goals of CALS? Well, as once pointed out to me by a colleague, judges are teachers and courtrooms at every level also function as classrooms. And, advocacy? Well, what is great judging if not a form of unswerving fearless advocacy for due process, fundamental fairness, and equal justice for all?
There is no doubt that CALS and similar programs at other institutions have played a seminal role in improving advocacy. Today’s leading immigration advocates are superstars in what has become the most important field in today’s law – one that combines intellectual challenge with practical humanity, all in the context of the highest stakes imaginable for individuals, our nation, and our world.
But, too often today that great advocacy is falling on the tone-deaf ears of a non-responsive, non-representative, far right-wing judiciary selected for their commitment to a cruel, exclusive, basically anti-Constitutional, and often virulently anti-democracy agenda. In this toxic context, even the greatest advocacy becomes largely an exercise in futility. It’s past time for the leading lights of immigration and human rights advocacy, many of them CALS alums, to penetrate the Federal Judiciary and eventually dominate it.
To survive, prosper, and lead into the future, our diverse and talented nation needs a “radical progressive humanitarian judiciary.” So, my advice to those of you wanting to lead the way to a better and more just future: Get your CALS Fellowship Application in now! Prepare yourself aggressively to seek political, governmental, and judicial power and progressively to use it for the common good!
Donald M. Kerwin Executive Director Center for Migration Studies
Dear Colleagues,
Over the last few months, the Center for Migration Studies (CMS) has been trying to err on the side of pushing out work in progress, rather than waiting to publish polished and complete work. Some of our work in progress can be found on our web-page devoted to migration-related,
COVID-19 issues.https://cmsny.org/cms-initiatives/migration-covid/. We have also been regularly updating a “compendium” of US detention developments. The latest and final version of that working “report” can be found here:
https://cmsny.org/publications/immigrant-detention-covid/ . The short report is about how the well-documented problems in the US immigrant detention system, combined with the callous, politically-driven policies of the Trump administration, have predictably facilitated the spread of COVID-19 inside and beyond the US immigrant detention system. Since we finished this version of the report on August 3, at least two more detainees have died from COVID-19-related “complications” and, no doubt, more will follow and ICE will continue to promise full, agency-wide investigation of these deaths:
https://www.aila.org/infonet/deaths-at-adult-detention-centers. We will be broadly disseminating this report and an upcoming exhaustive report on immigrant essential workers. However, please help us to distribute this detention report to others. We hope it will be a useful resource.
Best wishes and thanks,
Don Kerwin
********************
Thanks, Don!
Get the CMS reports at the above links!
They should be helpful evidence in litigating to put an end to this disgracefully unconstitutional and inhuman system. To paraphrase my friend and colleague Professor Phil Schrag of Georgetown Law, author of Baby Jails, in America we treat refugee children worse than convicted felons!
To once again state the obvious, the outrageous amount of money we waste on unnecessary and illegal DHS “civil” detention in the Gulag could be “repurposed” to more constructive uses like funding legal representation, resettling asylees, and transitioning to an independent Article I Immigration Court. America’s health and welfare, as well as our national moral standing, would be vastly improved.
