"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt and Dr. Alicia Triche, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
Jacqueline Thomsen Courts Reporter National Law Journal
DOJ Said Judges Can’t Stop Immigration Hearings Over COVID-19. Cleary Gottlieb Called That a ‘Death Trap.’
Immigration lawyers and detained immigrants want U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols to temporarily stop all in-person immigration proceedings during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Justice Department attorneys told a federal judge in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday that he lacks the authority to temporarily halt in-person court proceedings for detained immigrants during the COVID-19 pandemic.
. . . .
*******************
Those will full access can go over to the NLJ for Jacqueline’s complete article.
With DOJ lawyers arguing that folks have to “exhaust their administrative remedies” (basically by risking death or serious illness) you get the general tenor of the argument before U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols in D.C.
I’d be tempted to say that during the pandemic ethical rules have been suspended for DOJ attorneys. But, in my view, that was true even before the pandemic.
And, in their defense, some of their misleading narratives and insane arguments actually WIN in Federal Court, as some Federal Judges are used to deferring to the DOJ and giving their lawyers a pass on both ethical rules and acceptable arguments that generally wouldn’t be extended to private attorneys acting in the same irresponsible manner.
What would be an acceptable response in a better functioning, ethics-biased DOJ: for the lawyers to go back to their “agency clients,” tell them that they won’t defend the indefensible, and advise them to start working immediately with the plaintiffs to develop methods for hearing only the most pressing cases under appropriate health safeguards.
Interestingly, the positions argued by DOJ lawyers are actually putting the lives of their colleagues at EOIR and their fellow Government attorneys at ICE at risk! Perhaps if they “win,” they should be given a chance to risk their lives to represent ICE in Immigration Court! Wonder how their nifty little “exhaustion arguments” would help them ward off the virus.
With 1.4 million cases already in the backlog, it’s not like any one removal more or less during the pandemic is going to make much of a difference. Unlike, perhaps, some other courts built with sufficient space and electronic support, the poorly designed “brandbox” Immigration Courts with marginal, at best, technology, are unhealthy in the best of times. Certainly, it’s difficult to imagine that there are very many cases other than perhaps bonds or stipulated “grant and release” cases that need to go forward right now.
How many lawyers (on both sides) and Immigration Judges are going to have to die before the Article IIIs finally take notice and put the brakes on the nonsense going on at EOIR?☠️⚰️☠️⚰️☠️⚰️
Immigration Review Office Remains Open Despite Potential COVID-19 Exposure
Most support staff at the Executive Office of Immigration Review in Falls Church, Va., remain unable to telework even after two floors had to be deep cleaned after an employee exhibited coronavirus symptoms at work last week.
The agency responsible for conducting removal proceedings in immigration courts still is not providing telework for many of its employees, even after an employee exhibited coronavirus symptoms at work.
On April 8, an employee on the 20th floor of the Executive Office of Immigration Review’s office in Falls Church, Va., which the agency shares with the Social Security Administration, had symptoms consistent with COVID-19, although the employee has not been tested for the virus.
As a result, employees on that floor and the 21st and 22nd floors were temporarily sent home on weather and safety leave until contractors could conduct a deep cleaning. The 21st and 22nd floor employees returned to work Friday, while the 20th floor reopened on Monday, except to those who came in contact with the employee, who are now undergoing a 14-day quarantine.
“I want to advise you that an EOIR employee working on the 20th floor of the Skyline Tower Building has displayed symptoms of COVID-19,” wrote Executive Office of Immigration Review Director James McHenry in an email to employees last week. “The employee is now self-quarantined for two weeks and all persons identified as close contacts have been advised of their interaction with the symptomatic employee. We are conducting an enhanced cleaning of the 20th and 21st floors and the building’s common areas in compliance with [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] guidelines. The CDC guidance does not indicate that any additional EOIR spaces would require cleaning.”
An agency employee, who requested anonymity out of fear of reprisal, said that employees on the 17th floor were told that if they were uncomfortable continuing to work in the office, they would have to take personal leave. And they said that while the attorneys and paralegals may work remotely, the agency still is not allowing most support staff and clerks to telework, citing a lack of laptops.
“Unlike at the immigration judge level, we’re still fully operational,” the employee said. “There’s been no change, no modification to the way we’re operating. We’re 100% fully staffed and we have attorneys, paralegals and support staff.”
The office remains open despite guidance from the Office of Personnel Management and the Office of Management and Budget urging agencies to “maximize telework” for employees wherever possible. Additionally, Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and Assistant Attorney General for Administration Lee Lofthus directed Justice Department components to “move to a posture of maximum telework” in the Washington, D.C., region beginning March 16.
“Components should exploit all flexibilities in their telework policies, including adjusting duties and work to expand availability of telework to employees whose duties did not previously support telework, and even if the employee would only have enough duties to telework for part of a work day,” Lofthus wrote.
The EOIR employee said the agency has been resistant to implementing a continuity of operations plan that would prioritize detainee cases over non-detainee cases, as immigration courts have done to reduce the time needed to be in the office, and said they fear the agency is more concerned with “keeping up production numbers” than employees’ well-being.
“Why can’t we go into COOP status to minimize staff in the office?” the employee said. “We could go into only working detained cases, just like the courts, and we wouldn’t need as many staff. And with a smaller docket, maybe we could introduce rotations or stagger shifts. Right now the only option to stagger shifts is allowing some employees to work from 6 a.m. until 3 and then someone else could work later.”
The employee noted that, by comparison, when there was a positive coronavirus case among the Social Security Administration’s employees in the building, the agency completely evacuated the office, and employees have not returned since.
“Why did we come back to work so much faster [than Social Security]?” they asked. “SSA had one incident and they’re on 17 different floors, and they haven’t been back.”
The agency did not respond to a request for comment.
**********************
Interestingly, in past “Government shutdowns,” most EOIR HQ personnel were deemed “nonessential” and told to say home. Now, with a true emergency that could affect employee health and safety, and with the Immigration Courts’ “non-detained docket” — more than 95% of the EOIR workload — shut down, it becomes necessary to drag HQ staff in. To do what? Exactly what “essential services” are being performed that justify risking the health and safety of employees, their families, and their communities?
But, I suppose it’s no surprise that an agency sitting on a largely self-created backlog of 1.4 million cases, with no plausible plan for dealing with it, would essentially tell its own employees to “show up and hope for the best.”
John A. Freedman Senior Counsel Arnold & PorterHon. Ilyce Shugall U.S. Immigraton Judge (Retired) Director, Immigrant Legal Defense Program, Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Assn. of San Francisco.Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Retired Immigration JudgesKnightess of the Round Table
Key Excerpt:
We are in the midst of a nationwide pandemic. From the approach of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) headquarters, one would never know that. Through a series of chaotic and inconsistent announcements, EOIR —the office that manages the procedural components of the immigration court system on behalf of the United States Department of Justice2—has continued to schedule non-essential proceedings, requiring judges, court staff and security personnel, litigants and case participants, attorneys, witnesses, interpreters, and interested members of the public to come immigration court, exposing them, their families, and their communities to unnecessary risk of COVID-19.
1 In accordance with Local Rule 7(o), no party’s counsel authored this brief in whole or in part, nor did any party or party’s counsel, or any other person other than amici curiae, contribute money that was intended to fund preparing or submitting this brief.
2 See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.0(b) (setting forth the authority of the Director of EOIR).
1
Case 1:20-cv-00852-CJN Document 11-1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 5 of 22
The madness of EOIR s approach is evident in one example, representative of its
approach. Yesterday – April 8 — the immigration court in Elizabeth, New Jersey was open for business as usual. This court is across the Hudson River from New York City, and is near the epicenter of the largest COVID-19 hotspot on the planet, and is in a jurisdiction that has had a mandatory shelter-in-place” order since March 21. Yet EOIR insisted that proceedings continue
yesterday. Until it was learned that two detainees in the courthouse were positive for COVID- 19. Only then did EOIR accede to the obvious, scrambling to order the court to shut the Elizabeth court down. But immigration courts were open in many other jurisdictions yesterday, and are scheduled to be open today and for the foreseeable future.
EOIR’s intransigence defies the practice of numerous federal and state courts, the
recommendations of public health officials, and the orders of dozens of Governors who have ordered all non-essential business be deferred. As Judge Samuel Cole, a spokesperson for the National Association of Immigration Judges warned, everyone is being put at risk.” Close immigration courts? Lawyers and judges push to stop in-person hearings amid coronavirus spread, Fortune (Mar. 26, 2020) (describing how attorneys are wearing swim googles and masks to comply with EOIR orders).
The current EOIR approach manifests this disarray because there was not, and has never been, any meaningful continuity planning by EOIR. EOIR, and therefore the immigration court system itself, has sacrificed due process in favor of rapid removals, leaving the court without any incentive at all to plan to protect the public health or the individuals and participants in the system.
Amici urge the issuance of a temporary restraining order to allow for development of a more comprehensive, systemic, and scientifically sound policy that respects due process and the
2
Case 1:20-cv-00852-CJN Document 11-1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 6 of 22
public health. We offer a framework for what a legally and scientifically sound policy could look like and why a court-ordered pause on all non-essential activities for a short 28-day period could allow for such a policy to emerge in deliberations with stakeholder communities.
Read the entire brief, which contains our proposed solution for how the Immigration Courts could conduct essential operations consistent with health, safety, and due process during this pandemic: Amicus brief_NIPNLG
*********************************
Again, many, many thanks to John Freedman and his group at Arnold & Porter as well as Ilyce & Jeffrey for their leadership.
One government lawyer who appeared in a crowded Newark, New Jersey, immigration court last month is in a medically induced coma. A New York immigration lawyer and her client are both sick. Immigration judges are being denied sick leave when they use anxiety or safety as reasons. Migrant children are asking their lawyers if they will fall ill if they go to court, and whether they’ll be deported if they don’t show up.
Sickness, panic, and confusion in the midst of a pandemic: These are the acute side effects of immigration courts continuing to operate as the novel coronavirus races across the country. Despite three weeks of intense pleading to close all 69 courts—across a united front of immigration lawyers, the union representing lawyers for ICE, and the immigration judges’ union—more than two-thirds of them remain open.
The courts that have been closed by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), the federal agency that runs them, have often only been shuttered in reaction to a confirmed case of COVID-19 or suspected exposure. The closures are often last-minute, and not clearly communicated, except on Twitter. This week, several immigration legal associations filed two separate federal lawsuits to close the courts because they fear that the government has put their lives in danger.
“I think it’s about time the American people woke up to the fact that EOIR’s willingness to perpetuate and extend this pandemic will inevitably bring the virus to their hometown,” Rebecca Press, the legal director at UnLocal in New York, said Thursday via email. She contracted coronavirus two weeks ago and at least one of her clients is sick. “The longer courts remain open even for filing, and the longer the courts require attorneys and immigrants to engage in the work of preparing evidence, the more likely it becomes that the virus will be brought right back to another community.”
Government lawyers are affected, too. Fanny Behar-Ostrow, the president of American Federation of Government Employees Local 511, the union representing ICE lawyers, is getting calls at all hours of the day from members who worry they have been exposed to the virus. “They are panicked, frightened, desperate, upset,” she said.
In addition to the 36,000 adults in ICE detention facilities, there are some 3,500 migrant children in government custody who are affected by the disarray in the courts. In most courts, children must still attend in-person hearings, putting them at exposure risk. In New York City, the current epicenter of the pandemic, lawyers from Kids in Need of Defense (KIND) have not been told whether EOIR will reschedule cases for next week. They are also unclear about whether the minors even need to come to court at a time when state and city officials have issued stay-at-home orders.
“We are receiving phone calls from children who had their safety net shaken,” said Maria Odom, vice president for legal services for KIND, which is a nonprofit organization contracted to represent unaccompanied minors. “For us serving vulnerable children, there are so many moving pieces and at a time when we should be able to look to the government, they are just contributing to the chaos.”
“I hope that it won’t take a death, but I worry that it will,” said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, an immigration lawyer and policy counsel for the American Immigration Council. His organization is one of the groups behind a lawsuit filed Monday by the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild.
. . . .
***************
Read the rest of Liz’s article at the link.
Looks like the dead bodies will have to pile up before the Article IIIs and EOIR will take action. As the rest of us know, but to which U.S District Judges & EOIR appear willfully blind, by the time individuals show symptoms and begin dying, it’s too late to stop the spread. The larger community has already been infected.
I wonder what it is that gives both EOIR officials and Article III Judges such great confidence that they and their families will escape the consequences of their irresponsible behavior? Maybe, it’s that both EOIR Senior Execs and Article III Judges manage to studiously avoid “direct exposure” to Immigration Courts. “Below their pay grade,” so to speak.
But, according to folks like Dr. Fauci, who possibly knows even more about infectious diseases than EOIRDirectorMcHenry and the Federal Judges who continue to defer to the irresponsible EOIR “guidance,” nobody will be immune.
So far, the U.S. has done the worst job of any developed country in the world of “flattening the curve.” Inevitably, we eventually will become the “world leader” in coronavirus deaths. After observing the inept response of EOIR and the failure of the U.S. District Courts to promptly intervene on the side of medical knowledge, common sense, and preserving human lives, I can now see why we are failing as a nation to take the extreme measures necessary for self-preservation.
I would think that as lawyers, judges, and other members of the legal community start dying as a result of EOIR’s policies, that the officials responsible eventually will face legal actions brought by surviving family members and colleagues. Life tenure and the judicial doctrine of “absolute immunity” will protect the feckless Federal Judges from legal accountability. But, it won’t protect them and their reputations from moral accountability and the “judgements of history” which are likely to be harsh and as unforgiving as the Trump Immigration Kakistocracy’s treatment of the most vulnerable among us and their brave lawyers.
Due Process Forever! Trump’s Immigration Kakistocracy & Feckless Federal Courts, Never!
On March 23, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a sua sponte order in a case pending before it, ordering the Petitioner’s immediate release from detention “in light of the rapidly escalating health crisis, which public health authorities predict will especially impact immigration detention centers.” In taking such action, the court used its authority to protect those under its jurisdiction.This is what judges and courts are supposed to do.
In contrast, the leadership of EOIR, the agency which oversees our nation’s immigration courts, sees its mission quite differently. With shocking indifference to those subject to its authority, including its own employees as well as members of the public, EOIR’s present leadership seeks only to please its Department of Justice masters, much like a dog rolling over or playing dead to earn a pat on the head from its owner.
As we all began to comprehend the seriousness of the coronavirus pandemic weeks ago, EOIR refused to close immigration courts out of fear of sending a message contrary to Trump’s statements that the health crisis was a “hoax.” Christopher Santoro, the coward holding the title of Acting Chief Immigration Judge, ordered court staff to remove CDC-issued advisories on ways to help stop the spread (i.e. by not shaking hands) on the grounds that the immigration judges lacked the authority to hang such notices in their own courtrooms. In defense of his stupidity, Santoro offered the age-old excuse of the weak: that he was only following orders.
As the virus spread, and people began dying, EOIR kept its courts open far longer than it should have. An ICE attorney who represented the government throughout a crowded Master Calendar hearing in Newark, NJ on March 13 is presently in a coma in intensive care with COVID-19 fighting for his life. I’ve heard that an immigration judge in one of NYC’s immigration courts is presently ill with COVID-19 and pneumonia.There have been additional reports of others at immigration detention centers testing positive.
As cities locked down and sheltered in place, EOIR finally agreed to postpone non-detained hearings, but only until April 10. Hearings in detained courts continue to go forward.And for some reason, non-detained courts that were closed and should have remained so were reopened for the filing of documents only, with such openings announced by nighttime tweets. On Wednesday night, EOIR tweeted that several courts would “open” the next morning, without explaining whether that meant hearings that had previously been announced as postponed would instead go forward the following morning.As this occurred after business hours, there was no one to call for clarification. In fact, the opening was only to file documents.EOIR’s leadership (for want of a better term) has decided that all court filings due during the court closings are now due on March 30.Many lawyers in NYC have no way to meet this deadline, as their office buildings have been locked in compliance with the state’s shutdown order.
In order to accept these filings, EOIR is forcing court clerical staff to leave the safety of their homes, disobey the state PAUSE directive and expose themselves and their family members to possible infection in order to report to work. In NYC, traveling to work for most employees requires riding trains and buses, further increasing the risk of exposure.As schools are closed, how those court staff with child care needs will manage in a time requiring social isolation is unknown.
Furthermore, not all judges hearing detained cases are granting continuances despite the crisis. EOIR has not informed judges that the present crisis exempts them from meeting their performance metrics, which requires all judges to complete 700 cases per year, and to finish 95 percent of cases on the day of their first-scheduled individual hearing. Newly hired judges, who are on probation for two years, are therefore being forced to choose between their own job security and the health and welfare of all those who appear in their courts.
In recent days, EOIR has been besieged with letters from health care professionals, law professors, and various legal and advocacy organizations containing strong arguments to do what the Ninth Circuit had done instinctively and without having to be asked. In one of these letters, attorney George Terezakis, writing on behalf of the New York-based Association of Deportation Defense Attorneys (on whose Board of Directors I sit), described how the mother of a detained respondent who traveled from her home in Long Island to the court in Lower Manhattan by commuter train and subway to file a document for her son’s hearing was later diagnosed with the coronavirus. Terezakis continued: “Just as someone firing randomly into a crowd of Immigration Judges, court staff, attorneys, interpreters and detainees’ family members will foreseeably and inevitably kill someone…keeping the courts open ensures continued, needless infection, serious illness and death…”The letter continued: “This is a real crisis requiring real leadership to take decisive action that will place the safety of those under its jurisdiction ahead of other concerns. There is no escaping the inevitable consequences of inaction.”
As for Santoro, “I was only following orders” has historically fared poorly as a defense. Someone whose name is preceded by the title “Chief Immigration Judge” is required to stand up and take appropriate action in a time of crisis, and accept the consequences of such action. And for those in EOIR’s leadership chain who refuse to do so, it is incumbent on all of us to do everything in our power to ensure that they will be held fully accountable for their inaction under the next administration.
Copyright 2020 by Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
**********************
Jason Dzubow The AsylumistHon. Susan G. Roy Law Office of Susan G. Roy, LLC Princeton Junction, NJ Member, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
The coronavirus is causing unprecedented disruptions to nearly every area of life, and the Immigration Courts are no exception. The courts were already in a post-apocalyptic era, with over one million cases in the backlog, and now the situation has been thrown into near total chaos. The fundamental problem is that EOIR–the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the office that oversees Immigration Courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals–is determined to continue adjudicating cases, even if that means risking the lives of its own employees; not to mention the lives of respondents, witnesses, and lawyers (and anyone who comes into contact with them).
EOIR is closing and re-opening various courts seemingly at random, often times with an after-hours Tweet, such as one last night at 9:23 PM, declaring that the Newark and Seattle Immigration Courts will reopen today for purposes of accepting filings and litigating detained cases (non-detained cases through April 10, 2020 have been postponed). In reaction to this latest news, Susan G. Roy, an attorney and former Immigration Judge (and my friend from law school – Hi Sue!) wrote last night–
NJ has the second highest number of corona virus cases in the nation, second only to NY. The Newark Immigration Court was closed because someone tested positive for the virus. Now a DHS attorney is fighting for his life in ICU, another attorney is very ill, and an interpreter has tested positive. These are the ones we know about. The Court was set to reopen on April 12. That is a reasonable time to ensure that everyone is safe and that the risk of transmission is limited. How is it even remotely reasonable to decide to open TOMORROW? Even if it is only for filings, court staff and others will be forced to violate the Governor’s Executive Order [directing all residents to stay at home], put themselves at great risk, and risk contaminating others, while many people who work in the same building remain under mandatory quarantine. You are ruthlessly jeopardizing the lives of your own employees, not to mention the public, for no legitimate reason.
And it’s not just advocates who are upset about EOIR’s decision-making. The National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ” – the judges’ union) and ICE attorneys are also reacting with anger. In response to EOIR’s tweet reopening the courts in Seattle and Newark, NAIJ responds, “Putting our lives at risk, one Tweet at a time.” And Fanny Behar-Ostrow, an ICE prosecutor and president of AFGE Local 511, says of EOIR: “It’s like insanity has taken over the agency,“
One of our members recently had a detained master calendar hearing scheduled for this past Friday, March 20, at the Varick St. Court. In order to prepare the bond application and for the master, the attorney and his staff met with the client‘s mother. A request for a bond hearing, together with the required relief applications, and a request for a telephonic hearing, were hand delivered to the Court at noon on Wednesday March 18th, 2020. The attorney did not receive any response to the motion for a telephonic hearing, and repeated calls to the court that day and the next went unanswered. To ensure that the Court was aware of the request, the client‘s mother retrieved from the attorney‘s office, Thursday evening, a letter to the court confirming the request for a telephonic hearing. She traveled to the court in Manhattan, from Long Island, and delivered the letter to the Clerk, and thereafter waited in the waiting area with family members of other detainees and other attorneys who were compelled to appear.
Today we received confirmation the client‘s mother has been diagnosed with COVID–19 virus, through medical testing. Can you imagine the number of people she came into contact with as the result of the decision to keep this court open? In addition to exposing the attorney and office staff, she traveled from her home on Long Island, on the Long Island Railroad, to Penn Station, from there to the subway and ultimately to the Court. Undoubtedly she came into contact with, and exposed, countless numbers of people, who in turn exposed countless others.
Anyone with a basic grasp of the fundamental principles of epidemiology – easily garnered from watching CNN or the local evening news – understands how easily this virus spreads. Given this, the decision to continue to keep the courts open can only be construed as a conscious decision on the part of EOIR to subject our Immigration Judges, court staff, interpreters, DHS attorneys, institutional defenders, members of the private bar, our clients, their families, and all whom they come into contact with, to an unreasonable risk of infection, serious illness and death.
NAIJ echoes this sentiment: “With [New York] the epicenter of the virus, DOJ is failing to protect its employees and the public we serve.”
The appropriate path forward is painfully obvious. EOIR should immediately close all courts for all cases. Staff should work remotely when possible to re-set dates and adjudicate bond decisions (so non-criminal aliens who do not pose a danger to the community can be released from detention). That is the best way to protect everyone involved with the Immigration Court system and the public at large.
Finally, I think it is important to name names. The Director of EOIR is James McHenry. I have never been a fan. Mr. McHenry was profoundly unqualified for his job, having gone from supervising maybe half a dozen people in a prior position to overseeing thousands at EOIR. However, he was politically aligned with the goals of the Trump Administration and he got the job. I have previously described the functioning of the agency during Mr. McHenry’s tenure as maliciousness tempered by incompetence. But these days, it is more like maliciousness exacerbated by incompetence. And in the current crisis, incompetence can be deadly. It’s time for Mr. McHenry and EOIR to do the right thing: Close the courts now.
**************************
Thanks, Jeffrey, Jason, and Sue, my friends, for “telling it like it is!” Now is not the time for “go along to get along” bureaucratic responses.
Unfortunately, attorneys and court staff might now start paying with their lives for EOIR’s inexcusable two-decade failure to implement a functional e-filing system.
As one of my Round Table colleagues said, “Since when is a late night tweet ‘official notice?’” Don’t remember anything about “notice by tweet” in 8 CFR!
As I noted previously, J.R. and his tone-deaf, complicit Supremes effectively repealed the “Bivensdoctrine,” holding Federal officials responsible for “Constitutional torts” committed outside the scope of their official duties. They thereby essentially gave rogue Federal officials a “license to kill,” at least where the victim was merely an unarmed Mexican teenager. It appears that Barr, McHenry, and others in the “chain of command” are trying out their new “licenses.” They had better hope that J.R. & Co’s “willful blindness” andunwillingness to stand up for lives and Constitutional rights extend even when American citizen lawyers and court clerks are among the casualties.
Not surprisingly, EOIR’s contempt for due process and the lives of asylum seekers, families, children, and other migrants has expanded to include the lives of their own employees and members of the public forced to deal with this godawful, unconstitutional mess.
When the reckoning comes, we should not forget the negligent complicity of Congress as well as the Article III Courts for allowing the life-threatening, dysfunctional, unconstitutional mess that EOIR has become continue to operate and to threaten the health, safety, and welfare of all Americans.
Dan Kowalski Online Editor of the LexisNexis Immigration Law Community (ILC)Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Retired Immigration JudgesKnightess of the Round TableHon. A. Ashley Tabaddor President, National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”)Laura Lynch Senior Policy Counsel AILAFanny Behar-Ostrow ESQ Assistant Chief Counsel, DHS President AFGE Local 511
From Dan Kowalski over @ LexisNexis Immigration Community:
More than 70 Organizations Call on DOJ to Immediately Close All Immigration Courts During the COVID-19 Pandemic
AILA Doc. No. 20032630 | Dated March 26, 2020 | File Size: 596 K
On March 26, 2020, more than 70 organizations joined AILA, the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), and the ICE Professionals Union, to call on the Department of Justice to immediately close all immigration courts during the COVID-19 pandemic.
RE: THE DOJ MUST IMMEDIATELY CLOSE ALL IMMIGRATION COURTS DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC
Dear Attorney General Barr and Director McHenry,
Following previous calls by the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Local 511 (ICE Professionals Union), and the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) for the temporary closure of all immigration courts, we, the undersigned international, national, state, and local immigration, civil rights, faith- based, government accountability, and labor organizations urge the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to immediately close all 68 Immigration Courts operated by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) in adherence with current public health protocols regarding the COVID-19 virus.
On the evening of March 17, EOIR postponed all non-detained hearings and recently postponed all of the Migrant Protection Protocol hearings (MPP) scheduled through April 22, 2020. However, more aggressive action is needed. While these policies are a step in the right direction, they fall far short of the required action called for by this pandemic emergency. The detained courts must also be closed to in-person hearings in order to minimize the spread of the virus, slow the rate of new infections, and to avoid overwhelming local resources.
Given the particular vulnerability of respondents in detained settings, the use of telework, which has been advocated by the Administration, can and should be quickly put in place. Immigration Judges stand ready and able to work to ensure priority matters, including detained bond matters, are addressed using technological tools. DOJ should permit all detained respondents to immediately receive telephonic bond redetermination hearings with teleworking judges and allow supporting documents to be faxed and emailed to a designated point of contact. When possible, ICE OPLA should stipulate to bond in written motions so it is not necessary to hold hearings.
The urgency for immediate, decisive action in this matter cannot be overstated. Every link in the chain that brings individuals to the court – from the use of public transportation, to security lines, crowded elevators, cramped cubicle spaces of court staff, packed waiting room facilities in the courthouses, and inadequate sanitizing resources at the courts – place lives at risk.
AILA Doc. No. 20032630. (Posted 3/26/20)
Every state and the District of Columbia have declared a state of emergency giving government leaders the opportunity to implement bold and unprecedented measures to slow and eventually
eliminate the spread of the virus. Some officials are releasing prisoners, allowing them to shelter in place at home. Cities, county, and state governments have moved swiftly to implement stay at home orders to ensure the protection of community members from this highly communicable virus. These measures include the scaling back of mass transit conveyances to most urban centers where the immigration courts are located, creating significant logistical problems for anyone needing to access the courts. On March 21, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that it
will now require all legal visitors to provide and wear personal protective equipment (PPE) (disposable vinyl gloves, N-95 or surgical masks, and eye protection) in order to enter any
detention facility, despite the nationwide shortage of PPE.
Yet EOIR continues to operate courts in a business-as-usual manner, placing court personnel,
litigants, and all community members in harm’s way. To make matters worse, DOJ and EOIR decision-making has been opaque, with inadequate information being released, causing confusion
and leading to litigants showing up at hearings that are cancelled without notice.
DOJ’s current response to the COVID-19 pandemic and its spread is frighteningly disconnected from the realities of our communities, and the advice of local leaders and scientific experts. DOJ must immediately implement the temporary closure all immigration courts. Failing to take this action now will exacerbate a once-in-a-century public health crisis and lead to a greater loss
of life.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Laura Lynch, Senior Policy Counsel, AILA (llynch@aila.org), Judge Ashley Tabaddor, President, NAIJ (ashleytabaddor@gmail.com), or Fanny Behar-Ostrow, President, AFGE Local 511 (fbehar1@gmail.com).
Sincerely,
Fanny Behar-Ostrow ESQ Assistant Chief Counsel, DHS President AFGE Local 511
Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, Inc.
America’s Voice
American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Local 511 American Immigration Council
American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA)
Americans for Immigrant Justice, Inc.
Amnesty International USA
Arizona Coalition to End Sexual and Domestic Violence
Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO
Asian Pacific Institute on Gender-Based Violence
ASISTA
Association of Deportation Defense Attorneys, Inc.
Ayuda
Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights (CAIR) Coalition
Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc.
Center for Gender & Refugee Studies
AILA Doc. No. 20032630. (Posted 3/26/20)
Center for Victims of Torture
Central American Resource Center
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA)
Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd, U.S. Provinces End Domestic Abuse Wisconsin
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Federal Bar Association Immigration Law Section
*Disclaimer, this is the position of the Immigration Law Section and not the Federal Bar Association as a
whole.
Freedom Network USA
Government Accountability Project
Her Justice
HIAS
Human Rights First
Human Rights Initiative of North Texas
Illinois Coalition Against Domestic Violence
Immigrant Families Together
Immigration Equality
International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers International Rescue Committee
InterReligious Task Force on Central America
Just Neighbors
Justice for Our Neighbors-Michigan
Las America’s Immigrant Advocacy Center
Latin America Working Group
Leadership Conference of Women Religious
League of United Latin American Citizens
Legal Aid Justice Center
Montana Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd National Association of Immigration Judges
National Council of Jewish Women
National Justice for Our Neighbors
National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice
Nebraska Coalition to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Neighbors Immigration Clinic
NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice
New York Immigration Coalition
New York Justice for Our Neighbors
Northern Illinois Justice for Our Neighbors
Ohio Immigrant Alliance
Pax Christi USA
Restoration Immigration Legal Aid
Rian Immigrant Center
Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
Santa Fe Dreamers Project
Sisters of Mercy of the Americas Justice Team
AILA Doc. No. 20032630. (Posted 3/26/20)
South Texas Human Rights Center
Tennessee Justice for Our Neighbors
The Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
Ujima Inc: The National Center on Violence Against Women in the Black Community Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence
Virginia Coalition for Immigrant Rights
Virginia Coalition of Latino Organizations
Virginia Interfaith Center for Public Policy
Washington Office on Latin America
Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence
Wellspring United Church of Christ
Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights
AILA Doc. No. 20032630. (Posted 3/26/20)
*************************
Pretty disturbingly graphic example of how little EOIR & the DOJ care about the health, safety, and welfare of their own employees, let alone the public they have long ceased serving!
Also appreciate the courageous leadership of AFGE Local 511 President and DHS Assistant Chief Counsel Fanny Behar-Ostrow in joining the effort to end the regime’s reckless insanity. An “Honorary Member” of the NDPA to be sure! Folks like Fanny, Ashley, Laura, Jeff, and Dan are among America’s unsung heroes! Thanks for all you do!
Due Process Forever! Political “Courts” Endangering Public Welfare & Safety, Never!
Mar. 11, 2020 letter from Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Sen. Edward Markey to EOIR Director McHenry:
“…We therefore urge EOIR to require the posting of the CDC signage, in English and Spanish, as well as any other relevant languages, in courtrooms and waiting areas to raise awareness of COVID-19 and how to avoid transmitting and contracting it. In addition, we request answers to the following questions by March 18, 2020:
Why were immigration judges and immigration court administrators instructed to remove the CDC COVID-19 posters? What “authority” did they purportedly lack to place the posters?
Who told Acting Chief Immigration Judge Christopher Santoro to issue the directive? Who in “leadership” was Judge Santoro referring to in his email regarding the posters?
Did EOIR consult with qualified public health authorities before issuing its directive to remove the posters?
Why was the directive reversed? Did negative publicity play any role in the decision?
What steps is EOIR taking to protect immigration judges, support staff, immigrants, attorneys, and the public from the spread ofCOVID-19? A. Are sick employees and members of the public being told to go home? B. Are cleaning and disinfectant supplies being provided to all employees and to members of the public who come to the courts?
How is EOIR coordinating with the rest of the Department of Justice about how to respond to COVID-19? Is it receiving guidance from any other federal agencies, such as CDC?
In light of the public health concerns posed by COVID-19, will EOIR instruct immigration judges to allow immigrant respondents the opportunity to reschedule immigration court proceedings as necessary?”
“… we call on you to suspend all non-detained master calendar dockets for the duration of this public health crisis. Immigration Judges can use cancelled master calendar time to hear individual cases (including addressing the backlog of hundreds of thousands of long-pending cases scheduled for individual hearing) that do not involve unwarranted exposure to large numbers of people in our space-limited facilities. …”
************************************
Thanks, Dan.
As the situation deteriorates, America’s mismanaged “Clown Courts” 🤡🤡 continue to endanger the public while denying due process and wasting taxpayer money by having no contingency plans in place and failing to issue clear guidance to either their own employees or the public.
But, let the record show that they have plenty of time to develop unneeded and counterproductive “Immigration Judge dashboards,” tie up the system with frivolous litigation to “decertify” the NAIJ, and set up “TV pilot programs” to railroad kids through the Atlanta Immigration Court. All enforcement-related “gimmicks;” no time for due process or the public interest.
But, the record should also document the dereliction of duty by Congress and the Article IIIs for allowing this “clown show” to continue to inflict damage on the American public and our legal system.
(CNN)The union representing immigration judges urged the Trump administration in a letter Monday to “immediately” implement steps to protect judges and their staff and provide guidance on how to proceed amid the coronavirus outbreak, which also has the potential to exacerbate the overwhelming backlog of pending cases.
The letter calls for the Executive Office for Immigration Review, an agency within the Justice Department that oversees the nation’s immigration courts, to inform employees about the plan “as it relates to a potential pandemic,” noting that some immigration court functions “may not lend themselves to telework.”
“As you know, our work requires us to be in close contact with the public on a daily basis, often in very large numbers and groups,” wrote Judge Ashley Tabaddor, president of the National Association of Immigration Judges.
She continued: “Beyond our own employees, the respondents who come before us may also be at high risk for developing serious illness. Because we order their appearance and they face the prospect of removal if they don’t appear, sick respondents and respondents vulnerable to serious illness will keep coming to court unless we take action.”
As concerns over the coronavirus ramp up, some government agencies, businesses and organizations have taken steps to try and prevent the spread of the disease by preparing for employees to telework, limiting travel and canceling gatherings.
In Monday’s letter, the union asked the Trump administration to consider measures such as waiving the appearance of some respondents, allowing for telephonic appearances and limiting in-court paper filings. The union is also recommending in an email to the workforce that judges keep bottles of hand sanitizer in the courtroom, use disinfecting wipes to clean surfaces and limit court attendance.
Any change in daily operations is critical in immigration court, which faces a pile-up of pending cases. Immigrants fighting deportation generally have a chance to make their case in court, where they can ask a judge to allow them to stay in the US by arguing they qualify for asylum or another legal option.
Last year’s US government shutdown, which resulted in some cases being postponed, exacerbated the long-standing issue and added to the backlog. There are more than 1 million pending cases before the immigration courts, according to Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse or TRAC, which tracks immigration court data — resulting in cases being scheduled out years in advance.
TRAC estimated last year that between 80,000 and 94,000 immigration court hearings may have been canceled as a result of last year’s government shutdown. The only cases that moved forward during that time were those of immigrants in detention.
The concerns held among immigration lawyers Monday are reminiscent of the government shutdown.
Immigration attorneys are worried about the effect on the backlog of cases if judges, attorneys, and other stakeholders are out because of the illness.
“If this thing gets out of control, it’s always a problem when cases are canceled, given the backlog,” Lawrence K. Le Roy, an immigration lawyer based in Newark, said in reference to coronavirus.
John Leschak, an immigration attorney, had a hearing scheduled Monday at the Newark immigration court for a client seeking asylum in the United States. The judge was not in court and the hearing was postponed. It’s unclear whether the reason behind the judge’s absence was related to coronavirus.
“It’s unfortunate because it’s a case that’s been pending for a long time,” Leschak said. “We’re between a rock and a hard place.”
The coronavirus is also already impacting the operations of some federal courts across the US.
For example, a district court in Washington state and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which hears cases from nine western states including Washington, altered some of the procedures as the virus continues to spread. Washington has seen at least 80 cases.
Unlike other courts, however, immigration courts fall under the executive branch, not the judicial branch.
Ariane de Vogue and Kevin Bohn contributed to this story.
Laura A. Lynch, Esq.
Senior Policy Counsel
********************************
Thanks Laura, my friend, for keeping us up to date. And, as always, thanks to Priscilla for her great reporting on the never-ending mess and continuing outages at EOIR.
When it comes to public service and professional court administration from “Headquarters,” “today’s EOIR is the pits.” And, that’s not a knock on Chief Judge Chris Santoro who is generally known as a “straight shooter” and a “problem solver.” I think that I’ve acknowledged before that he was always kind and supportive to me and helped me through some very difficult times in my career at Arlington. I’ll always be appreciative for that.
“Reading between the lines,” he was ordered by one of his “superior bozos” in EOIR’s ludicrous “chain of command” to issue the inane order and then to rescind it when everything “hit the fan.” Typical EOIR “march ‘em up the hill, then march ‘em down again nonsense,” that actually has an adverse effect on both internal morale and the public.
On the other hand, perhaps it’s time for those who know how screwed up and “maliciously mismanaged” this system is to “come out and join the resistance,” as others in our Round Table have done, some at considerable personal sacrifice (not me, of course — I was fortunate enough to be able and ready to retire from EOIR even before the current regime took over.) I have no doubt that someone with Chief Judge Santoro’s ample and diverse skill set could find employment in the private sector.
But, this “circus-like” incident raises deeper issues.
In what kind of “court system” are “judges” not allowed to post public notices issued by the CDC without saying “Captain May I?” The DOJ falsely claims that its “judges” are “policy officials.” Whoever heard of a “policy official” who couldn’t hang up a Government public health poster? This whole thing is an unbelievable farce! Why does it take a directive from “Headquarters” to rectify what should be a no brainer in any functioning court system?
And, what kind of “court system” (outside the military) reports to “headquarters.” You think that the U.S. District Courts in Washington called up John Roberts to see if it was OK to cancel trials because of a public health threat? I doubt it.
Why wasn’t NAIJ President Judge Ashley Tabaddor involved in the Coronavirus planning. She speaks for those “on the line” in contact with the public. Certainly, few issues could have a greater effect on “working conditions” than steps to prevent the spread of infectious disease. Why is the NAIJ forced to waste time complaining and going to such lengths when competent management would have involved them in advance planning months ago?
Imagine how much better this system would operate if it were run by real judges who hired professional court administrators to work for the public good, instead of maliciously incompetent clowns carrying out Stephen Miller’s fascist agenda?
As you know, I blame the Article IIIs and Congress for letting this deadly mockery of our Constitution and American Justice continue to operate — essentially to dehumanize, abuse, and sometimes kill. I trust the younger members of the NDPA, folks like Laura and her colleagues, and the next generations to see that the life-tenured judges and legislators who looked the other way and knowingly acted as enablers as human dignity, our Constitution, and the rule of law were trampled upon by a White Nationalist regime are held fully accountable in the “court of history.”
The “J.R. Five’s” toxically improper action in Wolf v. Cook County, skirting the rules to enable the regime’s illegal, racially motivated rewriting of the “public charge” rules to go into effect has been exposed for the outrageous politically biased action it is. It allows the regime to intentionally spread panic in ethnic communities, particularly targeting Hispanics, citizens, immigrants, and the undocumented, and to intimidate those who should be seeking health care advice from doing so. Nice public health policy. As if Coronavirus and other diseases know the difference between “documented” and “undocumented” humans. It’s likely that Roberts and his tone deaf cronies will have even more “blood on their hands” before this is over.
As I said on Courtside recently, in the future, we also need more courageous, scholarly, humane, and ethical Article III Judges — folks who will read the Constitution and stand up for individual rights and for human dignity — folks who understand as MLK once said that “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” The current group of Article IIIs is a national disgrace (as a whole, although there are many notable exceptions, mostly among the U.S. District Court Judges who all too often get reversed by the CAs and the Supremes as their “reward” for “standing tall” for the rest of us and standing up for the fair application of the rule of law).
In the meantime, NAIJ President Judge Ashley Tabaddor is a national hero for standing up for the due process rights of all and having the courage to “speak truth to power” in these perilous times. Obviously, the unethical “decertification action” started by DOJ and EOIR is part of the effort to punish and silence her.Hang in there Ashley! We in the NDPA and the Round Table support and appreciate you and your tireless efforts!
Due Process Forever! Clown Courts 🤡& Complicit Article III Courts Never!
Cristian Farias Writer in Residence Knight First Amendment Institute
Cristian Farias reports in The Atlantic:
For more than two years, immigration judges have been subject to a policy that more or less prevents them from performing an essential part of their civic duties: speaking publicly about their work.
Since September 2017, immigration judges and all other employees at the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review have been required to adhere to an onerous pre-approval process whenever they desire or are invited to speak publicly on any issue, immigration-related or not. I learned of the policy through a Freedom of Information Act request my colleagues made to the department, as part of an investigation I’ve been conducting on the intersection of free speech and U.S. border enforcement.
It is not uncommon for government agencies to set rules on employee conduct and outside activities. But the perspective of immigration judges is particularly valuable to the public, especially one grappling with complicated questions about America’s immigration laws. In his 2019 year-end report on the federal judiciary, Chief Justice John Roberts commended American judges who, “without fanfare or acclaim,” take time to reach out to their communities in all sorts of public-education initiatives. As Ashley Tabaddor, the president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, told Congress in 2018, immigration judges “help the community better understand our immigration courts and their function in the community, helping to demystify the system and bring transparency about our operations to the public.”
Although immigration judges are employees of the executive branch, they’re judges in the truest sense of the term, presiding over cases that have enormous consequences for asylum seekers or people facing removal from the U.S. The Trump administration appears determined to remove from the public’s view the very people the chief justice and Tabaddor believe play an essential role in promoting public confidence in the administration of justice. The Justice Department should heed their call—rescind its misguided policy and let judges speak.
In the 2017 memo, the official overseeing the work of immigration judges, James McHenry III, did acknowledge that “the public has become increasingly interested in hearing about, and understanding, what the agency does and specifically how Immigration Courts operate.” But the policy went on to severely restrict judges’ freedom to speak even in a personal capacity about these matters, requiring them to seek permission through the chain of command. “Supervisors will determine the capacity in which an employee is speaking,” McHenry’s memo stated, thus effectively eliminating a judge’s discretion to speak about immigration in public settings, even with a disclaimer that he or she was doing so in a personal capacity. Supervising judges and other senior employees have it even worse—they are simply forbidden from speaking at public events in a personal capacity at all.
Lawyers at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, where I’ve been conducting my investigation, believe that the policy violates the First Amendment, and in early January issued a letter asking the Justice Department to suspend it. Their reasoning was grounded in well-settled Supreme Court precedent. In the 1968 case Pickering v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court recognized that public employees’ “right to speak on issues of public importance” doesn’t vanish the moment they take a government job. For the government to restrain public employees’ ability to speak, the Supreme Court has said, the Constitution requires officials to show that their interest in restraining speech outweighs employees’ interest in speaking and the public’s interest in hearing what they have to say. “The Government must show,” Justice John Paul Stevens explained in a 1995 case, “that the interests of both potential audiences and a vast group of present and future employees in a broad range of present and future expression are outweighed by that expression’s ‘necessary impact on the actual operation’ of the Government.” That’s a heavy lift.
The Justice Department hasn’t officially responded to the lawyers’ letter. But in mid-January, McHenry’s office did reply in a way: It purported to reissue the 2017 memorandum, calling it “established policy,” and unveiled an online portal through which immigration judges may submit their speaking-engagement requests for approval. According to the department, the new portal was necessary “to provide for more certainty and clarity” for judges, an implicit acknowledgment that the earlier guidance was causing confusion among immigration judges. (The reissued policy hasn’t been made public, but a person familiar with it showed it to me.)
. . . .
***********************
Read Cristian’s complete article at the above link.
”The truth will set you free.” But, at EOIR, the truth will get you fired!
Given the due process and management disasters going on at EOIR, it’s not surprising that they want to silence the witnesses. What is surprising is that they have been getting away with it so far.
Bailey’s Crossroads Pin
NOTE: Even prior to becoming the home of EOIR Headquarters, Bailey’s Crossroads had long reputation of being associated with the circus. However, more recent scholarship has cast doubt on those claims. According to this Washington Post article, Bailey’s Crossroads’ claimed association with the Ringling Bro’s Barnum & Bailey Circus might be as attenuated as EOIR’s claimed association with due process and fundamental fairness! https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/2002/05/19/history-at-the-crossroads/5da541c9-5aa4-49cc-83f9-7ecb49a1b12b/
However, what the article does correctly point out, and EOIR under the influence of the White Nationalist regime appears to have forgotten, is that Bailey’s Crossroads has a long history of being a vibrant community of industrious immigrants who made Northern Virginia into what it is today!
On February 26, the Attorney General (or more likely, someone authorized to speak on his behalf) issued a precedent decision in Matter of R-A-F-. My take on the import of this decision seems to be different than most. Let me first provide some background.
Most people seeking asylum in this country also apply for a lesser form of protection called withholding of removal under Article III of the U.N. Convention Against Torture (“CAT” for short). Whereas asylum provides a path to U.S. permanent residence, CAT only prevents someone with a deportation order from being sent to a country in which they are likely to suffer torture.CAT generally only comes into play where the applicant isn’t found eligible for asylum, something which is happening more frequently as the present administration churns out new bars and obstacles to eligibility.
To provide an example, someone who establishes they will likely be murdered or raped if returned to their country may be barred from even applying for asylum if they didn’t file their application within one year of their arrival in this country, or if they did not apply for asylum in a third country they passed through en route to the southern border. Even if allowed to apply, they may still be denied asylum if the immigration judge does not determine that their persecution would be for the proper motive.But while our asylum laws as written allow some leeway as to whom the government will afford permanent status in the U.S., the same government is bound by international treaty not to send an individual to a place where they would suffer persecution. It is often CAT that fills the gap between those who are not permitted to remain permanently but should nevertheless not be repatriated.
The U.S. was one of 154 countries to sign the U.N. Convention Against Torture. However, it was the only country to add a “specific intent” requirement to its internal regulations implementing the convention, requiring a finding that the torture “be specifically intended to inflict severe…pain and suffering,” and specifically excluding acts that result “in unanticipated or unintended severity of pain or suffering.”1 The specific intent requirement seriously undermines the purpose of the law, as many are forced to rely on CAT specifically because they couldn’t prove the proper intent of their persecutor that is required for asylum. It is thus necessary for the specific intent provision to be interpreted in the least restrictive manner for CAT to function in its intended way.
In 2002, the BIA had its first chance to interpret how the specific intent requirement should be applied in a case called Matter of J-E-. At the time, the BIA was comprised of judges holding diverse views of the law. As a result, the Board was sharply split on the issue.The more restrictive reading won out, but 6 judges dissented.2 Five of them were no longer on the BIA a year later following then Attorney General John Ashcroft’s infamous purge of Board judges whom he viewed as too liberal.
An important point that was glossed over in the majority opinion in Matter of J-E- and its progeny is that where governments do intentionally maintain horrific conditions in its prisons or mental institutions that are intended to punish those institution’s populations, they tend to be smart enough not to admit to it. To illustrate this point, I refer to a November 12, 2019 report of the Washington Post finding that although the Trump Administration characterized its outrageous treatment of unaccompanied immigrant children as an unintended consequence of the volume of immigrants seeking asylum at the border, such outcome “also was a result of policy decisions that officials knew would ensnare unaccompanied minors in bureaucratic tangles and leave them in squalid conditions.”
Cognisant of this fact, in his dissenting opinion in Matter of J-E-, Hon. Paul W. Schmidt found the specific intent requirement to be satisfied by a “clearly documented acceptance of extreme mistreatment amounting to torture as a routine aspect of detention in Haiti.” Concluding that the Haitian government “cannot claim it does not know what happens to detainees in its prisons,” Judge Schmidt found the specific intent requirement to have been met.Hon. Lory D. Rosenberg began her companion dissenting opinion in the case by quoting from the Second Circuit that “Among the rights universally proclaimed by all nations . . . is the right to be free of physical torture.”3
In late 2018, the BIA again rejected such arguments and reiterated the majority view of J-E- in another precedent decision, Matter of J-G-R-P-. This time, the BIA did so in a three-judge panel decision in which there were no dissents. As this decision was published less than 16 months prior to the A.G.’s decision in R-A-F-, there was really no need at the time the A.G. issued R-A-F- for another decision on the topic.
I thus believe the real motive behind issuing the decision was not to give guidance, but rather to serve warning. While published precedential decisions have always received broad attention, individual BIA appellate judges have felt safe affording relief in sympathetic cases in unpublished decisions where the outcome is generally known only to the parties involved.
A colleague recently made me aware of a job posting within EOIR for an attorney to work not for the Immigration Courts or the BIA, but rather within the office of EOIR’s director, James McHenry, who has imposed the administration’s political will on the agency’s judges with a heavy hand. The job description included “review(ing) court cases including appeals cases for adherence to procedural requirements, proper interpretation and application of statutes, regulations and precedents,” and “recommend(ing) action on precedent-setting issues to senior officials.” In other words, McHenry was looking to hire what is commonly referred to as a “snitch” to sort through decisions that might not pass muster with the likes of Stephen Miller, and flag them for corrective action.One such shameless staffer apparently flagged R-A-F- in this manner, and through the resulting A.G. certification, the case will serve as a cautionary tale for a group of BIA judges that certainly hasn’t forgotten the fate of the Matter of J-E- dissenters.
The decision in question was issued in September by Appellate Immigration Judge Linda Wendtland, whose retirement party was held this past week. Judge Wendtland is by no means a liberal, and worked the majority of her career for the Department of Justice; prior to her appointment to the BIA, she had been an assistant director with the DOJ’s Office of Immigration Litigation. But Judge Wendtland is highly knowledgeable of the law, and is reasonable and fair (all endangered qualities on the present BIA).
Looking to Judge Wendtland’s decision below, it would be difficult to find a more sympathetic applicant than R-A-F-. The respondent seeking CAT protection is in his 70s, and suffers from Parkinson’s disease, dementia, Major Depressive Disorder, traumatic brain injury, PTSD, and chronic kidney disease. The evidence of record established that if returned to his native Mexico, R-A-F- faced a significant risk of being institutionalized in a facility in which he could be subject to physical and sexual abuse, physical and chemical restraints, and containment in cages and isolation rooms, all without access to justice. Judge Wendtland agreed with the Immigration Judge that such treatment rose to the definition of torture.
Based on her reputation and body of work, Judge Wendtland is undoubtedly someone who had earned the right to have her decision in R-A-F- accorded deference. However, these are different times.And instead of deference, the A.G. (who, of course, knows next to nothing about immigration law or the specific matter in question) chose to unceremoniously refer to himself and then slam the BIA’s decision. The legacy of such action will be fully felt the next time a single judge at the BIA has the opportunity to affirm a similarly sympathetic grant of relief, but will instead choose not to do so out of fear and self-preservation.This is not how justice should be afforded to our country’s most vulnerable population.
Notes:
8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(5).
I am proud to note that the authors of the two dissenting opinions, Paul W. Schmidt and Lory D. Rosenberg, and former BIA judge Cecelia Espenoza, who joined in both dissents, are presently members of the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges.
Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876, 890 (2d Cir. 1980).
Copyright 2020 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
Reprinted with permission.
********************************
Thanks, Jeffrey my friend,for the “shout out” for the dissents of Lory, Cecelia, and me in Matter of J-E-!
I have said before that I always respected Judge Wendtland. She was a scholarly, industrious, fair-minded, “center right” jurist. While I had been exiled from the BIA before she was appointed, she seemed like a judge with whom I would have enjoyed having a continuing dialogue, much like my more conservative, yet thoughtful and scholarly, friend the late Judge Lauri Steven Filppu. And, we probably would have ended up on the same side of a number of issues coming before the BIA.
It’s both disheartening and enraging to see that even “conscientious conservative” jurists like Judge Wendtland get no real respect and deference from the likes of Billy Barr and his toady colleagues. And, the function of having Director McHenry “ride heard” on the BIA is both unethical and stupid, since he is not an Immigraton Judge himself. Indeed, the gross incompetence with which todays’ EOIR is managed suggests that the Director’s sole role should be to attend to the failing administrative and support structure of the Immigration Courts in a nonpartisan, apolitical manner under the direction of, not overseeing, the BIA Chair and the Chief Immigration Judge.
This system is broken! Every time an Article III Circuit Court signs off on an order of removal resulting from this unconstitutional, unethical, and grossly mismanaged morass, those Article III Judges enable the regime’s continuing fraud, waste, and abuse, and shirk their sworn constitutional duties.
Molly Hennessy-Fiske Houston Bureau Chief LA TimesHonorable Charles Honeyman Retired U.S. Immigration Judge Member, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
HOUSTON — Immigration Judge Charles Honeyman was nearing retirement, but he vowed not to leave while Donald Trump was president and risk being replaced by an ideologue with an anti-immigration agenda.
He pushed back against the administration the best he could. He continued to grant asylum to victims of domestic violence even after the Justice Department said that was not a valid reason to. And he tried to ignore demands to speed through cases without giving them the consideration he believed the law required.
But as the pressure from Washington increased, Honeyman started having stomach pains and thinking, “There are a lot of cases I’m going to have to deny that I’ll feel sick over.”
This month, after 24 years on the bench, the 70-year-old judge called it quits.
Dozens of other judges concerned about their independence have done the same, according to the union that represents them and interviews with several who left.
“We’ve seen stuff which is unprecedented — people leaving the bench soon after they were appointed,” said A. Ashley Tabaddor, an immigration judge in Los Angeles and president of the National Assn. of Immigration Judges union.
“Judges are going to other federal agencies and retiring as soon as possible. They just don’t want to deal with it. It’s become unbearable.”
Especially worrying to many is a quota system that the Trump administration imposed in 2018 requiring each judge to close at least 700 cases annually, monitoring their progress with a dashboard display installed on their computers.
Tabaddor called the system “a factory model” that puts “pressures on the judges to push the cases through.”
Jeffrey Chase, who served as an immigration judge in New York City until 2007, founded a group of former immigration judges in 2017 that has grown to 40 members.
“They say they would have gladly worked another five or 10 years, but they just reached a point under this administration where they can’t,” he said. “It used to be there were pressures, but you were an independent judge left to decide the cases.”
The precise number of judges who have quit under duress is unclear. Kathryn Mattingly, a spokeswoman for the courts, said a total of 45 left their positions in the fiscal year that ended last September, but she declined to provide a breakdown of how many of those were deaths, planned retirements or promotions to the immigration appeals board.
More information may become available Wednesday, when a House judiciary subcommittee is scheduled to hear testimony on the state of judicial independence and due process in the country’s 68 immigration courts.
The Trump administration has been adding new judges faster than old ones are leaving. Between 2016 and last year, the total number of judges climbed from 289 to 442.
That increase as well as the quota system and other measures are part of a broad effort by the Trump administration to reduce a massive backlog that tripled during the Obama presidency and then grew worse as large numbers of Central Americans arrived at the U.S. border.
Last year, the Department of Homeland Security filed 443,000 cases seeking deportations and immigrants made a record 200,000 asylum applications — both records. More than a million cases remain unresolved.
Still, James McHenry, director of the immigration courts, told the Senate Homeland Security committee in November that the new rules have started to turn around a court system that had been hobbled by neglect and inefficiency.
On average, immigration judges met the quota last year while the number of complaints against judges decreased for the second year in a row, he said.
“These results unequivocally prove that immigration judges have the integrity and competence required to resolve cases in the timely and impartial manner that is required by law,” McHenry testified.
But many judges came to see the new guidelines as a way for the Trump administration to carry out its agenda of increasing deportations and denying asylum claims, which the president has asserted are largely fraudulent.
Those judges say it is impossible to work under the new system and still guarantee migrants their due process rights.
“There are many of us who just feel we can’t be part of a system that’s just so fundamentally unfair,” said Ilyce Shugall, who quit her job as an immigration judge in San Francisco last March and now directs the Immigrant Legal Defense Program at the Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Assn. of San Francisco. “I took an oath to uphold the Constitution.”
The Trump administration was “using the court as a weapon against immigrants,” she said.
Rebecca Jamil, who was also a judge in San Francisco before quitting in 2018, called it a “nearly impossible job.”
She said the judge appointed to replace her left after less than a year.
The judges union has taken up the cause, fighting to end the quota system and make immigration courts independent from the Justice Department.
In response, Justice officials petitioned the Federal Labor Relations Authority last August to decertify the union, arguing judges are managers and therefore not entitled to union protections. The board is expected to issue a decision later this year.
The conflict intensified after the union filed a formal complaint about a Justice Department newsletter that included a link to a white nationalist website that waged anti-Semitic attacks on judges.
Honeyman, who is Jewish, makes no secret of the empathy he felt for the asylum seekers who appeared in his courtroom in Philadelphia and during temporary assignments to courts in Louisiana, New Mexico and Texas.
His grandparents had come from Eastern Europe through New York’s Ellis Island. “I always thought, ‘But for some quirk of the immigration system, I would be on the other side’ ” of the bench, he said.
He granted asylum more often than many other judges. Between 2014 and 2019, immigration judges across the country denied about 60% of asylum claims, according to Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. Honeyman denied 35% of claims in his courtroom.
Reflecting on his career in a speech at his retirement party this month, Honeyman said he had been inspired by the cases he heard, including that of a Central American girl who wrote to thank him for granting her asylum. She had graduated from college and was applying to law school “so that she could give back to the America that had saved her life.”
Honeyman said he decided to leave the bench because of “the escalating attack over the past few years on the very notion that we are a court in any meaningful sense.”
“All of these factors and forces I regret tipped the balance for me,” he said. “It was time for Courtroom 1 at the Philadelphia immigration court to go dark.”
**************************************
The idea that things are “turning around” in a positive way for the beleaguered and weaponized “courts” is, of course, pure regime propaganda. The system, is totally out of control.
The Administration eliminated sensible “prosecutorial discretion” guidelines for DHS that prioritized cases in the manner of all other law enforcement agencies in America. DOJ politicos also stripped Immigration Judges of their well-established authority to manage dockets thorough “administrative closure” and restricted their ability to grant reasonable continuances (likely unconstitutional).
At a time when the world is still producing record numbers of refugees, the regime has artificially suppressed the asylum grant rate by issuing unethical and legally wrong politically generated precedents, blocking access to counsel, using intentionally coercive detention, and pressuring judges to “produce or else” which roughly translates into “deny and deport.” “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”) is the order of the day. This toxic brand of ADR (not to be confused with “alternative disputes resolution”) is an insanely wasteful bureaucratic practice whereby “ready to try cases,” many pending for years, are shuffled off to the end of dockets that are many years out, often without advance notice to the parties, to accommodate Immigration Judge details, reassignments, and other “new priorities of the day.”
So totally out of control and mismanaged is today’s weaponized “court system” that the independent TRAC Immigration at Syracuse University recently estimated that it would take approximately another 400 Immigration Judges, in addition to the approximately 465 already on duty, just for the courts to “break even” on the unrestricted and irresponsible flow of incoming cases from DHS enforcement. https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/591/
In other words, to stop creating more backlog. And that would be without further retirements or resignations – something that clearly is not going to happen. Even under those circumstances, the courts would merely be “breaking even.” Eliminating the “backlog” in a fair and legal manner would take additional judges and years, if not generations, if the courts continue to operate as a dysfunctional branch of DOJ dedicated to biased enforcement at the expense of due process, fundamental fairness, and responsible, professional management.
It’s likely that Wednesday‘s House hearings will further document the institutional unfairness and dysfunction of the current “courts” and the urgent, overwhelming need for an independent Article I Immigration court to be established by Congress. But, that reform might not come soon enough for the lives of many of the vulnerable individuals stuck in this “legal hellhole” and the sanity of many of the judges still on the bench.
Knight Institute Calls on DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review to Suspend Policy Silencing Immigration Judges
In a letter, the Institute argues that the agency’s policy, which it recently obtained through a FOIA request, violates the First Amendment
JANUARY 06, 2020
WASHINGTON — In a letter sent today to the acting director of the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University demanded that the agency suspend its policy restricting the ability of EOIR employees to speak at public events. That policy, Institute lawyers argued, violates the First Amendment by unduly abridging the right of immigration judges and other EOIR employees to speak in their personal capacities about matters of significant public interest.
The Knight Institute recently obtained a copy of the EOIR’s policy through a Freedom of Information Act request. That FOIA request was submitted as part of a major investigation the Institute’s writer-in-residence Cristian Farias is leading on free speech restrictions at the U.S. border.
The policy categorically prohibits certain senior EOIR employees from speaking at public events in their personal capacities, and it requires all other EOIR employees to obtain supervisory approval before doing so.
“There is immense public interest in recent changes to immigration policy, and the effects those changes are having on migrant communities,” said Ramya Krishnan, a staff attorney at the Knight Institute. “EOIR’s policy deprives the public of a crucial voice in that debate, by silencing those charged with operating the nation’s immigration courts.”
The Knight Institute’s constitutional objections to the EOIR policy come in the midst of an ongoing conflict between U.S. immigration judges—who are EOIR employees—and the U.S. government. Some immigration judges have been critical of Trump administration policies that they say interfere with their independence, such as case-completion quotas, and the administration is now attempting to decertify the union that represents the judges. A hearing in that decertification proceeding is scheduled to begin tomorrow.
“Federal employees don’t relinquish their First Amendment rights when they begin working for the government,” said Stephanie Krent, a legal fellow at the Knight Institute. “Limits on federal-employee speech must be tailored to speech that would be genuinely disruptive, but this policy is anything but. It sweepingly suppresses protected speech without any apparent justification.”
Read the Knight Institute’s letter and the EOIR policy here.
Click the above link in the press release to see the letter to EOIR Director McHenry.
Given the absolute Due Process disaster in Immigration Court and the total dysfunctional mess that the “malicious incompetents” at DOJ and EOIR so-called “management” have made out of an already troubled system, it’s perfectly understandable why EOIR doesn’t want any public scrutiny or the truth to come out.
However, given the regime’s complete disregard of the Constitution, the rule of law, and sound public policy in areas from immigration to the environment to voting rights, etc., I wouldn’t hold my breath for EOIR to change their unconstitutional and “just plain dumb” policies. Hopefully, the Knight Institute has the resources to take this to the “real” courts and, perhaps, even to Congress in better times.
But, to date, a divided Congress with “Moscow Mitch” in the driver’s seat and the higher-level Article IIIs have shown little interest in applying the Constitution or insisting on compliance with laws when it’s only the rights and lives of immigrants, particularly brown skinned ones from south of our border, involved. That’s particularly interesting, and not just a little discouraging, because very few members of the Article III Judiciary are Native Americans; almost all descend from immigrants and many of their ancestors would not have been allowed to come here or would not have survived under the types of stereotyping and invidious, unconstitutional discrimination unleashed by Trump and his minions. The ability to see yourself in the situation of other humans should be a requirement for any Article III judge! Obviously, it hasn’t been, or at least not to a sufficient extent, in the past.
So far, the Article IIIs Appellate Courts have bent over backwards to demonstrate just how aggressively out of touch they are with humanity and the everyday individual rights of Americans, whether citizens or non-citizens, entitled to protection under our laws.
Unfortunately, the “failure of courage and dereliction of Constitutional responsibility” among the Article III Appellate Judiciary is a problem that will continue to plague whatever is left of America and our institutions even after Trump and his kakistocracy are gone from the scene.
At some point, maybe legal education in American has to focus on a larger problem: educating a future judiciary with an overriding commitment to ethics, courage to stand up for individual rights, and the integrity to “just say no” to tyranny, inhumanity, wanton cruelty, and constant Executive overreach!
We can’t change what has happened, but we can learn from our failures.
The Trump administration argued in an executive branch court on Tuesday that the duties of immigration judges housed within the Justice Department have grown more important in the last two decades, elevating the judges to management and therefore rendering them ineligible to form a union.
The Justice lawyers and their first witness—James McHenry, the director of the Executive Office of Immigration Review, which employs the nation’s 400 immigration judges—faced pointed questions from an attorney with the Federal Labor Relations Authority who oversaw the hearing and questioned whether the judges actually set department policy. The administration first announced in August it would attempt to decertify the National Association of Immigration Judges, bringing the case to FLRA to argue the employees are not eligible to collectively bargain.
Union representatives argued at Tuesday’s hearing that their members’ duties have not fundamentally changed since 2000, when the Justice Department last attempted to decertify the union. FLRA rejected the Justice Department’s argument that year that immigration judges make policy through the issuance of decisions, noting the judges do not set precedent and their rulings are often appealed and reviewed. FLRA also said the immigration court system was established specifically so judges do not maintain any management duties to enable them to focus on hearings.
The arguments followed a similar path on Tuesday, though Justice attorneys and McHenry said several changes to Executive Office of Immigration Review policy and relevant precedents created an opening for a new FLRA ruling. William Krisner, the regional attorney for FLRA’s Washington office who presided over the hearing, said Tuesday morning the authority would first have to determine if anything had changed since 2000 before ruling on the merits of the case. William Brill, a Justice attorney, pointed to a 1999 streamlining effort by the department that enabled the immigration appeals board within the review office to simply affirm a judge’s ruling without issuing a separate opinion as one such change. The change was not presented during the previous FLRA case, Brill said, and was amplified in 2002 when EOIR again shifted course to allow just one board member to affirm a judge’s ruling.
Facing Brill’s questioning, McHenry said the “factual day-to-day” of immigration judges’ work has not changed since 2000 but the “legal significance of those duties” had been overhauled.
Legal changes have “fundamentally recast the nature and importance of immigration judge duties,” McHenry said.
Richard Bialczak, an attorney for the union, rejected the argument, saying Justice’s claims were nothing more than a retread.
The Trump administration is “raising the same arguments and hoping for a different outcome,” Bialczak said. “There’s no factual basis for it. The Department of Justice simply does not want to deal with a vocalunion that asserts its rights.”
Brill also argued immigration judges’ workload increasingly involves issuing decisions that cannot be appealed to the Executive Office of Immigration Review’s board. While immigrants can appeal those cases to the federal circuit, Brill and McHenry said the judge’s initial ruling represents the department’s official position. Immigration judges collectively issued about 280,000 decisions in fiscal 2019, about 38% of which could not be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Justice also pointed to Lucia v. SEC—a 2018 Supreme Court case that dictated that administrative law judges must be appointed by the president or a designated official, rather than hired normally—as relevant to immigration judges. The Executive Office of Immigration Review employees are administrative judges, not administrative law judges, but McHenry said their “duties and functions are very similar.”
“It’s difficult to conceive someone who needs to be appointed by the head of an agency but does not make management decisions,” Brill said.
Margaret Tough, another attorney for the union, countered that Lucia had no bearing on immigration judges, who are appointed by the attorney general and have been dating back prior to 2000. She and Bialczak said the judges are now under stricter oversight by management, facing new performance evaluations, quotas for their annual caseload and a restriction on speaking publicly. On cross examination, McHenry noted the judges can face discipline if their rulings are not up to acceptable standards and the board can remand cases back to them. Under their performance standards, judges cannot exceed a pre-set remand rate.
Upon follow-up questioning from Kirsner, the FLRA attorney, McHenry conceded the judges “are not supervisors.”
“Immigration judges are at the bottom of the org chart so they don’t supervise anything,” McHenry said, noting they cannot hire or fire anyone.
Tough highlighted that the Executive Office of Immigration Review has hired additional supervisory judges and under McHenry created the Office of Policy, which the agency director said was launched to “ensure better coordination of policy making within the agency.” He added, however, that adjudicatory policy making remained the sole power of immigration judges and their supervisors cannot influence the judges’ rulings.
Kirsner repeatedly sought more information on immigration judges’ power to set precedent. Generally speaking, their rulings do not influence more than the case at hand. Kirsner also clarified that unless there is a remand, their work on a case is finished after they issue a decision. Justice attorneys noted various statements in which the union suggested immigration judges should be removed from the executive branch and placed into an independent court, but Kirsner rejected them as irrelevant.
FLRA is expected to continue to hear from witnesses through Thursday before issuing a decision on the union’s fate later this year.
*************************
Many thanks to my long-time friend, fellow retired judicial colleague, member of the Round Table, and former NAIJ President Judge Joan Churchill for passing this along.
“Immigration judges are at the bottom of the org chart so they don’t supervise anything,” McHenry said, noting they cannot hire or fire anyone.
FLRA also said the immigration court system was established specifically so judges do not maintain any management duties to enable them to focus on hearings.
The above quotes “say it all” about the absurd position being argued by the DOJ. But, since neither administrative nor Article III courts hold the regime accountable for dishonesty before tribunals and engaging in frivolous litigation, like private parties would be, there is no incentive for the regime and its toadies at DOJ to stop flooding the courts with lies, misrepresentations, and meritless litigation.
Indeed, the Article IIIs unwillingness to deal “head-on” with the clearly unconstitutional nature of the Immigration Courts and their grotesque and unethical mismanagement by the DOJ have lead to an absurd growing backlog of 1.3 million cases (each involving real human lives) and the impending collapse of one of the largest sectors of the American justice system. What will it take for the “life-tenured ones in their ivory towers” to get out of the clouds and engage in the fray before it’s too late for our nation?
As I say over and over: Imagine if we had an honest Administration and Article III courts with integrity that forced the Government and private parties to work together to solve pressing legal and policy problems, particularly in the field of immigration, rather than squandering time and resources on Government-generated meritless litigation and schemes intended to collapse our entire justice system?
Worse yet, Article III Courts like the Supremes and the Fifth Circuit regularly reward the regime for its scofflaw performances, thus showing contempt for their own judicial roles, our Constitution, the rule of law, and, worst of all, for the human lives destroyed by invidiously motivated and illegal policies of the Trump regime. It also encourages this scofflaw behavior to continue and escalate.
That’s why the feeble and feckless complaints by Chief Justice Roberts about loss of respect for the courts and the ugly tenor of public discourse encouraged and engendered by the Trump regime are so discouraging and annoying. Actions speak louder than words, Chiefie! And, Trump has figured out that you’re all bluster and no backbone when it comes to standing up and speaking out in real cases about his all-out assault on American democracy!
Finally, let’s not forget that while DOJ/EOIR “management” is squandering everyone’s time on wasteful and frivolous efforts like “decertification,” here are just a few of the real management problems facing the Immigration Court system:
No e-filing system;
Growing 1.3 million case backlog, notwithstanding almost doubling the number of Immigration Judges, with no coherent plan for addressing it effectively for the foreseeable future;
Inaccurate and deficient record keeping as documented by TRAC;
Defective hearing notices;
Rock bottom judicial and staff morale, resulting in premature departure of some of the “best and brightest;”
“Single source” judicial selection process that effectively excludes non-Governmental candidates from the Immigration Judiciary;
Huge discrepancies among judges in asylum decision-making;
Continuing quality control problems with both Immigration Judges and BIA Judges misapplying basic legal standards and established precedents, as noted by Circuit Court decisions;
Problems in providing qualified in-person interpreters for hearings;
Inadequate training of Immigration Judges.
Seems like we’d all be better off if the NAIJ, rather than what passes for “EOIR management” were in charge of our Immigration Courts. And, while the FLA’s Krisner quite properly ruled it irrelevant to the proceedings before him, it’s more obvious than ever that the myriad of problems plaguing the Immigration Courts can’t and won’t be solved until there is an independent, Article I U.S. Immigration court established outside the Executive Branch!
Washington (CNN)Lisa Dornell loved her job. For 24 years, she sat on the bench in Baltimore’s immigration court, hearing hundreds of cases of immigrants trying to stay in the United States.
“It was an honor. It was a privilege to be able to preside over so many different cases and be able to grant relief to people who needed relief,” Dornell told CNN in an interview.
But she walked away from that job in April — a decision that still invokes a wave of emotion when she recalls it. “The toxic environment made it both harder and easier to leave,” Dornell said.
Over the past year, in the heat of a border migration crisis, 45 judges have left, moved into new roles in the immigration court system — which is run by the Justice Department — or passed away, according to the department. That’s nearly double the number who departed their posts in fiscal years 2018 and 2017, when 24 and 21 judges left, respectively, according to data provided by the judges union.
The reasons why individual judges have moved on from their posts on the bench vary, but in interviews with judges who left in recent months, one theme ties them all together: frustration over a mounting number of policy changes that, they argue, chipped away at their authority.
Their departures come as the Justice Department faces a backlog that exceeds 1 million cases. The bogged-down system has led to immigration cases being pushed out years in the future, leaving many immigrants residing in the US unsure if they’ll be allowed to stay or be ordered removed.
President Donald Trump has repeatedly criticized the nation’s immigration system, specifically taking issue with the practice of releasing immigrants while they await their court dates. To remedy that, the administration has sought to hire more immigration judges. Most recently, the immigration judge corps hit a record high, though the Justice Department still has to contend with judges leaving over policy disagreements.
In a statement to CNN, the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review spokeswoman, Kathryn Mattingly, said the agency “continually plans for attrition, and both improvements to the hiring process and a policy of ‘no dark courtrooms’ help minimize the operational impact of (immigration judge) separations and retirements.”
The agency doesn’t track individual reasons for retirements or departures, Mattingly said.
Immigration judges — employees of the Justice Department — are charged with following the policies set by each administration.
“The nature of the job ebbed and flowed as administrations changed,” Dornell recalled. “It was always tolerable. We all work with a realization that it’s the prerogative of the administration to implement policies as they see fit.”
The Trump administration was no exception. Trump’s first attorney general, Jeff Sessions, implemented a series of changes to the immigration court system that have continued under his successor, William Barr.
The Justice Department has imposed case quotas, given more power to the director charged with overseeing the courts, reversed rulings, curtailed judges’ ability to exercise discretion in some cases and moved to decertify the union of immigration judges.
Over time, those actions prompted immigration judges, some of whom were retirement eligible and had decades of experience, to leave the department despite initial plans to stay longer.
“I felt then and I feel now that this administration is doing everything in its power to completely destroy the immigration court system, the board of immigration appeal and the immigration system in general,” said Ilyce Shugall, who served as an immigration judge in San Francisco from 2017 until March of this year. “And I just couldn’t be a part of that.”
‘It started to wear on me’
Over his nearly two-year tenure as attorney general, Sessions transformed the courts by flexing his authority to overrule decisions, hire more immigration judges and set a case quota for judges.
One of Sessions’ addresses to the workforce, in particular, resonated with judges. In a June 2018 speech in Washington, Sessions denounced the system, which he believed was encouraging migrants to make baseless asylum claims, and reminded judges of their role in cracking down on those claims.
“You have an obligation to decide cases efficiently and to keep our federal laws functioning effectively, fairly and consistently,” Sessions said. Later that day, he issued a ruling that removed asylum protections for victims of domestic violence and gang violence.
“To be honest with you, in that meeting room, there were a number of judges that cheered and clapped when he announced it,” said former immigration judge Rebecca Jamil, referring to the ruling that would follow his address. “It was grotesque to me.”
Jamil, who had been based in the San Francisco immigration court, had a docket that included migrants who had fled their home countries, claiming they were victims of domestic violence. Sessions’ decision took direct aim at those cases.
Another judge in attendance at Sessions’ speech, Denise Slavin, recalled jaws dropping. Slavin had become a judge in 1995, serving in Florida before finishing her tenure in Baltimore in April of this year.
Sessions’ address and follow-up ruling was among a series of policy changes that began to wear on judges.
“When you’ve been around that many administrations, you learn to adapt. You see a lot of different things. Nothing like this,” said James Fujimoto, a former Chicago immigration judge who started on the bench in 1990 and also retired in April.
In particular, the administration began rolling out changes that dictated the way judges were expected to proceed with cases, thereby tightening control of the immigration courts. For example, the Justice Department said it would evaluate immigration judges on how many cases they close and how fast they hear cases.
Earlier this year, the Justice Department also issued a new rule that gives more power to the director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review. It allows the Justice Department-appointed director — currently James McHenry — to step in and issue a ruling if appeals are not completed within a certain time frame.
“It started to wear at me,” said Jennie Giambastiani, a former Chicago immigration judge who joined the bench in 2002 and left this year. “The great number of cases coming in and the way it was expected we handle them.”
Judge Ashley Tabaddor, president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, told CNN that for the majority of people leaving their roles it’s a result of the “hostility and insulting working conditions.”
Tabaddor noted that there’s been a pattern of new judges either leaving to return to their old jobs or taking other jobs within the government.
“This is not what they signed up for,” Tabaddor said, referring to policies designed to dictate how judges should handle their dockets.
Judges who have since left the department expressed similar concern over those policies. Dornell called the situation “intolerable.”
Shugall recalled the challenges she had faced in trying to move forward with cases in a way she thought was appropriate. “I felt like as more and more policies were coming down, it was making it harder and harder to effectively hear cases in the way that I felt was appropriate and in compliance with the statute regulations and Constitution,” Shugall said.
At an event earlier this year, McHenry rejected criticism that judges are vulnerable to pressures from the attorney general.
“Most judges that we’re familiar with, and I don’t think that immigration judges are any exception, when they’re on the bench, they know what their role is as a judge,” he said. “We’ve had no allegations of anyone reaching down to specific judges telling them, ‘You have to rule this way; you have to rule that way.’ ”
Justice Department hires new judges
Earlier this month, the Justice Department announced 28 new immigration judges, bringing the number of such judges to more than 465, a record high. The majority come from government backgrounds.
It’s not unusual for administrations to hire people who’ve worked in government, but under the Trump administration, Booz Allen Hamilton, at the direction of the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review, issued a report recommending that the agency diversify the experience of immigration judges.
The direction of the nation’s immigration courts is also a source of concern among immigrant advocate groups. This month, groups filed a wide-ranging lawsuit, alleging that the Trump administration has manipulated the immigration court system to serve an “anti immigrant agenda.”
It remains to be seen what changes, if any, are in store for the court system, but some of those who have already left their posts as judges carry guilt for departing, concerned about who may fill their jobs.
“The biggest thing I contended with is who is going to replace me,” Jamil said. “I knew I was a fair judge.”
**************************************
I’m proud to say that all of the quoted former Immigration Judges are members of our Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, committed to preserving and advancing Due Process and judicial independence.
Apparently, EOIR headquarters and DOJ bureaucrats now refer to Immigration Judge decisions as “policy decisions,” thereby dropping any pretense that they are fair and impartial quasi-judicial adjudications under the law.
As for the ludicrous claim that this is anything approaching a legitimate independent judiciary, as one of my Round Table colleagues succinctly put it: “The political arm of DOJ’s assertion that IJs are treated independently is so much BS.”
Yup! Congratulations and many thanks to Judge Dornell and the others who spoke out in this article!
So, Immigration Judges, who lack the life tenure and protections of independence given to Article III Judges, put their careers and livelihoods on the line for Due Process and the rule of law, and, frankly, to save vulnerable lives that deserve saving. Meanwhile, the majority of Supreme Court Justices and far too many Article III Courts of Appeals Judges just bury their judicial heads in the sand and pretend like the outrages against Due Process, fundamental fairness, and the rule of law aren’t really happening in Immigration Court and that human lives aren’t being ruined or lost by their derelictions of duty. Has to make you wonder about their ethics, courage, and commitment to their oaths of office, as well as what the purpose of life tenure is if all it produces is complicity in the face of tyranny that threatens to destroy our Constitution and bring down our republic.
The Article IIIs are providing some rather sad examples and bad role models for today’s aspiring lawyers.
Trump admin announces rule further limiting immigrants’ eligibility for asylum
DUIs, drug paraphernalia possession and unlawful receipt of public benefits would be among seven triggers barring migrants from even applying for asylum.
by Julia Ainsley | NBC NEWS
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration announced a new rule Wednesday that would further limit immigrants’ eligibility for asylum if they have been convicted of certain crimes, including driving under the influence and possession of drug paraphernalia.
The rule, if finalized, would give asylum officers seven requirements with which to deem an immigrant ineligible to apply for asylum.
Other acts that would make an immigrant ineligible for asylum under the new rule include the unlawful receipt of public benefits, illegal re-entry after being issued a deportation order and being found “by an adjudicator” to have engaged in domestic violence, even if there was no conviction for such violence.
The rules could eliminate large numbers of asylum-seekers from ever having their cases heard in court. Currently, immigration courts have a backlog of over 1 million cases, according to data kept by Syracuse University.
In a statement, the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security said the new rule would “increase immigration court efficiencies.”
Andrew Free, an immigration attorney based in Nashville, said the new regulation is “calculated to enable the denial of as many claims as possible.”
Free said the most common charges he sees for his immigrant clients are driving under the influence, domestic violence and driving without a license. Driving without a license is particularly common for immigrants who have had to use fake travel documents to enter the U.S. and live in states that do not give licenses to undocumented migrants.
“People who are fleeing persecutions and violence are not going to be able to get travel documents from the governments inflicting violence upon them. If you have to resort to other means of proving your identity, you won’t be eligible [for asylum,]” Free said.
The Trump administration has unveiled a number of new requirements meant to curb asylum applications this year. The most successful of those policies has been “Remain in Mexico” or MPP, that requires lawful asylum-seekers from Central America to wait in Mexico, often in dangerous conditions, until their court date in the United States. Over 60,000 asylum-seekers are currently waiting in Mexico for a decision to be made in their case, a process that can take over a year.
“The Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security (collectively, “the Departments”) today issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that would amend their respective regulations in order to prevent certain categories of criminal aliens from obtaining asylum in the United States. Upon finalization of the rulemaking process, the Departments will be able to devote more resources to the adjudication of asylum cases filed by non-criminal aliens.
Asylum is a discretionary immigration benefit that generally can be sought by eligible aliens who are physically present or arriving in the United States, irrespective of their status, as provided in section 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1158. However, in the INA, Congress barred certain categories of aliens from receiving asylum. In addition to the statutory bars, Congress delegated to the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to establish by regulation additional bars on asylum eligibility to the extent they are consistent with the asylum statute, as well as to establish “any other conditions or limitations on the consideration of an application for asylum” that are consistent with the INA. Today, the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security are proposing to exercise their regulatory authority to limit eligibility for asylum for aliens who have engaged in specified categories of criminal behavior. The proposed rule will also eliminate a regulation concerning the automatic reconsideration of discretionary denials of asylum applications in limited cases.
The proposed regulation would provide seven additional mandatory bars to eligibility for asylum. The proposed rule would add bars to eligibility for aliens who commit certain offenses in the United States.Those bars would apply to aliens who are convicted of:
(1) A felony under federal or state law;
(2) An offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A) or § 1324(a)(1)(2) (Alien Smuggling or Harboring);
(3) An offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (Illegal Reentry);
(4) A federal, state, tribal, or local crime involving criminal street gang activity;
(5) Certain federal, state, tribal, or local offenses concerning the operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant;
(6) A federal, state, tribal, or local domestic violence offense, or who are found by an adjudicator to have engaged in acts of battery or extreme cruelty in a domestic context, even if no conviction resulted; and
(7) Certain misdemeanors under federal or state law for offenses related to false identification; the unlawful receipt of public benefits from a federal, state, tribal, or local entity; or the possession or trafficking of a controlled substance or controlled-substance paraphernalia.
The seven proposed bars would be in addition to the existing mandatory bars in the INA and its implementing regulations, such as those relating to the persecution of others, convictions for particularly serious crimes, commission of serious nonpolitical crimes, security threats, terrorist activity, and firm resettlement in another country.
Under the current statutory and regulatory framework, asylum officers and immigration judges consider the applicability of mandatory bars to asylum in every proceeding involving an alien who has submitted an application for asylum. Although the proposed regulation would expand the mandatory bars to asylum, the proposed regulation does not change the nature or scope of the role of an immigration judge or an asylum officer during proceedings for consideration of asylum applications.
The proposed rule would also remove the provisions at 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(e) and §1208.16(e) regarding reconsideration of discretionary denials of asylum. The removal of the requirement to reconsider a discretionary denial would increase immigration court efficiencies and reduce any cost from the increased adjudication time by no longer requiring a second review of the same application by the same immigration judge.” (bold added).
What total, unadulterated BS and gratuitous cruelty!
For example, 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(e) and §1208.16(e) are humanitarian provisions that seldom come up except in highly unusual and sympathetic cases. The idea that they represent a “drain” on IJ time is preposterous! And, if they did, it would be well worth it to help to keep deserving and vulnerable refugee families together!
I had about three such cases involving those regulations in 13 years on the bench, although I cited the existing regulation for the proposition that discretionary denials are disfavored, as they should be under international humanitarian laws. Federal Courts and the BIA have held that asylum should not be denied for “discretionary reasons” except in the case of “egregious adverse factors.” Therefore, an Immigration Judge properly doing his or her job would very seldom have occasion to enter a “discretionary denial” to someone eligible for asylum. Obviously, the regime intends to ignore these legal rulings.
One of my colleagues wrote “they are going to capture a lot of people and force IJs to hear separate asylum applications for each family member. So counterproductive.”
Cruelty, and more “aimless docket reshuffling” is what these “maliciously incompetent gimmicks” are all about.
I note that this is a “joint proposal” from EOIR and DHS Enforcement, the latter supposedly a “party” to every Immigration Court proceeding, but actually de facto in charge of the EOIR “judges.” That alone makes it unethical, a sign of bias, and a clear denial of Due Process for the so-called “court” and the “Government party” to collude against the “private party.”
When will the Article IIIs do their job and put an end to this nonsense? It’s not “rocket science.” Most first year law students could tell you that this absurd charade of a “court” is a clear violation of Due Process! So, what’s the problem with the Article IIIs? Have they forgotten both their humanity and what they learned in Con Law as well as their oaths of office they took upon investiture?
Right now, as intended by the regime with the connivance and complicity of the Article IIIs, those advocating for the legal, constitutional, and human rights of asylum seekers are being forced to divert scarce resources to respond to the “regime shenanigan of the day.” It’s also abusing and disrespecting the Article III Courts. Why are they so blind to what’s REALLY going on when the rest of us see it so clearly? These aren’t “legal disputes” or “legitimate policy initiatives.” No, they are lawless outright attacks on our Constitution, our nation, our human values, and our system of justice which Article III Judges are sworn to uphold!
Join the New Due Process Army and fight to protect our democracy from the White Nationalist Regime and the complicit life-tenured judges who enable and encourage it!
Due Process Forever; “Malicious Incompetence” & Complicit Courts Never!
