"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.
“Comeback Kid?” — Advocates thought they were getting a welcome change from “Gonzo Apocalypto’s” vile legacy of abuses at EOIR. But, Garland seems to be warming to the idea of “wholly-owned courts” where he can manipulate “his” judges, many of them Sessions-Barr holdovers,” to achieve pro-DHS results in key cases. Jeff Sessions’ Cage by J.D. Crowe, Alabama Media Group/AL.com Republished under license
The judge overseeing the last two weeks of hearings and testimonies of Omar Ameen’s immigration case has been changed by the Department of Justice, sources close to the case told KCRA 3.
Ameen was the Sacramento refugee accused of being an ISIS leader and killing an Iraqi police officer in 2014.
Earlier this year, a Sacramento federal judge said there were major problems with the case against Ameen and refuse extradition to Iraq.
However, the U.S. Immigration Department took Ameen into custody the day he was released and began proceedings to deport him, claiming he lied on refugee applications.
Sources told KCRA 3 Investigates that immigration Judge Scott Laurent, after weeks of hearings and testimony in the deportation case, is no longer the judge in the case.
The removal comes just two weeks after Laurent issued an order that was, in part, critical of the government’s case against Ameen.
In particular, Laurent was critical of the Department of Justice for wanting FBI agents to testify for the government, but not be cross-examined by Ameen’s attorneys.
Unlike a criminal court, immigration judges work for the Department of Justice, which is the agency looking to deport Ameen.
No reason was immediately provided for Laurent’s removal from the case.
********************
Go to the link to see the TV report!
In what other system can the prosecutor “switch judges,” with no explanation in the middle of a case?
Given the DOJ’s lack of transparency, one has to assume the worst!
Divide and conquer is a good military strategy but a bad judicial one. Judges must consider how related facts weave to- gether into a narrative.
Chinese officials caught Cha Liang practicing his faith, so they beat, jailed, and then threatened him. When he sought asy- lum, the Board of Immigration Appeals minimized the threats and physical abuse as discrete incidents. But Liang’s twenty- minute beating and fifteen days in jail made the later threats more menacing. Because the Board should not have ignored this context, we will grant the petition and remand.
******************
Perhaps unwittingly, Judge Bibas’s use of a military analogy for EOIR “judging” is very, very apt! After four years of corrupt, White Nationalist, Stephen Miller inspired “leadership” and “judicial selections,” far, far too many judges and others at today’s EOIR view immigrants and their attorneys as “the enemy.” By contrast, they think of their “partners” at DHS as their “comrades in arms” against Stephen Miller’s fabricated “alien invasion” — a euphemism for “replacement theory” and other racist tropes that were seldom far below the surface of Trump-era immigration policies and actions.
It’s tempting to blame this entire mess on theTrump regime. But, sadly, manifestations of this problem were present well before 2017.
I remember an Immigration Judge Conference where, strangely, a recently appointed IJ, a former government prosecutor, was given an “instructor slot” at small group training. This Judge proceeded to repeatedly refer to the the DHS as “we” and the respondents and their lawyers as “them” as he enthusiastically described Government litigation “victories” while ignoring or downplaying Circuit Court decisions that had found serious flaws in EOIR judging and DHS legal positions.
That individual went on to a “judicial career” at EOIR that consistently demonstrated a disturbing and inappropriate inability to view those humans coming before the Immigration Court and their lawyers as anything other than “the enemy!” So, the ethical, cultural, and quality control problems at EOIR are very deep-seated.
Remember, this is a broken agency that once, but no more, was supposed to stand for “through teamwork and innovation, become the world’s best administrative tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.”
As the recent “John Gruden Episode” in the NFL shows, “corrosive culture” remains a huge problem in professional football. Similarly, EOIR’s “culture of denial with a heavily dose of racism, misogyny, and xenophobia” remains every bit as much of a problem as those plaguing the NFL. Disingenuously “minimizing threats” to asylum seekers, as in this case, is “business as usual” at Garland’s anti-immigrant, anti-asylum EOIR.
While the response of the NFL’s leadership has obviously been not fully effective, it’s still much better than Garland’s “what me worry, hear nothing, see nothing” approach to the crippling problems at his dysfunctional EOIR.
Garland’s inept approach to the ongoing due process disaster at his EOIR has been perplexing, to say the least! PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
Gruden actually was promptly forced out when the full extent of his misconduct finally surfaced. By contrast, with overwhelming public evidence of systemic failure, Garland has catastrophically failed to replace the problematic judges and inept senior leaders at EOIR with better-qualified, progressive, practical scholar-expert judges unswervingly committed to due process, fundamental fairness, and equal justice!
Although not cited by the 3rd Circuit, the BIA and the IJ also ignored the leading BIA precedent of Matter of O-Z- & I-Z-, 22 I&N Dec. 23 (BIA 1998) (Panel: Hurwitz, Rosenberg, Schmidt) on the importance of considering harm cumulatively.
The concurring opinion by Judges Jordan and Ambro on past persecution as a “mixed question of fact and law” subject to a “two-step review process” is also well worth a read, particularly for those practicing in the 3rd Cir.
USCIS: Effective Oct. 1, 2021, applicants subject to the immigration medical examination must complete the COVID-19 vaccine series and provide documentation of vaccination to the civil surgeon in person before the civil surgeon can complete an immigration medical examination and sign Form I-693, Report of Medical Examination and Vaccination Record. This guidance applies prospectively to Form I-693 signed by civil surgeons on or after Oct. 1, 2021.
WaPo: Up until Oct. 1, the Postal Service said it should take no more than three days for a piece of first-class mail to be delivered anywhere in the country. After Oct. 1, it will take between two and five days. From Oct. 3 to Dec. 26, the Postal Service is raising prices on some products through a holiday season surcharge. The price hikes are modest for some products (30 cents more for first-class package service), a bit more for others ($1 more for parcel-return service, deliveries from consumers back to retailers), and heftier still for others ($5 more for priority mail, priority express mail, parcel select and retail ground services for items weighing between 21 and 70 pounds).
NBC26: Organized by Voces de la Frontera, this action aims to increase economic and political pressure on President Biden, Vice President Harris and Congressional Democrats to deliver on their promise to pass a path to citizenship in the Build Back Better reconciliation budget bill this year.
Teen Vogue: This excerpt from “Not ‘A Nation of Immigrants’” explains how Italian immigrants used Christopher Columbus to assimilate to American culture and whiteness. For decades, Native Americans and their allies have demanded the end of celebrating Columbus, rightly characterizing him as a mercenary of the Spanish monarchy, an actor in and symbol of the onset of European genocidal colonization of the Indigenous Peoples of the Western Hemisphere.
WaPo: A U.S.-based economist won the Nobel prize in economics Monday for pioneering research that transformed widely held ideas about the labor force, showing how an increase in the minimum wage doesn’t hinder hiring and immigrants do not lower pay for native-born workers.
NYGov: Threats to report a person’s immigration status can currently be treated as a crime in cases of labor trafficking and sex trafficking, but were not previously treated as potential extortion or coercion offenses.
Documented: The courts have been pushing individual hearings forward often too soon for immigrants and attorneys to properly prepare. Individual hearings, particularly for asylum cases, require rigorous preparation both from immigrants, who must recount traumatic details of their lives for a successful case, and attorneys, who must submit dozens of pages of paperwork and work alongside their clients to equip them for the court date.
WaPo: The NBPC does not encourage members to get vaccinated and has said it would like to file a legal challenge to Biden’s mandate that all federal employees be immunized by Nov. 22, but it has not yet found lawyers willing to take the case.
AP: A federal appeals court on Tuesday tossed out California’s ban on privately owned immigration detention facilities, keeping intact a key piece of the world’s largest detention system for immigrants.
Business Insider: During his appearance on Fox News, Trump repeatedly claimed that Haitians trying to enter the US are infected with AIDS… Contrary to his assertions, the prevalence of HIV among Haitian adults aged 15 to 49 is around 1.9%, according to data from the United Nations. While that’s higher than the global rate of 0.7%, reports say Haiti’s HIV prevalence rate has declined significantly in recent decades.
Law360: A U.S. Air Force veteran has another chance to fight his deportation to Trinidad after the Third Circuit found that an immigration appeals board used the wrong legal standard to bar evidence that he may be tortured if deported.
AILA: The court held that, given petitioner’s status as a pro se litigant, her Notice of Appeal was sufficiently specific to inform the BIA of the issues challenged on appeal, and thus the BIA violated her right to due process by summarily dismissing her appeal. (Nolasco-Amaya v. Garland, 9/28/21)
Law360: The Ninth Circuit confirmed that a conviction under a state assault law criminalizing HIV transmission amounts to a federal “crime of violence” for the purposes of deporting a Salvadoran man who shot his friend, saying the key common ingredient is intent.
Law360: A California law banning private immigration detention facilities and other private prisons doesn’t pass legal muster because it would impede the federal government’s immigration enforcement, a split Ninth Circuit ruled Tuesday, undoing a lower court’s decision to keep most of the law in place as litigation proceeds.
AILA: The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, holding that DOS’s interpretation of several Presidential Proclamations to prevent U.S. consulates and embassies in those countries from adjudicating visas was unlawful. (Kinsley, et al. v. Blinken, et al., 10/5/21)
AILA: The parties reached a settlement to resolve the plaintiffs’ Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), in which the government agreed to pay $1,150,000 in attorneys’ fees and litigation costs. (Flores, et al. v. Garland, et al., 9/30/21)
CGRS: The Lowenstein Project at Yale Law School submitted today an emergency request for precautionary measures against the United States on behalf of asylum seekers who face grave dangers because the Biden administration continues to illegally block and expel them. The request was submitted under Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR).
Law360: Texas and Louisiana called on the full Fifth Circuit to reinstate a block on the Biden administration’s policy curbing immigration enforcement operations, saying Thursday that the federal government was ducking its obligation to arrest noncitizens convicted of serious crimes.
Law360: A Libyan man formerly employed as a government worker under the Gaddafi regime and his wife have filed suit in Michigan federal court against the federal government and the Chicago asylum processing center, saying five years is too long to wait for an asylum interview.
Law360: An Afghan man who worked with the U.S. government in the Central Asian country told a California federal court that the U.S. Department of State failed to protect his children from the Taliban while their visa applications are processed.
Law360: A bipartisan group of senators announced new legislation this week that would require law enforcement to obtain a warrant before searching Americans’ digital devices at the border.
Law360: The Biden administration asked the Fifth Circuit to shelve its appeal of a lower court order blocking the federal government from approving new applications to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program while it firms up the details of a replacement rule.
AILA: Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) announcement of an inflationary increase to the Refugee Cash Assistance program’s monthly payment ceilings, effective October 1, 2021. (86 FR 54466, 10/1/21)
Call for Examples: The Center for Gender and Refugee Studies (CGRS) is collecting the following information regarding the treatment of asylum and withholding of removal cases following Attorney General Garland’s vacatur of Matter of A-B- I/II, Matter of L-E-A- II, and Matter of A-C-A-A-. To report an outcome in your case and share any sample case documents, please follow the instructions here. To share information regarding OIL’s position in your case, please email the following to CGRS-ABTracking@uchastings.edu. To share information regarding ICE OCC’s position in your case, please complete this survey for each individual case.
Shifting cases around without working with the parties in advance to insure that the new dates are achievable is totally insane! No experienced practitioner or expert would “run the railroad” this way! But, Garland does!
To state the obvious, many attorneys practice in multiple jurisdictions and are already fully or heavily booked. Additionally, my experience was that “move ups” without consultation with both parties, including ICE ACC, often resulted in missing ICE files, unavailable witnesses, unavailable interpreters, or incomplete fingerprint reports which caused additional unnecessary continuances and yet more “ADR.”
“Motions to continue” are not the answer. The system is already backlogged. In an obvious denial of due process, it actually discourages Immigration Judges from granting reasonable continuances in a number of ways, including bogus “case completion quotas” and onerous requirements for justifications for granting continuances. It’s ADR on steroids!
An obvious solution, ignored by Garland and his subordinates:
Return “docket control” to the local Immigration Judges where it has always belonged;
Have Immigration Judges and Court Administrators work cooperatively with the local bar, the ICE OCC, and NGOs, in advance, to come up with rational scheduling procedures that meet everyone’s legitimate needs;
Encourage ICE and the local bar to work cooperatively to identify cases that can potentially be moved up for “short hearings.” Let the parties, who have a strong joint interest in rational dockets, propose the solutions, rather than having politicos impose them from above through clueless agency bureaucrats who are unqualified to “micromanage” dockets!
The real fundamental problem here: Garland is improperly trying to “run” his huge, dysfunctional court system with bureaucrats and politicos who have no recent “real life” experience representing individuals in Immigration Court.
Garland’s inexplicable determination to eschew appointing “progressive practical experts’ with the skills and courage to fix this system has become a (totally unnecessary) national disgrace!
Judge Garland’s gross mismanagement of EOIR is “ratcheting up the pressure” on practitioners in NYC and across the nation!
It has been said that Immigration Judges hear death penalty cases under traffic court conditions.1 The death penalty cases are of course asylum claims, which, if wrongly denied, can result in the applicant being returned to their death.
The Biden Administration recently published proposed regulations seeking to revise the system for hearing the asylum claims of those arriving at the southern border. Any positives envisioned in the proposal are greatly outweighed by the damage the rules will do to the right to immigration court review. If enacted as drafted, traffic court conditions would be far preferable to the meager access to review that would remain for many asylum seekers.
To provide some context: presently, arriving asylum seekers who after screening by USCIS asylum officers are found to have established a sufficient risk of harm proceed directly to Immigration Court, where they have a full hearing on their claim before an Immigration Judge. In those proceedings, asylum seekers may freely submit documents, call witnesses, and elicit testimony.
This was as Congress intended it. In creating the present credible fear screening system in 1996, Congress made clear that those passing the screening, in the words of then Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY), “will be provided a full – full – asylum hearing.”2 This sentiment was echoed by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who stated that those who establish credible fear “get a full hearing without any question,”3 and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), who emphasized that those with a credible fear of persecution “can go through the normal process of establishing their claim.”4
Under the proposal, those who pass the preliminary screening (known as a credible fear interview) will instead have their full asylum claim heard by an asylum officer. This could be a positive development if the rules continued to assure the right to a full court proceeding to those not granted at this initial stage.
Unfortunately, the proposed rules would reduce Immigration Judges to reviewers of transcripts of the asylum office interviews. Additional evidence (including testimony) that was not provided at the Asylum Office will only be allowed if deemed to be “non-duplicative” and necessary to complete the record. If an Immigration Judge determines that the applicant (who may not have been represented by a lawyer) provided sufficient evidence to the asylum officer, the claim may be decided entirely on the record from that initial non-court interview.
It bears noting that the Immigration Judges making these determinations remain subject to the completion quotas imposed under the prior administration. While Immigration Judges must be guided by the requirements of due process and fairness in making such decisions, it would be remiss not to point out that for newly hired judges still on probation, the ability to exclude new evidence and essentially rubber stamp the asylum officer’s decision offers the prospect of a very quick completion for quota purposes. Judges should not be put in the position of choosing between the dictates of justice and their own job security.
As the drafters of the proposed rules are well aware, Immigration Judges have long decided cases that were first heard by Asylum Officers. The outcomes of those cases offer strong reason to question the logic of what is now being proposed. EOIR’s Statistical Yearbook for 2016 (the last year such stats were made available) shows that 83% of cases referred by asylum officers were granted asylum that year by Immigration Judges conducting de novo hearings.5
Having heard referred cases as an Immigration Judge, as well as having represented asylum applicants at the Asylum Office, I have no doubt that the right to a full de novo court hearing, in which attorneys are free to offer documents, briefs, and present testimony as they see fit, is the reason for that large disparity. The current system itself recognizes this; it is why Asylum Officers are limited to granting clearly meritorious cases, and must refer the rest to courts better equipped to delve into the intricacies of a highly complex field of law. Immigration Judges also enjoy greater decisional independence than asylum officers, who require supervisory approval of their decisions,6 are more susceptible to political pressure, and are more limited in the legal theories they may rely on.
As to the criteria for supplementing the record, whether evidence is duplicative or necessary is a fuzzy concept. For example, the law accords greater deference to government sources, such as State Department reports, and at times, Immigration Judges may find other evidence deserving of “little evidentiary weight.” Thus, sometimes duplicative evidence is necessary to persuade a judge who may otherwise not be sufficiently swayed by a single report. But that need might not become apparent until the hearing is concluded, whereas decisions to exclude additional testimony and documentary evidence are made much earlier, at the outset of the proceeding.
There are constitutional considerations as well. In a 2013 decision, Oshodi v. Holder, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that limiting an asylum seeker’s testimony to events that were not duplicative of the written application, on the belief that the written record would suffice for deciding veracity, was a violation of the asylum seeker’s due process rights. Yet the proposed regulations seek to codify what according to Oshodi the Constitution specifically forbids. The court in Oshodi stated that “the importance of live testimony to a credibility determination is well-recognized and longstanding.” Having heard live testimony as a judge, I can vouch for this. I decided many cases in which an in person demeanor observation was instrumental to my credibility finding.
I will also state from experience that critical “Eureka” moments arise unexpectedly in the course of hearing testimony. A question from counsel, or sometimes from the judge, will elicit an answer that unexpectedly gives rise to a new line of questioning, or even a legal theory of the case. An example is found in last year’s Second Circuit decision in Hernandez-Chacon v. Barr. In that case, the Second Circuit found that a woman’s act of resisting rape by an MS-13 gang member could constitute a political opinion based on one sentence not contained in the written application, and uttered for the first time at the immigration court hearing: when asked why she resisted, the petitioner responded: “Because I had every right to.” From that single sentence, the Second Circuit found that the resistance transcended mere self-protection and took on a political dimension. Under the proposed rules, the attorney would likely never have been able to ask the question that elicited the critical answer. At asylum office interviews, attorneys are relegated to sitting in the corner and quietly taking notes. Furthermore, I have been told by former asylum officers that the concept of imputed political opinion was not available to them as a basis for granting asylum, a fact that pretty much guarantees it will not be covered in an asylum office interview.
The proposed limitations on Immigration Judge review are not necessary to increase efficiency. Whatever cases asylum officers grant pursuant to their new up front review will significantly reduce the Immigration Court case load. And even an imperfect transcript from those interviews in claims referred to the court will provide attorneys for both sides the opportunity for advance conferencing to narrow down the issues in dispute, a practice which significantly reduces hearing times and which should be greatly encouraged.
According to the website of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, at a traffic court hearing, “you or your attorney may ask the officer questions. You may testify, bring witnesses or present evidence on your behalf.”7 The Biden Administration cannot provide less rights than these to those facing the life and death consequences inherent in asylum claims.
Those interested may submit their comments on the new regs by October 19.
Copyright 2021 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
See EOIR FY 2016 Statistics Yearbook, https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/fysb16/download, at p. K-3. Figure 17 is a chart showing the Immigration Court grant rate of affirmative cases referred by the USCIS Asylum Offices. The chart shows a grant rate of 72% in FY 2012, steadily increasing each year to 83% in FY 2016.
Per the USCIS website: A supervisory asylum officer reviews the asylum officer’s decision to ensure it is consistent with the law. Depending on the case, the supervisory asylum officer may refer the decision to asylum division staff at USCIS headquarters for additional review. https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-and-asylum/asylum/the-affirmative-asylum-process. Immigration Judges require no supervisory review before rendering their decisions.
Sign up with your email address to receive news and updates.
SIGN UP
We respect your privacy.
<img src=”https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/593d84191e5b6ca18cb547ee/1576527959952-C9MO449EII0SH3V1X9M7/Screen+Shot+2019-12-16+at+3.24.24+PM.png” alt=”Screen Shot 2019-12-16 at 3.24.24 PM.png” />
Jeffrey S. Chase is an immigration lawyer in New York City. Jeffrey is a former Immigration Judge and Senior Legal Advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals.He is the founder of the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, which was awarded AILA’s 2019 Advocacy Award.Jeffrey is also a past recipient of AILA’s Pro Bono Award.He sits on the Board of Directors of the Association of Deportation Defense Attorneys, and Central American Legal Assistance.
REPUBLISHED BY PERMISSION
******************************
Thanks, “Sir Jeffrey!”
Like many of our colleagues, I granted the majority of “referred” asylum cases, most without ICE appeal. It wasn’t that the Asylum Office did a bad job. The records were often poor or incomplete (as too many individuals attempted to represent themselves at the AO). With the additional information and elucidation from counsel provided at a full hearing, the merits of the case came into focus.
There were a few cases where the parties stipulated to the record before the AO, and just asked me for a legal ruling. This procedure would be available in appropriate cases, without any regulations changes, and should be encouraged for the parties, particularly ICE. Obviously, the key is that both parties must agree that the record before the AO was adequate.
Additionally, at the time, the AO could not grant withholding or CAT, so an inordinate number of one-year filling denial cases were in the referrals. As Jeffrey suggests, this could be fixed without eliminating the right to a full hearing upon referral.
Also, as I have said many times, instituting a new system that reduces the right to a full hearing, without first making badly needed major structural, personnel, training, and leadership changes at both the AO and EOIR is simply insane and another serious breach of trust by the Biden Administration!
AIC: On September 30, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas issued the long-awaited new set of enforcement priorities, entitled “Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Laws”. The guidelines, which will go into effect on November 29, 2021, will replace the February 18 interim enforcement priorities memo issued to U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE), as well as Initial interim guidelines issued on January 20, 2021. See also IDP Statement: DHS’s Deportation Memo Reinforces Flawed Policies of the Past.
Politico: A federal court has moved to preserve the Biden administration’s ability to use a Trump-era public health order to expel migrant families arriving at the southern border.
Reuters: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security said on Wednesday it intends to issue a new memo in the coming weeks ending the “remain in Mexico” immigration program.
Intercept: [T]he arrival of Haitians was anticipated, and much of the chaos that ensued seemed preventable with basic planning and logistics. But in the scramble to contain the media crisis, the U.S. employed tactics that set off a cascade of repression and violence on both sides of the border. By allowing the situation to reach critical levels, federal officials created conditions that made a militarized crackdown seem inevitable, making criminals out of people asserting their right to seek asylum. See also Most of the migrants in Del Rio, Tex., camp have been sent to Haiti or turned back to Mexico, DHS figures show.
Texas Tribune: Defense attorneys have started asking courts to set migrants free because local justice systems, overwhelmed by arrests under Gov. Greg Abbott’s border security push, are routinely violating state law and constitutional due process rights.
NJ Monitor: Now the coalition of faith leaders, advocates, formerly incarcerated people, and their family members have formed the Interfaith Campaign for Just Closures. The group aims to push New Jersey’s congressional delegation to support HR 536, which would revamp the immigration detention system.
NYT: The settlement will provide restitution to passengers who were detained, arrested or deported after immigration agents conducted warrantless searches on buses, Washington State’s attorney general said.
BuzzFeed: The new initiative will provide government-funded legal representation to certain children in Atlanta, Houston, Los Angeles, New York, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, and Portland. The Executive Office for Immigration Review, which runs the nation’s immigration courts, is also updating training for attorneys who want to handle immigration cases.
AILA: The BIA dismissed the respondent’s appeal after finding that a Notice to Appear that lacks the time and place of an initial removal hearing constitutes a “charging document.” Matter of Arambula-Bravo, 28 I&N Dec. 388 (BIA 2021)
AILA: Where the Yemeni petitioner had been kidnapped and tortured before being convicted and sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment for political opposition to the Houthi regime, the court concluded that the BIA erred in determining that he was ineligible for asylum. (Ghanem v. Att’y Gen., 9/22/21)
Law360: The Third Circuit refused to undo deportation orders against a Peruvian national who had a simple assault conviction, ruling that the offense amounted to a removable crime of violence.
AILA: The court held that the BIA abused its discretion by entirely failing to address the Libyan petitioner’s Convention Against Torture (CAT) claim, where the petitioner had raised his CAT claim several times in his briefing before the BIA. (Abushagif v. Garland, 9/24/21)
AILA: The court upheld BIA’s denial of asylum, finding petitioner’s proposed particular social group of “family unaffiliated with any gangs who refuse to provide any support to transnational criminal gangs in Guatemala” lacked particularity and social distinction. (Osorio Tino v. Garland, 9/20/21)
AILA: The court concluded that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that the petitioner’s 2016 motion to reopen was untimely, nor did it commit legal error in declining to sua sponte reopen her case. (Cui v. Garland, 9/23/21)
AILA: Where the petitioner claimed she was persecuted because of her membership in a house church that was not registered with the Chinese government, the court held that the BIA appropriately relied on two inconsistencies in making its adverse credibility determination. (Li v. Garland, 9/21/21)
AILA: Granting the petition for review, the court held that the petitioner’s convictions in Washington for robbery in the second degree and attempted robbery in the second degree did not qualify as aggravated felony theft offenses under INA §101(a)(43)(G), (U). (Alfred v. Garland, 9/22/21)
AILA: Granting the petition for review and remanding, the court found that the BIA at least partly relied on a legally erroneous—and thus invalid—rationale for declining to exercise its sua sponte reopening authority. (Berdiev v. Garland, 9/21/21)
Law360: The D.C. Circuit on Thursday granted the Biden administration’s bid to stay a district court order that blocked the administration from expelling migrant families, providing it time to pursue an appeal of the ruling, which was slated to go into effect on Friday at midnight.
Law360: A D.C. federal judge banned U.S. Marshals in the nation’s capital from detaining criminal defendants based on suspicion related to their immigration status Thursday, ending a class action over the agency’s practice of holding individuals despite release orders.
AILA: Where USCIS had refused to adjudicate the adjustment of status application of the plaintiff, a Temporary Protected Status (TPS) recipient with advance parole, the court held that the plaintiff was an “arriving alien” who had executed his deportation order. (C-E-M- v. Wolf, et al., 9/29/21)
AILA: A federal district court in Mississippi held that plaintiffs had established unreasonable delay by USCIS in the adjudication of their adjustment of status applications, and ordered USCIS to adjudicate their applications before the end of FY2021. (Parcharne, et al. v. DHS, et al., 9/30/21)
AILA: The federal district court in D.C. ordered DOS to reserve 6,914 diversity visas (DVs) for adjudication pending final judgment for Goodluck-related plaintiffs, and to reserve 481 DVs for Goh plaintiffs to be issued by the end of FY2022. (Goh, et al. v. DOS, et al., 9/30/21)
Law260: A border-focused law enforcement initiative launched by Texas earlier this year suffered setbacks in a state court on Tuesday, with prosecutors agreeing to release dozens of immigrants being held in state custody and to completely drop charges against two of them.
Law360: The Biden administration agreed to pay $1.15 million to attorneys who successfully advocated for the safe custody of migrant children held in border detention facilities, while the attorneys continued to push for additional fees for an appeal the administration abandoned.
AILA: EOIR announced its “Access EOIR” initiative, which attempts to raise representation for individuals appearing before immigration courts. New trainings under the Model Hearing Program are available, and recent EOIR efforts include the development of the Counsel for Children Initiative.
AILA: DHS issued updated guidance on the enforcement of civil immigration law. Guidance is effective on 11/29/21 and will rescind prior civil immigration guidance.
AILA: DHS issued a statement announcing that it “intends to issue in the coming weeks a new memorandum terminating the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP).” However, DHS is moving forward with plans to restart the program pursuant to a district court order.
AILA: SAVE announced that DHS will admit Afghans as special immigrant (SI) conditional permanent resident status and CBP will admit Afghans as non-SI parolees. The memo describes both categories, the qualifications for either, the ways their status will be documented, and more.
AILA: DHS automatically extended the validity of certain EADs with a category code of A12 or C19 issued under TPS for Syria through 3/28/22. For Form I-9, TPS Syria beneficiaries may present qualifying EADs along with an individual notice issued by USCIS that indicates extension of EAD.
I’d go even further than the article in The Intercept. The Biden Administration was told by experts during the early Transition Period to make restoring order and the rule of law to the asylum system at our borders one of their highest priorities. That included reviving and expanding the USCIS Asylum Office, reopening legal ports of entry, replacing the BIA with qualified progressive expert Appellate Judges who understood asylum law and would establish practical humane precedents, bringing in progressive, dynamic progressive asylum leadership at both the DHS and DOJ, reopening legal border ports of entry, and instituting a robust refugee programs for the Northern Triangle and the rest of the Americas.
With a 10 week “head start,” these were neither rocket science nor unachievable. Instead the Administration dawdled and fumbled, treating asylum reform as an issue that would “just go away.” Once in office, Mayorkas, Garland, and Harris aggravated the problem by not making the obvious progressive personnel and structural changes necessary to restore the asylum and refugee systems.
Now, we have the worst of all worlds! Disorder at the border, cruelty and abuse of migrants, and folks like Harold Koh, who have the expertise, backbone, and creative solutions that Mayorkas and Garland so stunningly lack fleeing the Administration and speaking out against its inane and inhumane policies.
All so stupid! All so unnecessary! All so damaging to America and humanity!
“I believe when I go to do this work, I need to integrate myself into the lives of the people I’m covering,” he says. “I don’t want them to see me as above them. We’re on the same level; we’re human.”
That context is needed to understand why Dennison entered the Darién Gap several weeks ago and why, unlike other photographers and videographers, he didn’t take any security guards with him.
That decision would end up giving him a different experience from that of others who have gone there to document the harrowing passage. They have left that jungle and come home with photos that show the horrific struggles of others. He almost didn’t leave the jungle, and he came home with only a fraction of the photos he took and with his own horrific story.
“What he’s been through is horrible and really disturbing,” says Erika Pinheiro, a lawyer who is the litigation and policy director of Al Otro Lado, an advocacy and legal aid organization that serves migrants, refugees and deportees on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border. The organization has been working with Dennison to create a film that captures the experiences of U.S.-bound Black migrants.
“The only way to understand it is to see it, and that’s what he’s providing,” Pinheiro says. “It’s really important that people understand what’s happening, and that it’s not over in Del Rio.”
The Biden administration recently cleared out a border camp in Del Rio, Tex., where an estimated 15,000 migrants, most of them Haitian nationals seeking asylum, had gathered. The clearing out of the camp came after viral images and video footage showed Border Patrol agents on horseback grabbing migrants and charging at them. In one video, a young girl in a mint-green dress scrambles to get out of the way of a horse heading toward her.
President Biden decried the agents’ actions, and the Department of Homeland Security opened an investigation into the incident.
But what happened in Del Rio captures only part of what many Haitians experience to get to the United States. Many pass through the Darién Gap, some with children in tow and infants strapped to their backs or chests. Officials in Panama have said that a record 70,000 people traveled the 66 miles through the terrain this year.
Before going, Dennison did extensive research on what to expect: spiders with bites that can cause death within six hours, criminals who routinely rob travelers, and polluted water that if not filtered can sicken you. But nothing, he says, could have prepared him for what he experienced.
“When you’re in the jungle, you’re no longer a filmmaker,” he says. “You’re no longer a humanitarian. It becomes about survival.”
. . . .
***********************
Read the full story at the link.
Sad as truth is, it’s not rocket science:
Desperate people do (and will continue to do) desperate things;
For forced migrants, the dangers of staying will always exceed those of leaving;
“Die in place” isn’t a “policy;”
“Deterrence only” can’t work in the long run;
While institutionalized racism has a long history in U.S. immigration policy, it’s never been a good policy for America, nor will it ever be!
Honestly, where does the Biden Administration get these folks who don’t “get the obvious,” lie about it, and then expect good results?
Right now, after nearly eight months, the Biden Administration still appearsto be in no better position to process the next border influx than they were on January 20, despite numerous warnings and eight months of graphic practical and humanitarian failures. Racially charged rhetoric and more cruel, wasteful, dishonest enforcement and removals won’t do it!
We need reopened legal border ports of entry staffed with more and better Asylum Officers overseen by a pragmatic progressive corps of expert Immigration Judges and a BIA composed of progressive asylum experts with the guts to knock heads and get our broken border legal system back to functionality. To state the obvious, that would promote consistency, transparency, and take some of the pressure off of the Article III Courts!
Because neither Mayorkas nor Garland is committed to taking the bold actions necessary to change the dynamics at the border, America, the Biden Administration, and vulnerable legal asylum seekers appear headed for another four years of avoidable failure with all of its unhappy human and political consequences!
So far, defending this guy and his cruel policies is about the only thing that Judge Garland has done well at a DOJ that continues to treat “justice” for migrants of color as a joke! Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.comUnlike Miller, the “losers” under Garland’s unconscionable policies often aren’t in a position to complain — at least in this world! EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT – The bodies of Salvadoran migrant Oscar Alberto Mart??nez Ram??rez and his nearly 2-year-old daughter Valeria lie on the bank of the Rio Grande in Matamoros, Mexico, Monday, June 24, 2019, after they drowned trying to cross the river to Brownsville, Texas. Martinez’ wife, Tania told Mexican authorities she watched her husband and child disappear in the strong current. (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)
On Thursday, a federal appeals court allowed the continued use of the Title 42 policy, pushed initially through the previous administration by Stephen Miller, that’s used the novel coronavirus pandemic as an excuse to quickly deport asylum-seekers, including thousands of Haitians who have arrived at the southern border in search of help.
The Biden administration was set to be blocked from using the policy against families, following a federal judge’s order earlier this month. That lower court order was set to go into effect Thursday. But the policy was saved by the Biden administration, which had shockingly appealed the lower court’s decision. To be clear, the administration could have let the lower court decision stand. But it decided to protect this scientifically unsound order for continued use.
“It’s troubling to see the court grant the government’s motion to reinstate Title 42 just days after the district court ruled that its policy violates U.S. law,” Oxfam America global policy lead Noah Gottschalk told NBC News. The group is among the organizations that have led lawsuits against the policy. “We all saw the horrific images of the abuse faced by Haitian asylum-seekers subjected to Title 42, and we cannot allow people to face further harm because of this xenophobic policy.”
Department of Homeland Security Sec. Alejandro Mayorkas has claimed it is continuing Title 42 “out of a public health need.” Meanwhile, White House Press Sec. Jen Psaki has defended the policy as “a public health requirement.” That’s complete bullshit. “Vice President Mike Pence in March directed the nation’s top disease control agency to use its emergency powers to effectively seal the U.S. borders, overruling the agency’s scientists who said there was no evidence the action would slow the coronavirus,” The Associated Press (AP) reported last October.
The previous administration got its way by twisting arms. There was no science involved, only anti-immigrant and anti-asylum animus. “That was a Stephen Miller special. He was all over that,” a former Pence aide told the AP.
And, as vaccines have become readily available, the supposed rationale to keep Title 42 in place has only gotten more flimsy. If this is truly all about public health, why not rescind the policy and offer families the single-shot Johnson & Johnson vaccine? “Let me also remind the Biden administration that over 300,000 people cross the border from Mexico every day through ports of entry,” American Immigration Council Policy Counsel Aaron Reichlin-Melnick tweeted in July. “None are given COVID tests, unlike migrants who all get tested and nearly all get vaccinated.”
. . . .
************************
“Miller Lite” – Garland’s Vision of “Justice @ Justice” for Communities of Color — Progressive human rights experts and migrants of color haven’t been welcome at Garland’s DOJ “Happy Hours” where Stephen Miller’s policies, his judicial appointments, and his dysfunctional “star chamber” immigration courts are celebrated, defended, and even “enhanced!”
Read more about this legal, moral, and political travesty perpetrated by the Biden Administration with Garland’s support at the link.
When it comes to things like defending ending the reprehensible “killer-program” known as “Remain in Mexico” or protecting the DACA program, Garland’s litigation team has fared poorly.
They also have drawn raised eyebrows, even if not yet any ethical complaints, from Article III Judges for their questionable representations and disingenuous defense of wrongfully issued BIA final orders of removal.
Perhaps, part the problem is that after four years of “anything goes” often misleading, sometimes downright dishonest, defense of the Trump/Miller White Nationalist xenophobic, often misogynistic, dehumanizing agenda, their hearts aren’t in it. The other glaring problem is the obvious lack of commitment to progressive humanitarian values, due process for all, and “cleaning house” at a broken and dysfunctional DOJ that has been shown by Garland.
Obviously, Garland’s DOJ lawyers are more at home and more successful when when arguing for intellectually dishonest and unconstitutional dehumanization (or “Dred Scottification”) of “the other,” primarily individuals of color who are the most vulnerable among us.
What a totally disgraceful legacy for a guy that was once just “one Moscow Mitch” away from the Supremes! On the other hand, it now appears that the GOP right wingers wouldn’t have had much to fear from a guy who won’t stand up for liberal American democratic values or even simple human decency! I doubt that he would have presented much threat to the far-right, anti-American agenda!
The Slippery Slope of Systemic Racism in Immigration Law – Del Rio by Carrie Rosenbaum
When Senator Maxine Waters proclaimed that what we witnessed in Del Rio, Texas last week, Customs and Border Protection officers on horseback whipping black men, harkened back to slavery, she drew an age-old, but still relevant connection between slavery, Jim Crow, and anti-immigrant racism. In a press briefing, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas stated, “[w]e know that those images painfully conjured up the worst elements of our nation’s ongoing battle against systemic racism.” Yet, if both are right, where are our equality, anti-racism principles and why haven’t they been enough to dismantle systemic racism? Should U.S. anti-discrimination law inhibit anti-black and anti-immigrant racism, in the U.S. and at the border? Does it? Is there a slippery slope, such that undeterred discrimination against immigrants at the border seeps beyond the immediate individuals at the border?
Senator Waters was right to blur the boundaries of citizenship and rights in her speech. Racism begets racism, and racism towards black Haitians at the border translates to anti-black racism within the United States, just as anti-Mexican racism does not confine itself to noncitizens, and never has. Examples abound including obvious examples, like Latinx lynching of the late 1840s through 1920s (which coincided with lynching of Blacks), mass expulsion or “repatriation” of persons of Mexican descent that included U.S. citizens in the early 1920s and 1930s again via “Operation Wetback” in the 1950s and more subtle ones like exploitation and expropriation of Mexican and Central American farm workers and laborers, whether authorized or not, and colorblind or race neutral policies that fall most heavily, even if not completely, on persons from Mexico and Central America, like border jails.
While the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. constitution does not limit itself to citizens, it falls vastly short in protecting racialized people of color, especially immigrants. The U.S. treatment of Haitians in Del Rio implicates the problem of anti-black and anti-immigrant racism, and is indicative of the express and implicit bias that continues to evade remedy. It runs much deeper than the disturbing images of CBP agents on horseback, and its impacts have ripple effects.
At the same time that DHS Secretary Mayorkas decried systemic racism, he spelled out the government’s potential argument that the exclusion of Haitians, and Central Americans, and Mexicans that accompanies such brutal treatment was not discriminatory pursuant to the current state of immigration equal protection. He stated, “if we are able to expel them under Title 42 … we will do so” and announced that its application was “irrespective of the country of origin, irrespective of the race of the individual, irrespective of other criteria that don’t belong in our adjudicative process and we do not permit in our adjudicative process.”
Yet this is precisely how systemic racism flourishes. The reality is, this provision has been used to exclude the same racialized immigrants who have been subject to the worst treatment under immigration law. However, because the law is colorblind, Mayorkas can suggest that there was no discrimination. Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s 1977 Arlington Heights decision, discriminatory impact has to be accompanied by proof of discriminatory intent. Just by saying that wasn’t his (or implying it was not Congress’) intent, he can erase what too many know to be real. A new immigration priorities memo by the Agency released today stated that ““We must ensure that enforcement actions are not discriminatory and do not lead to inequitable outcomes.” It is a step in the right rhetorical direction, but does little to meaningfully address the colorblind racism that plagues enforcement.
What is the solution? Aside from a more expansive interpretation of the Equal Protection doctrine in line with Justice Sotomayor’s dissent in the Trump era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals case, and modest progress at the district court level in the crimmigration context, Congress could take steps to stop racial harm inflicted via immigration law and policy. By creating a path to legal status for those who not only have been here, but who have suffered the greatest harms of systemic racism, Haitian immigrants, Mexican immigrants, and others, Congress could start to undo the damage. It could also stop the relatively new practice of detaining or imprisoning migrants at the southern border, who happen to be almost entirely from Mexico and Central America, or abolish immigration prisons entirely. The policies that result in the imprisonment of Mexicans and Central Americans at the southern border now started with expulsion and imprisonment of Haitians in the 1980 and 1990s. Instead of expulsions and rumored potential imprisonment at the notorious Guantanamo Bay as was done in response to Haitians fleeing violence after the U.S. supported overthrow of democratically elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the U.S. could re-evaluate both its involvement in foreign affairs, and treatment of those who flee here after our interventions cause disruption and civil strife. The largest number of Black migrants come from Haiti and their mistreatment is rooted in anti-Black racism. Racializing anti-immigrant demonization does not confine itself to noncitizens, nor should the remedies. Immigration reform, and a more robust application of the Equal Protection doctrine to all those inside the country, and at our borders, is necessary to move towards meaningfully dismantling systemic racism.
Access my law review articles and scholarship on SSRN
*******************************
Very eloquently said, Carrie!
Compare this with the racist blather and White Nationalist nonsense of nativist pols like Abbott, DeSantis, Cruz, Cotton, and others who glorify Jim Crow and seek to force a sanitized, whitewashed version of American history down the throats of the public!
Also, compare this with the intellectually dishonest actions by Biden Administration officials. They disingenuously claim to be champions of racial equality and racial justice.
But, in reality, they operate “star chamber courts,” “New American Gulags,” and implement discredited, outmoded, and ineffective “Stephen Miller Lite” border enforcement policies that basically dehumanize people of color and deny them the due process and equal protection to which they are entitled under law. Also, think about the many Federal Judges who spinelessly enable that which most first year law students could tell you is illegal and unconstitutional, not to mention totally immoral!
What exactly does Assistant AG for Civil Rights Kristen Clarke do every day at the Civil Rights Division if unraveling the White Nationalist, racially tone deaf policies of her own Department, the DHS, and the “star chambers for people of color” being operated by her “boss” aren’t first and foremost on her “to do” list?
“Floaters” — The ugly reality of Biden’s “Miller Lite border strategy.” It’s mostly people of color floating face-down in the river, being illegally returned to danger zones, rotting in the “New American Gulag,” and being railroaded through Garland’s biased and dysfunctional “star chamber courts.” Right now, Garland and and the rest of of the Biden Administration have “zero (0) credibility” on racial justice and voting rights!
EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT – The bodies of Salvadoran migrant Oscar Alberto Mart??nez Ram??rez and his nearly 2-year-old daughter Valeria lie on the bank of the Rio Grande in Matamoros, Mexico, Monday, June 24, 2019, after they drowned trying to cross the river to Brownsville, Texas. Martinez’ wife, Tania told Mexican authorities she watched her husband and child disappear in the strong current. (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)
The biggest failure of the Biden Administration to date is their willful blindness to the obvious connection between lack of overall racial justice in America and running star chambers, gulags, and border enforcement policies that are unconstitutional, dehumanizing, and racially demeaning to individuals of color. Sadly, and tragically we seem to have gone from “zero tolerance” under Trump to “zero credibility” under Biden! “When will we ever learn, when will we ever learn?”
Thousands of Haitian migrants removed from a makeshift camp near Texas have been sent back to Haiti. Now we’re getting our first up-close look at what they are facing upon their arrival. NBC’s Jacob Soboroff reports for TODAY from Port-au-Prince, Haiti.
Sept. 30, 2021
Eleanor Acer Senior Director for Refugee Protection, Human Rights First
Human Rights First debunks myth that seekers present a COVID health threat:
ASYLUM DOES NOT THREATEN PUBLIC HEALTH
The last week saw more of the Biden administration’s despicable deportation of Haitians and use Title 42 to deny their right to seek asylum. The administration perpetuates the false claim that their use of Title 42 is not an immigration policy, but a public health one, despite the vehement disagreement of public health experts.
Courtesy Washington Times
Migrants, many from Haiti, wade across the Rio Grande
river to leave Del Rio, Texas to avoid possible deportation.
Human Rights First also responded to the administration’s plans to use Guantanamo Bay as a migrant detention facility.
“Sending people who are seeking protection to a place that is notorious for being treated as a rights-free zone is the last thing that the Biden administration should do,” Eleanor Acer, Senior Director of Refugee Protection at Human Rights First told NPR. “It is nothing more than a blatant attempt to evade oversight, due process, human rights protections and the refugee laws of the United States.”
Maria Sacchetti Immigration Reporter, Washington Post
Even in rolling out otherwise more reasonable enforcement priorities for ICE, Mayorkas insisted on making the bogus claim that recent border arrivals present a “national security threat,” as reported by the WashPost’s Maria Sacchetti:
Mayorkas said in his memo Thursday that migrants who cross the border illegally, particularly those who arrived unlawfully over the past year or so, remain a “threat to border security” and a priority for removal. But the ACLU has argued in its lawsuit that migrants have a legal right to seek asylum.
************************
“Courtside’s” rating of Mayorkas’s claims: 🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥
Who would have thought that more than eight months into the Biden Administration, we’d still be arguing about basics like “migrants have a legal right to seek asylum in the US?” See, INA section 208.
Elizabeth Gibson Attorney, NY Legal Assistance Group Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
ALERTS
EOIR Courts & Appeals Systems (ECAS) Locations: Electronic filing went live on 9/23/2021 at NYC-Broadway and will be available at NYC-Varick on 9/30/2021 (remember that electronic filing is not available for cases that commenced before those dates). No date has been announced for NYC-Federal Plaza, although EOIR has previously indicated all courts should have ECAS by 2022.
Reviewing ROPs: There have been reports of attorneys successfully scheduling appointments to review the record of proceeding at Varick and 290 Broadway. The clerk answering the main phone line at 26 Federal Plaza indicated she was unaware of any policy allowing in-person review of ROPs at this time but stated people could try making a request.
ABC: The proposed regulation attempts to satisfy concerns of a federal judge in Houston who ruled in July that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program was illegal. It takes on heightened importance as prospects for legislation have dimmed.
WGBH: The Office of the Principal Legal Advisor sends its prosecutors to litigate deportation cases before the Executive Office for immigration Review, the body that oversees the nation’s immigration courts. Doyle has been an outspoken critic of the agency and has led many lawsuits against it.
EOIR: Most recently, Mr. Neal was a consultant specializing in immigration policy and practice. Previously, he held positions at EOIR over two decades. From 2009 to 2019, he served as Chairman of the BIA at EOIR, where he was chief judge of the appeals board and managed judicial and administrative operations.
NPR: As the Biden administration scrambles to relocate thousands of Haitian migrants camped in a small Texas border town, it’s also looking for a private contractor to help operate a migrant detention facility at the U.S. Naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba — and to hire at least some guards who speak Spanish and Haitian Creole.
NYT: Mr. Biden’s decision is unlikely to affect two groups of people most recently in the news: tens of thousands of people from Kabul fleeing the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan and more than 15,000 Haitians in a sprawling, makeshift camp under a bridge at the southern border.
Politico: The inspector general also found that a Customs and Border Protection official asked the Mexican government in December 2018 to block 14 U.S. citizens from entering Mexico as the caravan approached the U.S. border even though it had “no genuine basis” to do so.
NYT: Among the many cruelties of our immigration system is this: Transnational adoptees, whose stories begin with a rupture from their birth families and home countries, have often found themselves deprived of U.S. citizenship and at risk of deportation.
AP: Newsom on Friday signed a law that removes the word from various sections of the California state code. California passed laws in 2015 and 2016 that removed the word from the state’s labor and education code.
AP: But contrary to expectations, nearly all 92,000 people approved for aid so far have qualified for the maximum $15,600 available under the program, the state’s website showed Thursday afternoon. Roughly 223,500 claims have been submitted overall, with a rush coming in recent days.
BIA: A Notice to Appear that does not specify the time and place of a respondent’s initial removal hearing does not deprive the Immigration Judge of jurisdiction over the respondent’s removal proceedings.
LexisNexis: Spring, Texas attorney Veronica Semino scored this unpublished BIA remand for her client, who is still detained in Oakdale. In the single-member decision dated Aug. 5, 2021 , Temporary Appellate Immigration Judge Gabriel Gonzalez wrote: “[W]e agree with the respondent that the harm he suffered in Jamaica rises to the level of persecution.
Law360: The Third Circuit Wednesday vacated a Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision that denied a Yemeni man’s request for protection from deportation, saying the board ignored “overwhelming evidence” that the man had been persecuted and could be tortured for his political beliefs.
LexisNexis: Abushagif v. Garland “Abushagif contends that the BIA abused its discretion by entirely failing to address his CAT claim. On that point, he is correct. A CAT “claim is separate from . . . claims for asylum and withholding of removal and should receive separate analytical attention.” Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906–07 (5th Cir. 2002). Moreover, the BIA must not leave asserted CAT claims unaddressed.
AILA: The court held that the BIA erred by failing to require DHS to make a good faith effort to present for petitioner’s cross-examination the author or declarant of a probation report upon which it relied to make its particularly serious crime determination. (Alcaraz-Enriquez v. Garland, 9/16/21)
AILA: The court held that because the petitioner’s prior removal order was reinstated, he had no right under the INA to seek asylum and no constitutional right to have DHS consider whether, as a discretionary matter, to decline to reinstate that order. (Iraheta-Martinez v. Garland, 9/7/21)
Law360: The Ninth Circuit denied a Chinese national’s bid for asylum over religious persecution, finding that she failed to disclose her 2013 arrest by U.S. authorities and could not offer a plausible explanation for her omission.
Law360: Two immigration courts improperly dismissed evidence supporting a Chinese woman’s claims that government officials forced her to undergo an abortion in her home country, according to the Ninth Circuit, which revived her family’s asylum case.
Law360: A D.C. federal judge approved a plan requiring U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement to attempt to place migrant teens who turn 18 in government custody in less-restrictive housing options than adult detention facilities, stipulating changes to documentation and officer training.
Law360: A Florida federal judge on Tuesday struck down key portions of a 2019 state law banning “sanctuary” immigration policies as unconstitutional, finding a South Florida city and immigration advocates proved discriminatory intent and violations of equal protection rights at a bench trial in January.
LexisNexis: Derek Brouwer, Vermont Seven Days, Sept. 24, 2021 “Border patrol officers can search Vermonters’ cars without a warrant under their special federal authority to conduct “roving” patrols within 100 miles of the U.S. border. But, as of Friday, evidence they collect during the controversial searches can no longer be used to prosecute crimes in state courts, a narrow majority of the Vermont Supreme Court.
Law360: A class of asylum-seekers has asked a California federal judge to oversee the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s compliance with two orders directing authorities to process some asylum claims, saying the federal government’s foot-dragging has proven the need for court oversight.
Law360: Texas and Missouri have blasted the Biden administration’s delays in complying with a court order to restart a Trump-era program requiring asylum-seekers to wait in Mexico, saying the government need not hash out an agreement with Mexico before reinstating the policy.
Law360: The American Civil Liberties Union urged the D.C. Circuit to maintain a lower court ruling that blocked a Trump-era asylum bar, saying that though the regulation is now moot, vacating the injunction would create “perverse incentives” for the government.
AILA: USCIS announced that, in response to the ongoing COVID pandemic, it extended the flexibilities for responding to certain agency requests. This flexibility applies if the issuance date listed on the request, notice, or decision is between March 1, 2020, and January 15, 2022, inclusive.
AILA: DOJ announced that non-U.S. citizens can request new or replacement Social Security cards using USCIS Forms I-765 or I-485, instead of visiting a local Social Security Administration office. Cards should be received within two weeks after receiving Employment Authorization Documents.
AILA: ICE provided updated statistics on COVID-19 in ICE detainees, by facility. As of 9/23/21, there are 526 positive cases currently in custody among a total detainee population of 22,442.
AILA: On 9/17/21, President Biden signed an executive order imposing sanctions on persons determined to be responsible for humanitarian and human rights violations in Ethiopia, including suspending the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of such persons. (86 FR 52389, 9/21/21)
AILA: DOS provided the President’s Report to Congress on the proposed Presidential Determination on Refugee Admissions for FY2022. The report recommends an increase in the refugee admissions target from 62,500 in FY2021 to 125,000 in FY2022, prioritizes admissions, states ORR goals, and more.
“After 16 years of inexcusable delays, I am proud that EOIR’s dedicated work over the past year has culminated in the piloting of a comprehensive electronic filing and case management system,” said [then] EOIR Director James McHenry. “With this important initiative, EOIR joins other court systems in the U.S. that have long provided such capabilities. ECAS will aid the parties and assist judges in hearing cases expeditiously and fairly, and will further augment EOIR’s efforts in tackling the pending case backlog.”
. . . . The program will extend to all remaining immigration courts in 2019.
Las Vegas is giving 50-1 odds that this won’tbe in full operation by the end of 2022. Anyone want to bet on “America’s Clown Courts” 🤡 to beat the odds and deliver?
Meet the New Chief of E-Filing @ EOIR (Looks alot like predecessors). Reportedly, he has a “nose” for the business! PHOTO: Wikimedia Commons
Here’s a “key quote” from Judge Susan Graber’s majority decision:
In summary, Petitioner’s Notice of Appeal was sufficiently specific to inform the BIA of two issues that she was challenging, given her status as a pro se litigant. Therefore, the BIA violated her right to due process by summarily dismissing her appeal. Whether Petitioner’s claims are meritorious is not before us; that question is for the BIA to decide in the first instance. We remand to the BIA for it to consider the merits of Petitioner’s claims.
****************
The BIA likes to dump on unrepresented individuals with summary dismissals because it “generates numbers” and helps fulfill “production goals” without requiring much attention or thinking. As Judge Graber noted, there is no doubt that a minimally competent BIA Appellate Judge could tell exactly what aspects of the IJ’s decision the pro se respondent was challenging. Encouraged to cut corners by their DOJ overlords, the BIA simply found it more expedient to deny without answering the respondent’s objections to the IJ’s decision.
This is just a glimpse into the daily due-process-denying operations of the BIA under Garland. Sometimes, these improper actions get “outed.” But, that would be the exception. Planning to throw 200 new judges into a broken, corner-cutting system, without addressing its obvious defects, is not a a recipe for success! And, relying on this version of the BIA to keep new or incumbent IJs “in line” or promote consistency and “best judicial practices” among what would be approximately 750 IJs nationwide is simply absurd! This is the type of “solution” that only could be proposed by someone who had never represented an individual in Immigration Court!
“Supremes? What Supremes? We work for Judge Garland @ DOJ, and he’s very, very tolerant of our anti-immigrant, pro-DHS ‘culture,’ and institutionalized poor decision-making over here at ‘his EOIR!’ Our jobs are safe, and that’s all that matters! To hell with ‘the others!’ ‘Jeffie Gonzo’ and ‘Billy the Bigot’ told us to treat migrants like the ‘trespassers’ and ‘scum of the earth’ they really are! It’s not like OUR families were ever migrants!” https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
Rodriguez v.Garland, 5th Cir., 09-27-21, published
PANEL: Higginbotham, Willett, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
OPINION: Judge Patrick Higginbotham
KEY QUOTE:
The initial NTA did not contain the time and date of Rodriguez’s hearing. The BIA found that the NTA combined with the subsequent NOH containing the time and place of Rodriguez’s hearing “satisfied the written notice requirements of [8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)],” directly contrary to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of § 1229(a) in Niz-Chavez which made clear that subsequent notices may not cure defects in an initial notice to appear. The BIA applied a “legally erroneous interpretation[].”23
*********************
Judge Higginbotham was appointed by President Ronald Reagan. Even conservative Article III Judges aren’t as anxious to snub the Supremes as the BIA.
After all, the BIA works for the Attorney General, not the Supremes. So, who cares whether their decisions comply with the rulings of the Article III Courts, so long as their political “handlers” at the DOJ are pleased with the pro-DHS outcome! That’s what happens when a “captive court” is encouraged to view itself as an extension of their “partners” at DHS enforcement, carrying out the political agenda of their DOJ superiors who control their paychecks and their career destiny!
Wow! It took fewer than three business days for Garland’s latest venture into obtuse anti-immigrant decision-making at the BIA, Matter of Arambula-Bravo, to hit a brick wall! In the 5th Circuit, no less! Back in the “old days” of the “Legacy INS,” it was a very bad sign when we couldn’t “sell” a position to the 5th Circuit!
Have to wonder if Judge Garland would have been so sanguine with the dissing of the Supremes by the BIA if he had actually become “Justice Garland?”
As my esteemed colleague Judge “Sir Jeffrey” Chase noted, the position adopted by the 5th Circuit in Rodriguez:
is the same argument we [the “Round Table”] made in our recent amicus brief to the Board – in a published decision, the 5th Cir. granted a PFR and vacated the Board’s decision denying a motion to rescind an in absentia order where there was no proper service due to a defective NTA under Niz-Chavez.
By failing to replace the BIA with better qualified progressive expert judges who will issue correct precedents (even when they might benefit immigrants) and require “best practices” in the now-totally-dysfunctional Immigration Courts, Garland is further building backlog by generating thousands of unnecessary remands and reopenings. How long will it take him to reach the 2 million case mark?
“Bogus dedicated dockets,” gross misuse of the discredited “Title 42” rationale to deny due process, increased use of “expedited removal,” proposals to “rubber stamp” asylum and credible fear denials, badly skewed pro-enforcement interpretations that throw the fate of hundreds of thousands of cases into the Circuits and the Supremes aren’t going to solve the problem!
Never underestimate the adverse effects of bad judging, particularly in a high volume system where incorrect precedents result in wrong decisions in hundreds of cases every day! Conversely, you can’t overestimate the positive potential of progressive expert judges who would get the results correct at the “retail level;” force some badly needed quality control, discipline, and consistency at both EOIR and DHS; and solve problems rather than creating them!
Sadly, Garland doesn’t “get it!” And that will be a continuing unmitigated disaster for our democracy and our justice system! Such a lost opportunity!
Has Alfred E. Neumann been “reborn” as Judge Merrick B. Garland? “Not my friends, relatives, or attorney buddies whose lives are being destroyed by my ‘Kangaroo Courts.’ Just ‘the others’ and their ‘scuzzy, unimportant immigration lawyers,’ so who cares, why worry about professionalism, ethics, and due process in Immigration Court?” PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
There are enormous downsides to border disorder, to immigration policy paralysis and to leaving the fates of more than 11 million current immigrants without any path to a secure future — even beyond the reinforcement it provides to the United States’ growing international reputation for dysfunction. No one gains by the chaos except smugglers who soak desperate migrants financially on their way north in hopes of a better life. The losers include not only the “dreamers” brought to this country as children, who must live in perpetual anxiety, but also the country as a whole, which loses the value of immigrants, skilled and otherwise, who would turbocharge entrepreneurship, create jobs and help the economy grow.
There are available solutions if Congress could overcome its horror of bipartisan compromise. The goal should be to establish a realistic annual quota of immigrant visas for Central Americans, Haitians and others desperate to reach this country who otherwise will cross the border illegally — a number that recognizes the U.S. labor market’s demand for such employees. That must be supplemented by a muscular guest worker program that enables legal border crossing for migrants who want to support families remaining in their home countries.
. . . .
**********************
Read the complete editorial at the link.
It’s worth adding that the current “border disorder” is largely the result of White Nationalist, legally defective, anti-immigrant policies of the Trump regime compounded by the failure of Mayorkas and Garland to take the obvious, available, common sense steps necessary to reopen legal border ports of entry, to make the long overdue necessary reforms to establish a fair, efficient, and generous legal asylum system at the USCIS Asylum Offices and the Immigration Courts, and to insist on the creation of a robust, functional refugee program for Latin America and the Caribbean.
None of the this is “rocket science!” 🚀 Plenty of great blueprints for administrative reforms and the potential expert leadership to implement them were “out there for the taking” at the beginning of the Biden Administration. By dawdling, tapping the wrong leaders, and continuing enforcement policies and bad judicial practices that were proven failures, the Administration predictably put itself “behind the eight-ball” in establishing order and implementing the rule of law at our borders!
Until the Biden Administration ends its disgraceful, cowardly, illegal, cruel, ineffective, and inhumane reliance on bogus “Title 42” restrictions to suspend orderly legal processing at the border, they will continue to bobble the next predictable “border crisis.” The GOP will continue to spout nativist nonsense. Desperate people will continue to do desperate things. Only a tone-deaf Administration would continue to ignore this reality!
“Abushagif contends that the BIA abused its discretion by entirely failing to address his CAT claim. On that point, he is correct. A CAT “claim is separate from . . . claims for asylum and withholding of removal and should receive separate analytical attention.” Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906–07 (5th Cir. 2002). Moreover, the BIA must not leave asserted CAT claims unaddressed. See Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 196 (5th Cir. 2004). The government does not dispute that Abushagif raised a CAT claim in his motion to reopen. The government avers, however, that Abushagif did not present his claim to the Board and thus failed to exhaust it. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). That is flatly incorrect; Abushagif raised his CAT claim several times in his briefing before the BIA. It is confounding that the government says otherwise. The government also contends that remanding the CAT claim would be “futile” because, even if the BIA had addressed it, the Board still would not have granted his motion to reopen, given its determination that Abushagif had generally failed to submit reliable evidence in support of his claims of persecution. That contention, however, cannot overcome the plain command of our caselaw: The Board must address CAT claims where they are raised. See Eduard, 379 F.3d at 196. We therefore remand for the limited purpose of the Board’s addressing Abushagif’s CAT claim.”
The government does not dispute that Abushagif raised a CAT claim in his motion to reopen. The government avers, however, that Abushagif did not present his claim to the Board and thus failed to exhaust it. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). That is flatly incorrect; Abushagif raised his CAT claim several times in his briefing before the BIA. It is confounding that the government says otherwise.
“Confounding,” but not surprising to any of us who follow the continuing meltdown of justice and callous indifference to the law, truth, and human lives @ Garland’s failed and failing Department of “Justice.”
The government also contends that remanding the CAT claim would be “futile” because, even if the BIA had addressed it, the Board still would not have granted his motion to reopen, given its determination that Abushagif had generally failed to submit reliable evidence in support of his claims of persecution. That contention, however, cannot overcome the plain command of our caselaw: The Board must address CAT claims where they are raised.
Basically, OIL, argues that even if they had actually addressed CAT, the BIA would still have stiffed the respondent’s claim because that’s what a “programmed to deny for any reason” BIA does. Why bother with a BIA decision when a denial is “predetermined?” Is this really the sad state of due process at Garland’s DOJ? Apparently!
Let’s put this in context. The respondent is from Libya, a country notorious for torture. Here’s an excerpt from the latest (2020) Department of State Country Report on Libya:
While the 2011 Constitutional Declaration and postrevolutionary legislation prohibit such practices, credible sources indicated personnel operating both government and extralegal prisons and detention centers tortured detainees (see section 1.g.). While judicial police controlled some facilities, the GNA continued to rely on armed groups to manage prisons and detention facilities. Furthermore, armed groups, not police, initiated arrests in many instances. An unknown number of individuals were held without judicial authorization in other facilities nominally controlled by the Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Defense, or in extralegal
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2020
United States Department of State • Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor
LIBYA 7
facilities controlled by GNA-affiliated armed groups, LNA-affiliated armed groups, and other nonstate actors. Treatment varied from facility to facility and typically was worst at the time of arrest. There were reports of cruel and degrading treatment in government and extralegal facilities, including beatings, administration of electric shocks, burns, and rape. In many instances this torture was reportedly initiated to extort payments from detainees’ families.
Also, the 5th Circuit is generally considered the most conservative and pro-Government Circuit. It is a jurisdiction where the Government has to work hard and really, really screw up to lose an immigration case.
Two of the panel judges in this case are GOP appointees: Judges Engelhardt (Trump), and Smith (Reagan). The third panel member, Judge Higginson is an Obama appointee. Judge Jerry E. Smith, who wrote this opinion, is known as one of the most conservative Federal Judges in America! If these jurists see problems, you can be sure they actually exist!
One thing that unites Federal Judges across the ideological spectrum is dislike of being lied to by DOJ attorneys! Evidently, that’s no longer of concern to Judge Garland now that he is the purveyor, rather than the recipient, of misrepresentations, untruths, and sloppy, unprofessional work from DOJ attorneys!
How travesties like this, that happen at Garland’s DOJ on a daily basis, in “life or death” cases, is acceptable professional judicial performance is beyond understanding!
Additionally, how clearly misrepresenting the facts of record is ethically acceptable performance for OIL attorneys is totally beyond me!
Maybe its time for the House and Senate Judiciary Committees to call Judge Garland before them for oversight to examine his continuing mismanagement of EOIR, America’s worst, most backlogged, most blatantly unfair, court system, that has not materially improved during his tenure. They should also inquire as to why he continues to tolerate unethical performance from OIL Attorneys making material misrepresentations to Federal Courts in attempting to defend the indefensible performance of the BIA in immigration litigation. Also, why hasn’t Garland spoken out about the illegal suspension of asylum laws enacted by Congress at our borders? Human lives are at stake here!
The idea that Garland intends to “fix” this problem by throwing 200 new Immigration Judges into this broken, dysfunctional system, without first addressing any of the structural, management, competence, personnel, and institutional bias issues at EOIR is beyond absurd! “Management 101” says you fix the system by rooting out and replacing incompetent and unqualified judges, replacing incompetent managers with competent ones, and fixing the many broken operational pieces of the Immigration Court System before expanding it.
This means, at a minimum, slashing the backlog by getting hundreds of thousands of old, non-priority cases off the docket now, stopping endemic “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” at EOIR, installing a functional e-filing system, getting competent representation into the Immigration Courts, replacing the current institutionalized “worst practices” with “best practices,” and instituting real judicial training by experts from outside EOIR.
Only then, after the system has been made functional, should it be expanded, if needed. Otherwise, it’s like trying to fix defective automobile production by hiring more workers and speeding up the assembly line, thereby producing more defective vehicles without fixing that which caused the defects in the first place.
This case also shows the critical, life-saving role of pro bono counsel in Immigration Court. Without the heroic efforts ofpro bono publico counsel Alison Caditz and Jeri Leigh Miller, Mr. Abushagif would probably be hanging from a ceiling fan in Libya right now!
Garland indifferent to wrong torture decisions from BIA? Photo by David R. Badger, Creative Commons
I was pleased to see that Judge Smith cited my precedent opinion in Matter of L-O-G-, 21 I&B Dec. 413 (BIA 1996) in his opinion. See FN 1. In L-O-G-, we held that “we have been willing to reopen ‘where the new facts alleged, when coupled with the facts already of record, satisfy us that it would be worthwhile to develop the issues further at a plenary hearing on reopening.’” 21 I&N Dec. at 419 (citations omitted).
Yes, folks, there was a time long ago and far away when BIA Chairs actually functioned as appellate judges: participating in cases at both the panel and en banc level, writing decisions, and, where necessary, filing dissents, without regard to “career enhancement.” That was in addition to BIA management duties, being a senior member of EOIR’s executive team, andmany public speaking, writing, and other public information and educational functions.
While today’s BIA and many Immigration Judges routinely ignore Matter of L-O-G- and its important teaching, it remains “good law,” as found by Judge Smith. Practitioners should be citing it in every motion to reopen and insisting that EOIR start following its own precedents, even where they produce results inconsistent with the restrictionist positions urged by DHS or the “round ‘em up and move ‘em out attitudes” that still seem prevalent at Garland’s DOJ.
It’s rather ironic that Federalist Society hero Judge Jerry E. Smith understands me better than Garland’s BIA!
Garland seems uninterested in making the long overdue bold progressive reforms necessary to restore due process, consistency, humanity, and racial justice to our broken and dysfunctional Immigration Courts. That means the battle over the next four years is likely to shift to the Article III Courts and Congress to finally get this utterly disgraceful, yet fixable, system back on track! This is also what’s required to save at least some of the vulnerable human lives now being “chewed up and spit out” by Garland’s ☠️ “Deadly Clown Courts” 🤡 and their ethics-challenged OIL defenders!🤮
Obviously, THESE are the practical scholar/immigration experts who belong on the BIA:
Kit Johnson Associate Professor of Law University of Oklahoma Law SchoolProfessor Geoffrey Hoffman Immigraton Clinic Director University of Houston Law Center
The Board of Immigration Appeals has issued a decision in Matter of Arambula-Bravo, 28 I&N Dec. 388 (BIA 2021). Here is the summary:
(1) A Notice to Appear that does not specify the time and place of a respondent’s initial removal hearing does not deprive the Immigration Judge of jurisdiction over the respondent’s removal proceedings. Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), and Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021), distinguished; Matter of Bermudez-Cota, 27 I&N Dec. 441 (BIA 2018), and Matter of Rosales Vargas and Rosales Rosales, 27 I&N Dec. 745 (BIA 2020), followed.
(2) A Notice to Appear that lacks the time and place of a respondent’s initial removal hearing constitutes a “charging document” as defined in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.13 (2021), and is sufficient to terminate a noncitizen’s grant of parole under 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(e)(2)(i) (2021).
I am hardly the only one to argue that such an NTA should deprive the court of jurisdiction. Immprof Geoffrey Hoffman (Houston), frequent contributor to this blog, submitted an amicus brief to the BIA on this case arguing that an NTA without time or place information is “defective” under Niz-Chavez and cannot be cured by the later issuance of a Notice of Hearing.
Now the waiting game for SCOTUS intervention begins again. I’m hoping for another scathing opinion by Justice Gorsuch. His Niz-Chavez decision was fire.
-KitJ
*******************
INA section 239(a) defines a Notice to Appear, the document used to initiate a removal proceeding in Immigration Court, as including, among other statutory requirements: “G)(i) The time and place at which the proceedings will be held.” Could not be clearer!
The requirements of section 239(a) are hardly onerous. Indeed, several decades ago, the Government had developed an “interactive scheduling system” that allowed DHS to specify the exact time, place, and date of a respondent’s initial Master Calendar hearing in Immigration Court.
However, rather than expanding and improving that system, DHS and EOIR decided to cut corners to accommodate the “uber enforcement” agendas pushed by Administrations of both parties over the past two decades. Their “haste makes waste, good enough for Government work approach” led them to ignore the requirements for a proper NTA and instead issue “piecemeal notices.”
This, of course, increased the unnecessary workload for already-stressed, overwhelmed EOIR Immigration Court clerks, resulted in many more defective notices, more unnecessary bogus “failures to appear,” more improper “in absentia removal orders,” more Motions to Reopen those wrongfully issued orders, and more appeals from improper failures to grant such motions. It also sent more of these preliminary matters into the Circuit Courts for judicial review.
Basically, it’s a microcosm of how an unconstitutional, non-independent “wholly owned court system” “pretzels itself” to accommodate DHS enforcement, misconstrues the law, and attempts to legitimize “worst practices” to please its political overlords, thereby creating endless and largely avoidable case backlogs — now at an astounding 1.4 million cases!
Even worse, when the backlogs finally capture public attention and “hit the fan,” EOIR, DHS, and DOJ disingenuously attempt to shift the blame and the consequences for their failures onto the VICTIMS: respondents and their long-suffering, often pro bono, attorneys! The incompetents at EOIR then cut even more corners and issue more bad precedents misconstruing the law in an attempt to cover up their own wrongdoing and that of their political masters. The latter’s understanding of how to run an efficient, due-process oriented, fair and impartial court system could be put in a thimble with space left over!
The vicious cycle of unfairness, injustice, and incompetence at EOIR continues endlessly, toward oblivion.
As Kit cogently points out, better interpretations, ones that complied with the statute and could be tailored to achieve practical solutions were available and actually submitted to the BIA. The BIA, as usual, brushed them off in favor of trying to please DHS and avoid both the statutory language and the Supremes’ clear direction.
So, something that a properly comprised BIA, composed of true progressive immigration experts and practical scholars, could have solved in a legal and practical manner, will undoubtedly head to the Supremes for a third time. We might not know the result for years, during which the BIA’s bad interpretation will generate additional potential backlog as well as unjust removals.
