"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
Reuters: The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 ruling said the preliminary injunction issued last year improperly placed ICE’s entire network of detention facilities under the direction of a single federal judge, an error because the plaintiffs failed to show systemic nationwide shortfalls in detainee health protections.
NPR: The Border Patrol recorded nearly 1.7 million migrant apprehensions at the Southern border over the past year — the highest number ever, eclipsing the record set more than two decades ago. But that doesn’t mean it’s the biggest number of individual migrants who’ve illegally crossed from Mexico into the U.S. in a single year. In fact, it’s probably not even close. See also Tired of waiting for asylum in southern Mexico, thousands of migrants march north.
BuzzFeed: The report offers a rare window into the behind-the-scenes dysfunction and confusion surrounding the so-called Remain in Mexico program, which is set to come back.
NYT: More than 160 reports, obtained by Human Rights Watch, reveal details of mistreatment that asylum seekers described experiencing from border officials and while in U.S. custody.
WaPo: A U.S. Customs and Border Protection discipline board found that 60 agents “committed misconduct” by sharing violent and obscene posts in secret Facebook groups but fired only two — far fewer than an internal discipline board had recommended, according to a House Oversight and Reform Committee report released Monday.
Intercept: An internal review of Efraín Romero de la Rosa’s death in ICE custody found almost two dozen policy violations during his stint in detention.
Law360: President Joe Biden hasn’t shied away from using controversial technologies for immigration enforcement, raising concerns that his predecessor’s pet project to build a border wall is being replaced with a “virtual wall” rife with privacy and civil liberties problems.
Newsweek: SLS was previously assigned to build the border wall under the Donald Trump administration, but now it is expected to work with the health department to also offer migrants prescription services and transportation for “safe onward travel.”
Law360: The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday vacated a Third Circuit ruling in a deportation case that barred a Yemeni man from acquiring citizenship through his naturalized but divorced parents, after the Biden administration said the lower court overlooked precedent.
Law360: Advocates of drastically reduced immigration urged the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday to overturn decisions in the Third and Ninth circuits that said migrants who have been detained more than six months should get a bond review hearing.
Law360: A coalition of conservationists and ranchers has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review a Ninth Circuit ruling that the federal government need not subject immigration policies to environmental review, saying it created an “impossible” standard for challenging immigration programs.
Law360: The First Circuit revived a Honduran man’s bid for protection from a deportation order, ruling that immigration authorities saw discrepancies in his testimony that he faced persecution as an HIV-positive gay man where there were none.
AILA: The court held that the petitioners’ convictions under Connecticut General Statute §21a-277(a) were controlled substance offenses and aggravated felony drug trafficking crimes, and that the jurisdictional holding of Banegas Gomez v. Barr remained good law. (Chery v. Garland, 10/15/21)
AILA: Granting the petition for review and remanding, the court held that while the BIA was correct in finding that the petitioner had not suffered political persecution in China, its reasons for rejecting religious persecution were flawed. (Liang v. Att’y Gen., 10/12/21)
AILA: The court abrogated Matter of S-O-G- & F-D-B-, holding that 8 CFR §§1003.10(b) and 1003.1(d)(1)(ii) unambiguously grant IJs and the BIA the general power to terminate removal proceedings. (Chavez Gonzalez v. Garland, 10/20/21)
Law360: The Fifth Circuit on Wednesday asked the federal government to respond to Texas and Louisiana’s petition for the full appellate court to review a panel’s decision allowing the Biden administration’s policy curbing immigration enforcement operations to remain in place.
Law360: The Fifth Circuit refused to freeze the Biden administration’s appeal of a lower court order stopping the federal government from approving new applications under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program while it inks a replacement rule.
LexisNexis: Fraihat v. ICE Maj. – “COVID-19 presents inherent challenges in institutional settings, and it has without question imposed greater risks on persons in custody. But plaintiffs had to demonstrate considerably more than that to warrant the extraordinary, system-wide relief that they sought.
AILA: The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the defendants to commence processing the 9,905 DV-2020 visas as soon as is feasible, and to conclude such processing no later than the end of FY2022, or September 30, 2022. (Gomez, et al. v. Biden, et al., 10/13/21)
Law360: The federal government urged the D.C. Circuit to erase a lower court’s injunction blocking its use of a public health law to expel migrant families, arguing that the lower court interpreted its powers under the authority too narrowly.
Law360: A D.C. federal judge ordered U.S. Customs and Border Protection on Monday to release previously withheld documents related to the government’s 2017 attempt to unmask a Trump administration critic’s Twitter account, while scolding the agency for its “lackluster efforts” to comply with Freedom of Information Act requirements.
Law360: A Michigan federal judge rejected two brothers’ claims that their due process and religious freedom rights were violated when they were denied travel authorization to Mexico for their grandfather’s funeral, saying that they had no recourse against the officials involved.
AILA: DOJ provided a status update to the court, which states that the BIA and NYLAG are in discussions regarding the possibility of posting certain unpublished BIA decisions online, both prospectively and retrospectively. (NYLAG v. BIA, 10/15/21)
Law360: The Pentagon denied foreign-born soldiers’ contention that it was flouting an injunction to process their citizenship requests, telling a Washington, D.C., court that it was complying and close to doubling the number of requests that are processed annually.
AILA: In balancing respondent’s desirability as a permanent resident with social and humane considerations, the IJ found that respondent was entitled to a waiver of removability for fraud or misrepresentation under INA §237(a)(1)(H). Courtesy of Christopher Helt. (Matter of Mohammed, 9/13/21)
AILA: CBP notification of the continuation of travel restrictions limiting non-essential travel from Mexico into the U.S. at land ports of entry through 1/21/22, while also announcing the intent to lift these restrictions for individuals fully vaccinated against COVID-19. (86 FR 58216, 10/21/21)
AILA: DHS notice establishing procedures for individuals covered by Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) for Hong Kong to apply for employment authorization through 2/5/23. (86 FR 58296, 10/21/21)
Suffolk County DA: Newly created Immigrant Affairs unit. The Chief of the unit is Leslie Anderson and Deputy Chief is Imran Ahmed. Their hotline is 631-852-2950 and the dedicated email address is immigrantaffairsDA@suffolkcountyny.gov.
Sadly, more than eight months in, the Biden Administration lacks:
A coherent vision for the border;
A cogent plan to restore the refugee system and the legal asylum system (the poorly conceived “proposed asylum regs” — mostly opposed by our Round Table and other asylum experts — don’t make it);
The tough, courageous, well-informed leadership to make the necessary border enforcement and Immigration Court reforms and to stand up to the entirely predictable, well-organized nativist opposition, led by Stephen “Gauleiter” Miller and his accomplices.
Not a “recipe for success,” in my view!
Another item worthy of note: The pending settlement between NYLAG and EOIR on making unpublished decisions readily accessible to the public could open new avenues for advocates.
BIA panel decisions favorable to respondents are almost never published as precedents by an organization where judicial independence and due process have long taken a back seat to “job preservation” within the DOJ. Politicos @ DOJ are normally much more interested in supporting enforcement and “false deterrence” goals than with enhancing due process, enforcing immigrants’ rights, and achieving racial justice when it comes to immigrants.
As a retired immigration judge, I have watched with concern reports of the surge of unaccompanied immigrant children crossing the border into the United States. There are many reasons for concern—their housing, their health, their safety. To me, there is an additional, very real, and often overlooked question looming on the horizon: What will happen when these children, even toddlers and babies, appear alone in immigration court?
Yes, alone. While a person in immigration proceedings is entitled to be represented by a lawyer if they can afford it, there is no constitutional or even statutory right to appointed counsel in immigration proceedings. That means those who cannot afford a lawyer must appear in court alone, including children.
While I am pleased to see the Biden administration plans to provide government-funded legal representation for certain immigrant children in eight U.S. cities, this new initiative is still a far cry from the universal representation needed to support children in removal proceedings.
Imagine, if you can, a child — 2 years old, 10 years old or 17 years old — appearing before an immigration judge alone. How does a child, already intimidated and confused by the courtroom setting, understand the nature of the court proceedings and the charges against them? How can a child understand the complexities of immigration law, their burden of proof, and possible defenses against deportation? The short answer is they cannot.
. . . .
**********************
Read the rest of the op-ed at the above link.
The “Fair Day For Kids in Court Act of 2021” is endorsed by the “Round Table” ⚔️🛡 among many other groups in the NDPA!
Here’s a summary (courtesy of Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” S. Chase):
Senator Mazie Hirono (of [Round Table “Fighting Knightess” Judge] Dayna Beamer’s home state of Hawaii) plans to introduce the attached bill on Thursday, that would provide counsel for unaccompanied children in Immigration Court by:
Clarifying the authority of the federal government to provide or appoint counsel to noncitizens in immigration proceedings;
Requiring the appointment or provision of legal counsel to all unaccompanied children in proceedings unless they obtained counsel independently;
Mandating access to counsel for all noncitizens in CBP and ICE facilities;
Requiring that, if the government fails to provide counsel to an unaccompanied child and orders that child removed, the filing of a motion to reopen proceedings will stay removal; and
Requiring government reporting on the provision of counsel to unaccompanied children.
Here’s the text of the bill, which will be introduced by Sen. Hirono later this week:
Thanks Sarah and Jeffrey! So pleased to be part of the “support group” for this long-overdue and badly needed legislation that would do what to date Congress, the Federal Courts, and DOJ have failed to do: Enforce the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment in Immigration Court!
Wendy Young President, Kids In Need of Defense (“KIND”)
And, of course, we should never forget the ongoing, daily work performed by NDPA Superhero 🦸🏻♂️ Wendy Young and Kids in Need of Defense (“KIND”) in ending the disgraceful blot on American justice of unrepresented kids in Immigration Court:
Dear Paul,
I met Maria* in immigration court. The judge sat in his robes behind the bench when he called her deportation case.
A trial attorney from the Department of Homeland Security sat at the front, prepared to argue for Maria’s removal from the U.S.. Maria was by herself without a lawyer by her side.
She was five years old.
She approached the bench, wearing her nicest clothes, clutching a doll. She sat behind the respondent’s desk, barely able to see over the microphone. The judge asked her a number of questions about why she was in the US and about her life here, none of which she could answer. Her eyes grew bigger and bigger as she sat silently, until he finally dismissed her and told her to come back at a later date. As she left the court, he asked her what the name of her doll was. In Spanish, she replied, “Baby Baby Doll.” That was the only question she could answer.
This October, KIND is honoring the pro bono attorneys who have helped more than 27,000 children referred to KIND receive legal representation that often means the difference between relief and deportation and, by extension, a child’s safety or danger.
Paul, these are just a few ways we’ll put your gift to work, but know that your donation in ANY amount is critical to the number of children we can reach, and represent, through the amazing efforts of our pro bono attorney network.
These kids are scared, they are traumatized. They are intimidated. And without the services provided by organizations like KIND, they are all alone.
Hello, this is Deanna Garcia with today’s edition of Early Arrival. You can email me at deanna.garcia@documentedny.com.
Do you know anyone who would find this information useful? Please, forward it.
Was this email forwarded to you? Sign up for this newsletter here.
NJ Immigrant Detainees Worried About Transfers as ICE Contracts End
📍 Documented Original
As New Jersey jails began to terminate their contracts with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency has started sending immigrant detainees to other jails in the U.S., further away from their families and friends. ICE told lawyers that the agency can’t release their clients because it considers them a public safety threat, even though majority of them are imprisoned over unresolved charges for nonviolence crimes. This action indicates the power ICE has on where and how immigrant detainees are being held. “We all hoped that ICE would use its discretion to release,” said Ellen Pachnanda, the attorney in charge of the New York Immigrant Family Unity Project. “As long as ICE retains this discretion to transfer, they will transfer.” Read more at Documented.
Documented is the only newsroom that creates journalism with and for New York’s immigrant communities. This work is not easy and it is not cheap. Help us fuel this work for $10/month.
AOC Revives Citizenship Bill for 9/11 Cleanup Crew
U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and two other legislators reintroduced a federal bill to put immigrants who helped clean up after the 9/11 attacks on a fast track to U.S. citizenship. The 9/11 Immigrant Worker Freedom Act is an adjusted version of a bill that former Rep. Joseph Crowley introduced in 2017, which didn’t advance to the House. New York immigrants have asked for years to obtain legal immigrant status as compensation for the work they did and health problems they’ve suffered since the attacks. Several dozens are still protesting, while others gave up on fighting. The Associated Press
New Jersey Haitian Leaders Protest Deportations
Haitian community leaders and immigrant advocates gathered outside of a federal immigration office to protest the Biden administration deporting thousands of Haitian migrants under Title 42. The group of 50 people demanded that President Joe Biden allow more Haitians to seek asylum in the U.S. “These people just want to work and find a better way of life. We’re speaking in Newark because this city is a bedrock for New Jersey’s Haitian population,” said the Rev. Jean Maurice of the New Jersey Haitian Pastors Organization. According to U.S. Census data, New Jersey has roughly 60,000 Haitian residents. North Jersey
Advocates Rally Again for Schumer to Ensure a Pathway to Citizenship
For the last few weeks, immigrant advocates have been demanding Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to work to provide a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. On Friday, that demand continued at Schumer’s Peekskill office. Immigrants and advocates said they help Democrats gain power in Washington, so now they want Schumer to work for them. “We’ve delivered that control to the Democrats, so we feel that the Democrats have to deliver the promise that they’ve made us and make sure that citizenship is being included in this year’s reconciliation package,” said Peekskill City Councilor Vanessa Agudelo. Advocates said they’re in talks with Schumer’s office and will continue the pressure. News12 the Bronx
ICE Investigation Discovered Falsified Documents of Immigrant’s Suicide
According to Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s External Reviews and Analysis Unit, medical and security staff at Stewart Detention Center in Georgia violated several agency rules when handling Efraín Romero de la Rosa’s suicide in 2018. He was diagnosed with schizophrenia and committed suicide after being in solitary for 21 days. The review discovered staff falsified documents, poorly dealt with his medication, didn’t follow proper care procedures and improperly placed him in disciplinary solitary confinement, even though there were multiple warnings of his declining mental health. The review also lists 22 separate violations of ICE and Stewart Detention Center rules by staff during Romero de la Rosa’s four months in detention and eight separate “areas of concern.” The Intercept
Migrant Caravan Breaks Mexican National Guard Roadblock
Roughly between 3,000 and 4,000 migrants left the U.S.-Mexico border city of Tapachula on Saturday morning and headed to Mexico City. Caravan organizers say that will be their last stop while they continue to attempt to secure humanitarian permits for Haitians andCentral and North American migrants to move freely throughout Mexico. But some migrants said they plan on going to the southern border as part of their push. Videos on social media show the caravan recently ran into a Mexican National Guard roadblock and broke through it, with soldiers making no attempts to pursue or draw weapons against them. Border Report
California Hires Border Wall Contractor to Screen, Test and Vaccinate Migrants
California Gov. Gavin Newsom hired Sullivan Land Services Co. to screen, test and vaccinate migrants for COVID-19 at the border. SLSCO, based in Galveston, Texas, received a no-bid $350 million contract from California. This was the same company former President Donald Trump used to build the border wall along the border. Newsom had criticized the border wall and even pushed to file several lawsuits to halt its construction. According to a report, SLSCO staff gave COVID-19 services to about 60,000 migrants at five locations. Immigration advocates and health care leaders aren’t happy about the state’s partnership with SLSCO. KXAN
Child Allowed into U.S. for Urgent Cancer Treatment and Given Humanitarian Parole
Carlitos, a 2-year-old boy from Guatemala, was allowed to enter the U.S. from Tijuana in an ambulance. According to his attorney Hollie Webb, his story of kidnapping, expulsion, lack of access to medical care and a serious illness that without proper treatment could kill him, provided him with a rare outcome. Attorneys and doctors campaigned U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials to allow Carlitos and his mother, Ana, to cross into San Diego under a humanitarian parole to give him cancer treatment. CBP granted the request after an inquiry from The San Diego Union-Tribune. The two crossed into the U.S. Thursday evening to a hospital in San Diego. The San Diego Union-Tribune
Just like elsewhere in the U.S., Georgia is facing labor shortages as its economy recovers from the pandemic. A bipartisan group of lawmakers has been meeting to figure out how Georgia’s immigrants can help solve this problem and contribute to the state’s economy. They spoke with industry leaders and immigration advocates to learn what prevents immigrants from maximizing their participation in the workforce. According to Darlene Lynch, a representative of Georgia’s Business & Immigration Partnership, about 1 in 5 foreign-born Georgians with college degrees are either unemployed or employed in a low-wage job, which costs the state hundreds of millions of dollars in lost tax revenue per year. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Biden Allowing Private Groups to Sponsor Afghan Evacuees, Small USCIS Staff Tackling Humanitarian Requests, Arizona Mayor Claims Migration Stresses Local Services
The Biden administration plans on revealing a program Monday that would let private groups sponsor Afghan evacuees and assist their resettlement in the U.S., three sources familiar with the plan told CBS News. According to a presentation describing the plan, groups of about five individuals could apply to become “sponsor circles” that would help Afghan refugees secure housing, basic necessities, financial support, legal counsel and medical services for about 90 days. This program would become an alternative to the traditional refugee resettlement process, which is overseen by nine national agencies and their local affiliates. The “Sponsor Circle Program,” a joint initiative between the Department of State and the Community Sponsorship Hub, oversees online applications from potential sponsors and helps connect them with refugees. CBS News
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services allocated just six employees to process roughly 14,000 humanitarian requests for Afghan evacuees seeking relocation last week, drawing condemnation from lawmakers. “That is completely and utterly unacceptable, and I call on USCIS to address the shortcoming immediately,” said Rep. Jim Langevin, (D-R.I.). As of Friday, that number jumped to close to 20,000 requests, which is 10 times more than the number of humanitarian applications submitted around the world in a typical year, said a USCIS official. In response to Langevin’s criticism, the USCIS official said the agency is assigning additional staff for the workload. VOA News
Yuma, Arizona, Mayor Douglas Nicholls (R) told a Washington, D.C. forum that the increase of undocumented immigrants is stressing health care and nonprofits that assist migrants in his town. “As these (migrant) numbers continue to increase, it’s going to be beyond their capability,” he said. “From that perspective we have real concern about our health care system holding up, our nonprofit system holding up, and even our economy.” His comments come as apprehensions of immigrants at the southern border are at their highest numbers in decades. Immigration advocates say those numbers can be misleading since they might represent one migrant who was stopped multiple times. They also argued that nonprofits were under stress due to the pandemic before immigration numbers increased in Trump’s last year in office. AZMirror
Documented, PO Box 250250, New York, NY 10025, United States
*************************
Recently, I wrote about the heroic efforts of my friends Processor Erin Barbato and the UW Law Immigration Clinic and Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr and the Cornell Law Immigration Clinic to help Afghan refugees, including assistance filing applications for “humanitarian parole.”
I also questioned the unusually high $575 fee being charged by USCIS for these emergency humanitarian applications! Now, we find out that for this outrageously high fee, USCIS has assigned only a “skeletal staff” of six adjudicators to process those very predictable applications.Undoubtedly, that will result in unnecessary backlogs and processing delays.
Ur Mendoza Jaddou Director, USCIS PHOTO: PotomacLaw.com
These are the types of “X’s & O’s” practical problems that USCIS Director Ur Jaddou was hired to fix. So, she needs to “get on the stick” and fix this NOW!
A drastic increase in humanitarian parole applications and backlogs was totally predictable. Why is it only getting attention after it becomes a problem and draws public criticism?
An End to a Highly Controversial Quota System Imposed on Immigration Judges
This week Immigration Judges received an email message from Chief Immigration Judge Tracy Short stating that the performance metrics imposed by the Trump administration which violated judicial ethics are now “suspended.”
WASHINGTON –A deeply flawed and inefficient U.S. Department of Justice program that evaluated Immigration Judges primarily on the number of cases they heard, has been “suspended.” The DOJ will no longer evaluate judges on the number of cases they decide Chief Judge Tracy Short wrote in an email sent to the nation’s roughly 500 Immigration Judges this week.
Over the past three plus years, Immigration Judges have looked over their shoulders, worried about being disciplined, just for doing their jobs — providing due process.
“This week’s actions by the Department of Justice under Executive Office for Immigration Review Director David Neal are a step in the right direction toward restoring a greater measure of integrity to our nation’s Immigration Courts,” said Mimi Tsankov, president of the National Association of Immigration Judges. “Our organization looks forward to working with management to restore a fairer process that allows judges to focus on doing their jobs properly. The performance metrics developed by the Trump administration were a violation of judicial ethics, they belong in the trash bin.”
“The Agency is in the process of developing new performance measures, drawing from past successful measures and appropriate input, that will accurately reflect the workload of an immigration judge,” the chief judge wrote in his emailed message. “These new performance measures will focus on balance and equity for the various types of docket assignments.”
In 2018, then U.S. Attorney General Jeff Session imposed a quota of 700 decisions per year on each Immigration Judge, tied to performance reviews, regardless of the complexity of the cases.
The Trump administration also attempted to silence NAIJ from speaking out on the quota system and other policies by decertifying the union. While the union-busting efforts of the previous administration were not completely successful, full collective bargaining rights have yet to be restored to NAIJ.
The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), founded in 1971, is a voluntary organization formed with the objectives of promoting independence and enhancing the professionalism, dignity, and efficiency of the Immigration Court.
********************
Hon. David L. Neal Director Executive Office For Immigration Review USDOJ PHOTO: C-SPAN
Can David Neal bring all the real parties in interest “to the table,” fashion workable, realistic judicial policies and procedures driven by due process and the realities of Immigration Court practice, keep DOJ’s political meddling at bay, and then tap “new talent” that can actually implement positive change in a judicial, non-bureaucratic manner that achieves “systemic buy-in?” Does he even want to? If so, will Team Garland empower him to succeed, or undermine him?
One thing in Director Neal’s favor: He already retired from EOIR once and presumably could do so again if pressured to elevate political agendas over due process and best practices.
On the flip side, at least one other Director in that same position chose to “go along to get along” with decisions and policies from the DOJ that actively undermined due process and substantially decreased confidence in government.
We’ll see whether the NAIJ’s “cautious optimism” about the “Neal Era @ EOIR” is justified or just another dashed dream about due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices!
They raped women, burned homes and killed dozens of people, including children, chopping up their bodies with machetes and throwing their remains to pigs.The gruesome massacre three years ago, considered the worst in Haiti in decades, was more than the work of rival gangs fighting over territory. It was organized by senior Haitian officials, who provided weapons and vehicles to gang members to punish people in a poor area protesting government corruption, the U.S. Treasury Department announced last year.
Since then, Haiti’s gang members have grown so strong that they rule swaths of the country. The most notorious of them, a former police officer named Jimmy Cherizier, known as Barbecue, fashions himself as a political leader, holding news conferences, leading marches and, this week, even parading around as a replacement for the prime minister in the violent capital.
. . . .
********************
Read the rest of this gruesome, yet telling, report at the link.
Over 21 years on the Immigration Bench as both a trial and appellate judge, I adjudicated thousands of asylum claims. The circumstances described on this article undoubtedly would give rise to many potentially valid asylum and withholding claims, based on actual or implied political opinion and/or family or gender-based “particular social groups” and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) grants based on torture with government acquiescence or actual connivance!
So, how do Biden, Harris, Mayorkas, and Garland, who to my knowledge have never represented an asylum applicant or adjudicated an individual asylum case among them, “get away” with simply suspending the rule of law, under false pretenses, for those entitled to seek asylum?
Stephen Miller must be on “Cloud Nine” as Biden & Co. carry out his White Nationalist plans to eradicate asylum, particularly when it protects women and people of color! This is even as Miller and his neo-Nazi cohorts (a/k/a “America First Legal”) are gearing up to sue the Biden Administration to block every measure that might aid immigrants, particularly those of color.
He’s delighted with Biden’s abuse of asylum seekers of color! Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com
NGOs don’t share the Biden Administration’s vision of what a “safe” Haiti looks like. Neither do kidnapped American missionaries! PHOTO: Marcelo Casal, Jr., Creative Commons License
Angering and alienating your potential allies and supporters to aid the far-right program of your enemies who are determined to do whatever it takes to undermine, discredit, and destroy your Presidency! Obviously, I’m no political expert. But, sure sounds like an incredibly stupid, “designed to fail” strategy to me!
“Mario Rene Lopez Troche (“Lopez Troche”), a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) that affirms the denial of his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We vacate and remand. … [T]he record does not reveal the claimed inconsistency between the testimony and the reasonable fear interview as to Lopez Troche’s reporting to police that the BIA identified. The BIA cited to three portions of Lopez Troche’s testimony in support of its determination that the IJ did not clearly err in finding an inconsistency between what Lopez Troche told the asylum officer during his reasonable fear interview and how he testified as to the reporting of past abuse. But, none of those passages supports the BIA’s determination. … Nor is it possible to read either the BIA or the IJ to have inferred from Lopez Troche’s failure to report to the police the specific incidents that he discussed in his testimony that he was asserting in that testimony that did not report any incidents of abuse ever. Neither the IJ’s opinion nor the BIA’s expressly purports to premise its ruling as to adverse credibility on the basis of such inferential reasoning, see Chenery, 318 U.S. at 95, and we do not see what basis there would be for drawing that inference on this record, given that, in his reasonable fear interview, declaration, and testimony, Lopez Troche discussed a series of traumatic physical and sexual assaults that he had experienced that appears to have stretched back to a time when he was eight years old and that thus encompassed many more incidents than those addressed specifically in the portions of his testimony on which the BIA focused. As a result, we must vacate and remand the BIA’s order affirming the denial of Lopez Troche’s request for withholding of removal.”
Law students and attorneys of the NDPA are out there helping refugees every day. Meanwhile, over at Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR, Immigration Judges and BIA Appellate Immigration Judges strain to improperly “diddle the record” to deny relief to asylum seekers! Then, OIL defends them!
Essentially, in this case, the BIA “made it up and misrepresented the record” in an effort to deny asylum for specious reasons! Then, OIL tried to “blow it by” the Circuit!
“[T]he record does not reveal the claimed inconsistency between the testimony and the reasonable fear interview as to Lopez Troche’s reporting to police that the BIA identified.” That’s “judgespeak” for: The BIA invented non-existent “inconsistencies” to unfairly deny asylum. Then, OIL defended that fabrication and denial of due process! What does this say about Garland’s leadership at DOJ?
Whatever happened to legal and judicial ethics? Clearly they were “deep sixed” under Sessions and Barr. But, why is Garland continuing to operate DOJ as an “ethics and quality free zone?”
This is a bad system with the wrong folks in too many judicial and leadership positions and presenting an overwhelming need for robust, bold change in how decisions are made and defended in Circuit Court. So far, Garland has not made the fundamental personnel changes and “quality upgrades” necessary to bring due process and some semblance of expertise and order back to his broken Immigration Courts! Why not?
Why are the kind of individuals who should be Immigration Judges and EOIR judicial leaders, talented lawyers like Elena and Irene, still “on the outside” rather than being actively recruited and brought in to replace those unable to perform judicial, administrative, and litigation duties in a fair, expert manner, that enhances due process? Why is EOIR still operating with a “judiciary” the majority of whom were installed by the Trump regime at Justice to “dehumanize, deport, and deter” without regard for due process? Why is OIL continuing to “defend the indefensible?” Why isn’t Congress asking Garland these questions?
Government lacking in expertise, intellectual honesty, professional ethics, and accountability is “bad government.” That’s true no matter which party holds power!
Cornell Law Students and Professors Assist Afghans at Risk
By Alexandra Eguiluz
October 19, 2021
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
Share to Email
The National Lawyers Guild and the International Refugee Assistance Project chapters at Cornell Law School, along with two professors and over three dozen law students, are volunteering to help Afghans seeking humanitarian parole in the United States. The recent turmoil in Afghanistan caused by the withdrawal of American troops and the takeover of the Taliban has forced many individuals into hiding and fearing for their lives, especially if they helped the U.S. military, government contractors, or Western aid groups.
Law student volunteers, Amy Godshall ’23 (far left), Jason Steuerwald ’23, Ethan Taveras ’23, and Matt Nelson ’23 (far right) preparing to mail the eleven cases they filed during the first week of October.
Humanitarian parole is a rarely used avenue in U.S. immigration law that allows individuals to come to the United States temporarily for urgent humanitarian reasons. The U.S. Embassy in Kabul has been closed, leaving Afghans with no option but to either leave Afghanistan and begin humanitarian procedures in another country or stay in Afghanistan and have a family member or friend in the United States sponsor them. Almost all of the individuals who are receiving legal assistance on their humanitarian parole applications at the Law School are currently in Afghanistan.
Cornell Law students Ethan Taveras ’23, Amy Godshall ’23, Jason Steuerwald ’23, and Victoria (Tori) Staley ’23 are spearheading the project, which involves fifty law students who are volunteering their time and efforts. Aside from gathering paperwork from the families and filing cases, all four law students are also working on training other law student volunteers. Professors Stephen Yale-Loehr, director of the Asylum and Convention Against Torture Clinic, and Beth Lyon, associate dean for experiential education and clinical program director, are volunteering their time to supervise the law students.
“Currently there are about seventy active humanitarian parole cases we’re working on. Jason and Amy just filed a case for eleven people,” said Staley.
Although the project is in its initial stages, the students are facing some challenges, including high application fees ($575 per applicant), gathering evidence from individuals in hiding or separated from their identification documents, compiling all the documentation required for the application, and uncertainty with how long the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will take to decide on the applications. All these challenges, particularly the last one, are currently leaving Afghan applicants “waiting, without knowing whether they should leave Afghanistan or not,” said Godshall.
Despite these challenges, most of the students have been able to speak directly with the Afghan clients and their sponsors. Some clients or sponsors speak English; in other cases, the students are using the translation feature in WhatsApp. “We hope to file another chunk of cases in the next few weeks,” said Staley.
******************
Thanks, Steve, to you and your students for all they are doing for humanity and American justice!
I must say that for USCIS to charge each refugee $575 for the humanitarian parole application seems rather “Trumpian.”
If you or any of the retired IJs wanted to follow-up on the phantom NTA issue, I just wanted to pass along a good source: CLINC webinar @1:07:08: https://cliniclegal.org/training/archive/orders-border. It also affects the ability to file motions to change venue because DHS is serving the NTA on EOIR the day of the master calendar hearing, so there are no proceedings for which to file a motion until the day of court.
Judge Garland isn’t worried! HE doesn’t have to practice before the dysfunctional Immigration Courts! PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
Absolutely “nutsos!” But just “another day at the office” in the three-ring circus 🎪🤹♀️🤡that “Ringmaster Garland” calls his “courts!” Where’s the accountability for this disgraceful mess? Where is the Congressional oversight? What happened to the essential “Article I legislation” to remove this continuing clown show from a flailing and failing DOJ?
Here’s my favorite quote from Judge Thacker’s opinion, highlighting Garland’s out of control DOJ immigration bureaucracy!
This case was argued on September 21, 2021, more than two months after Matter of Cruz-Valdez, 28 I&N Dec. 326 (AG 2021), where AG Garland had refuted Sessions’s legal reasoning! Moreover, the 4th Circuit itself had pointed out the legal flaws in overruling Session’s abominable Castro-Tum, his abuse of AG authority that began this whole sorry episode in American jurisprudence. Yet, OIL argued this case as if nothing had happened and “Gonzo” Sessions were still in charge!
Looking to the character and context of the Government’s litigating position — in stark contrast to its recent regulatory position explained below — we are quite frankly puzzled that the Government currently stands in support of Attorney General Sessions’s decision in Matter of S-O-G-, particularly in light of the fact that Matter of S-O-G- relies heavily on Castro-Tum, which is no longer good law.
To begin with, this court has overruled Castro-Tum in Romero, in which we relied on the broad language of 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.10(b) and 1003.1(d)(1)(ii) to hold that the immigration courts possess the authority to administratively close cases. Indeed, the fact that Castro-Tum has been overruled should not only begin the analysis here, but it should definitively end it.
But, beyond the fact that Castro-Tum is now defunct, Attorney General Garland no longer takes the position set forth in Castro-Tum and has since disavowed the idea that the IJs and BIA cannot administratively close proceedings. In Matter of Cruz-Valdez, Attorney General Garland decided, “Because Castro-Tum departed from long-standing practice, it is appropriate to overrule that opinion in its entirety and restore administrative closure” authority to the agency. Matter of Cruz-Valdez, 28 I. & N. Dec. 326, 329 (A.G. 2021). In doing so, Attorney General Garland noted “three courts of appeals have rejected Castro- Tum” and held that administrative closure is “‘plainly within an [IJ]’s authority’ under Department of Justice regulations.” Id. at 328 (citing Arcos Sanchez v. Att’y Gen. U.S. of
Am., 997 F.3d 113, 121–22 (3d Cir. 2021); Meza Morales v. Barr, 973 F.3d 656, 667 (7th 18
Cir. 2020) (Barrett, J.); Romero, 937 F.3d at 292). Indeed, “[o]nly one court of appeals has upheld Castro-Tum.” Id. (citing Hernandez-Serrano v. Barr, 981 F.3d 459, 464 (6th Cir. 2020). “[B]ut even that court subsequently ruled that [IJs] and the [BIA] do have authority to grant administrative closure in order to permit a noncitizen to apply for a provisional unlawful presence waiver.” Id. (citing Garcia-DeLeon v. Garland, 999 F.3d 986, 991–93 (6th Cir. 2021)). Attorney General Garland’s position on administrative closure in Matter of Cruz-Valdez (and the reasoning behind it) calls into question the Government’s position in this matter and Matter of S-O-G- that IJs and the BIA do not have the inherent authority to terminate proceedings.3
The obvious answer here is that Garland has failed to take the necessary steps to replace the BIA and bring new leadership to OIL.
This should have been “Week One Stuff” after Garland assumed office! Instead, the EOIR system continues to careen out of control, clog the Article III judiciary with semi-frivolous litigation, and destroy human lives!
How many wrongly-treated respondents are fortunate enough to have Ben Winograd take up their cause, or indeed to have any legal assistance at all? How many can even get to the Court of Appeals to correct Garland’s errors?
The continued dysfunction at EOIR & DOJ is a humanitarian crisis and a threat to our legal system and American democracy! It’s high time for Judge Garland to wake up and treat this mess like the existential crisis it is!
Congrats again to Ben Winograd! Obviously, Garland should have recruited real immigration experts like Ben to be on the BIA or supervise OIL to get this system back on track. Why hasn’t he?
Hon. David L. Neal Director Executive Office For Immigration Review USDOJ PHOTO: C-SPAN
BREAKING: ABSURDIST “IJ DASHBOARDS” HEADED FOR THE SCRAP HEAP? — New EOIR Director David Neal Reportedly Takes Prompt Action To Eliminate Wasteful, Counterproductive, Stress-Inducing “Big Brotherism” On The Bench!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
Courtside Exclusive
Oct. 20, 2021
Sources in and outside of EOIR confirm that new EOIR Director “David Neal has ended the dashboard. Supposedly, new IJ quotas are coming, which will be presented as kinder, more humane quotas.”
The “IJ Dashboards,” inextricably tied to due-process-denying “deportation quotas” for Immigration Judges were one of the stupidest, most childish, and transparently counterproductive wastes of taxpayer money by the Trump regime at the DOJ. They were harshly criticized both internally and by outside commentators, including “Courtside.” Their ineffectiveness in reducing backlogs and their adverse effects on already “below basement level” IJ morale are matters of public record!
Shockingly, this wasteful abuse of technology was undertaken at a time when EOIR was continuing its two decade abject failure to implement a badly-needed and long overdue nationwide e-filing system. Who knows how many files and filings are actually floating around EOIR (“lost in space”)? EOIR incompetence means we might never know the full extent of the ongoing backlog disaster! Will David Neal become the first Director in more than two decades to actually solve this problem, rather than just scrambling to conver up failure?
Congratulations to Director Neal for “taking at least one small step for mankind.” We’ll wait to hear what he does to make “IJ quotas” more “kind and gentle.”
The obvious “no brainer” answer is to eliminate them entirely. They could be replaced with realistic, non-mandatory “goals”or “guidelines” for deciding certain types of cases. This might provide helpful guidance for IJs in setting expectations and fairly and professionally handling clogged dockets, rather than ham-handed attempts at coercion and transparent “blame shifting.”
However those guidelines would have to be developed with input from the Immigration Judges themselves, counsel from both the private bar and DHS, and some true judicial experts — perhaps “on loan” from the Administrative Office for U.S. Courts, the Brennan Center, the ABA, and/or the FBA.
Past “goals and timetables” have been the product of political posturing and wishful thinking by those bureaucrats at DOJ and EOIR trying to shift blame and CTA for the failing system under their responsibility. The legitimacy of the process by which any guidelines are established is critical to making them realistic and helpful, rather than just another bureaucratic gimmick untethered to reality as past guidelines have been.
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
KEY EXCERPT:
III.E. Limitation on Immigration Judge Review
We strongly oppose the proposal to severely restrict the right of those denied asylum by USCIS to a full de novo merits hearing before an Immigration Judge.Given these significant increases in efficiency mentioned above, the proposed restrictions are unnecessary to reduce the backlog.Regardless, even if EOIR and DHS disagree with this assessment, regulations may neither contradict the Congressional intent of statutes they seek to interpret, nor deny due process in the name of efficiency.Yet the proposed rule would violate both of these principles in the changes they propose to the Immigration Court procedures.
EOIR and DHS claim that the statutory language of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1), requiring “further consideration of the application for asylum” to those found to have a credible fear of persecution, is ambiguous.In fact, the legislative history of that statute demonstrates that Congress intended for all of those found to possess a credible fear of persecution to be afforded full Immigration Court hearings. At a 1996 hearing on the bill, Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY) assured that “[a] specially trained asylum officer will hear his or her case, and if the [noncitizen] is found to have a ‘credible fear of persecution,’ he or she will be provided a full—full—asylum hearing.”EOIR and DHS are asked to note Sen. Simpson’s repetition of the word “full.”
This same sentiment was echoed by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who stated that those who establish credible fear “get a full hearing without any question,” 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.”The regulatory proposal is thus improperly violative of Congressional intent.
As to due process, 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.”Our own experience supports this conclusion.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.
Having heard as Immigration Judges many cases referred from the Asylum Office, we believe that the right to a full de novo court hearing, in which attorneys were free to offer documents and briefs, and to present testimony as they saw fit, was the reason for the large disparity in outcomes. The current system itself recognizes this; it is why asylum officers, who need not be attorneys, 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.
We can vouch from our experience on the bench to the importance of hearing live testimony in reaching the correct decision.We decided many cases in which in-person demeanor observations were instrumental to our credibility findings.Credibility is often a threshold issue in applications for asylum and related relief.In 2005, Congress specifically amended the criteria Immigration Judges may rely on in deciding credibility.While those criteria include their observations of the “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witness” (observations which cannot be made unless testimony is witnessed), there is no provision in the statute for reaching credibility findings by reviewing an asylum officer’s opinion on the topic.The court in Oshodi cited language in a House conference report on the REAL ID Act of 2005, containing the following quote: “An immigration judge alone is in a position to observe an alien’s tone and demeanor, to explore inconsistencies in testimony, and to apply workable and consistent standards in the evaluation of testimonial evidence. He [or she] is, by virtue of his [or her] acquired skill, uniquely qualified to decide whether an alien’s testimony has about it the ring of truth.”
We can 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.Some of us teach trial advocacy skills to immigration attorneys, where we emphasize the importance of attorneys formulating a theory of their case, and then presenting documentary evidence and testimony in a manner best designed to support that theory.During our time on the bench, we looked forward to hearing well-presented claims from competent counsel; good attorneys increased efficiency, and usually led us to reach better decisions.And as former asylum officers have indicated that the concept of imputed political opinion was not available to them as a basis for granting asylum, questioning in support of such theory will not be covered in an asylum office interview.
But under the proposed procedures, attorneys are largely relegated to passive observer status.At asylum office interviews, attorneys are only provided a brief opportunity to speak after the interview has been completed.And in cases referred to the Immigration Court, the new restrictions may prevent attorneys from presenting any testimony at all.
As to the criteria that must be met in order to supplement the record before the Immigration Judge, 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.
******************************
Read our full commentary,, including some parts of the proposal we endorse, here:
Many, many, many thanks to “Sir Jeffrey” Chase for collecting the “sentiments of the group” and preparing these cogent comments under extreme pressure!
Guest blogger: Kelsea Villanueva, law student, University of San Francisco
Not all judges should be immigration judges. Sometimes being a judge is just not for everyone, period. Bad attitudes and questionable decision making within the immigration courts often cause the most noise because the impact is often more than a rude remark. While I do not believe problematic judges make up the whole picture of immigration courts, just one bad judge can be enough to impact the lives of many, and I only wonder whether it is the system that perpetuates behavior, the history and beliefs of immigration, or both that give rise to bad experiences.
Surprisingly in our own city, San Francisco Judge Nicholas Ford was the subject of a complaint that was sent to the U.S. Justice Department for being hostile and having biased treatment of immigrants in the courtroom. The accusations stated that he belittled migrants’ stories and struggles by making inappropriate comments. One account stated that he said “I can tell an indigent person when I see one, and you can afford an attorney” in response to someone who claimed they could not pay. Many accounts also made it a point to mention that he had previously been criticized for jailing a pregnant woman without bail for a nonviolent crime – this gives an idea of his character in court. When he was first appointed by the Attorney General under the Trump administration, Ford had been a judge in the criminal justice system and apparently had no prior immigration law experience. Other judges that have similar backgrounds can take biases from the criminal justice system and bring them into the immigration law field. There is the risk that the treatment of criminals becomes synonymous with the treatment of immigrants.
Even if judges like Ford represent a minority, the behavior exhibited by him is not unusual in immigration courts. In Jacinto v. INS, 208 F. 3d 725 (9th Cir. 2000), it was difficult for the respondent to even answer basic questions about her family’s struggles; she was constantly faced with interruptions by the immigration judge and a blatant lack of patience. Most people regardless of being an immigrant or not could become overwhelmed during questioning or lack of information about legal procedures. Lacking compassion and basic manners, whenever Jacinto was asked a question regarding why she was seeking asylum, the immigration judge or government attorney would interrupt her midsentence and not allow her to ask any clarifying questions. The transcripts reveal a sense of confusion and urgency, as they treated her as if they were in a rush and like she was wasting their time.
. . . .
*************************
Kelsea Villanueva, a law student, “gets” it! So why don’t Garland and his lieutenants?
Perhaps, because they are too far removed from the human trauma and and the practical problems in the broken and unfair “courts” for which they are responsible! They obviously have become indifferent to the unnecessary human suffering they cause by tolerating this systemic stain on American justice.
It’s not that there aren’t lots of exceptionally well-qualified immigration lawyers, practical scholars, and effective litigators in the Bay Area (and most other areas where Immigration Courts are located) who would make great Immigration Judges. Therefore, it has taken a concerted effort over the past four Administrations, including the Biden Administration, NOT to recruit, attract, and hire the “best andbrightest” for these life or death judicial positions.
One “key to building dysfunction” has been the childish, demeaning, and disrespectful treatment heaped upon the “IJ Corps” by DOJ politicos and EOIR “Management” trying to appease their “handlers.” Attempts to enforce “assembly line justice,” lousy technology, poor training, screwed up and always changing “priorities,” micromanagement by non-judges, and favoring “quick numbers” over thoughtful high quality judicial work product obviously discourages many of the most talented and well-qualified lawyers in the business from even applying.
Some of those who do make the effort are then demoralized and discouraged when clearly inferior candidates, some lacking even basic immigration and asylum knowledge, are hired by a DOJ bureaucratic system that too often seeks and rewards complicity and “following orders” over intellectual excellence, proven immigration and human rights expertise, and the courage to make the right decisions even in the face of political pressure from above to “go along to get along” with each Administration’s enforcement agenda.
Surely, no panel of immigration/human rights experts would have recommended hiring someone like Judge Ford for the job! So, why was he even on the Immigration Bench in the first place?
In every way, Judge Ford was EOIR’s self-created problem! It tied up both private resources and Government investigative resources that could have been better used. It further damaged EOIR’s reputation and ruined human lives. In the end, the “Ford brouhaha” produced no transparent results, thus further eroding public confidence in Government. It prompted neither accountability nor reforms to insure a better judicial selection process!
The best way to limit the administrative nonsense, unnecessary and inappropriate meddling, and time and resources wasted building a needless, ineffective bureaucracy to “monitor performance” and investigate complaints is to hire exceptionally well-qualified judges in the first place — good judges need neither much supervision nor significant monitoring. All they need is support, independence, professional training, continuing judicial education, and some inspirational encouragement from dynamic, well-qualified judicial leadership — things that generally have been in short supply within the EOIR bureaucracy, particularly over the past four years!
Leaders should be sitting judges— not just disconnected bureaucratic “managers” — who continue to handle regular dockets so they have the necessary perspective and first-hand experience to lead this broken system back to functionality. In what other “real” judicial system do the “chief judges and chief justices” largely or completely cease to perform judicial duties?
For example, Chief Justice John Roberts has no shortage of administrative and leadership tasks. Yet, somehow, he finds time to participate in every merits case coming before the Court!
Almost every day, we see Court of Appeals decisions in which the Chief Judge of the Circuit was a panel member, sometimes even writing the opinion. Chief U.S. District Judges hear cases and sometimes author lengthy opinions in notable and controversial cases.
There are few, if any, examples of successful judiciaries in which those in leadership positions isolate and insulate themselves from the judicial tasks of their colleagues! Yet, this has become “standard operating practice” at DOJ/EOIR. This is despite “clear and convincing evidence” that DOJ/EOIR’s bloated “Vatican style” (a/k/a “Legacy INS style”) bureaucracy is incapable of practical problem solving and has presided over the demise of a court system that once aspired to greatness, even if the efforts sometimes fell short!
The taxpayer money wasted on ludicrous “Immigration Judge Dashboards,” unnecessary “supervisors” who almost never go to court, ineffective and inefficient “Dedicated Dockets,” establishing “TV Adjudication Centers” in strange places, and running “kangaroo courts” embedded in the DHS Gulag could be repurposed into funding legal representation programs, a functioning e-filing system, more Judicial Law Clerks, judicial training by experts, and other badly needed and long overdue improvements and reforms. These things would actually help the system achieve justice with efficiency, rather than aggravating existing problems!
EOIR’s “customer service,” transparency, and engagement with the public get consistently low marks from Government watchdogs. I see no improvement under Garland.
Any legitimate system for judicial tenure or retention relies on robust public input and some peer involvement — things that are foreign to the DOJ/EOIR model which, if I do say so myself, bears a disturbing resemblance to the Byzantine bureaucracy of the “Legacy INS” (although the there are only a few us still around who experienced the latter “first hand”).
Ironically, EOIR was originally established as an independent agency within DOJ to “free” it from the “Legacy INS;” over the years it has come more and more to look, feel, and operate like the worst aspects of that long-disbanded agency.
In particular, it has “retaken on” the image of “being just another appendage of immigration enforcement” — a complete abandonment of the original goal of increased judicial independence in both fact and appearance!
Numerous private lawyers have related to me that being in an EOIR “courtroom” is too often “like facing two prosecutors.” Some say that their already traumatized clients are “re-traumatized” by the rude, disrespectful, and inhumane treatment they receive in Immigration Court as they attempt to plead for their lives and their families’ futures! What kind of judiciary “operates” in this manner?
For heaven’s sake, even former AG Alberto “Gonzo I” Gonzalez, hardly a “due process warrior,” spoke out publicly against demeaning treatment of migrants by Immigration Judges! Article III Courts continue to document instances of bias, incompetence, and cavalier treatment of human lives in Garland’s Immigration Courts at both trial and appellate levels. Yet, he says nothing and has taken few actions to solve the myriad of festering problems! We deserve better, much better, from the “people’s top lawyer!”
It’s also worth contemplating why law students understand the systemic problems and potential solutions better than the senior Government lawyers and officials we are employing and paying to mismanage it!
You can read the rest of Kelsea’s excellent piece at the above link!
Number of New Deportation Cases Far Outpaces Completed Cases in FY 2021
(14 Oct 2021) According to TRAC’s updated Quick Facts tools, the number of new deportation cases filed with the Courts in FY 2021–over 315,000–is more than double the number of completed cases over the same period which, according to Immigration Court records, currently sits at less that 145,000. When incoming cases exceed the capacity of the Courts to adjudicate those cases, the Immigration Court backlog continues to grow. At the end of September 2021, the end of FY 2021, the total number of pending cases reached nearly 1.5 million total cases, larger than the population of San Diego, the eighth largest city in the United States.
The Transactional Research Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) a research organization at Syracuse University created ‘Quick Facts’ tools to provide a user-friendly way to see the most updated data available on immigrant detention and the Immigration Courts. The tools include easy-to-understand data in context and provide quotable descriptions.
Highlights from data updated today on immigrants facing deportation in court include the following:
Immigration Courts recorded receiving 315,491 new cases so far in FY 2021 as of September 2021. This compares with 144,654 cases that the court completed during this period.
According to court records, only 2.0% of FY 2021 new cases sought deportation orders based on any alleged criminal activity of the immigrant, apart from possible illegal entry.
At the end of September 2021, 1,457,615 active cases were pending before the Immigration Court.
Los Angeles County, CA, has the most residents with pending Immigration Court deportation cases (as of the end of September 2021).
So far this fiscal year (through September 2021), immigration judges have issued removal and voluntary departure orders in 29.7% of completed cases, totaling 43,031 deportation orders.
So far in FY 2021 (through September 2021), immigrants from Mexico top list of nationalities with largest number ordered deported.
Only 20.6% of immigrants, including unaccompanied children, had an attorney to assist them in Immigration Court cases when a removal order was issued.
Immigration judges have held 22,712 bond hearings so far in FY 2021 (through September 2021). Of these 6,997 were granted bond.
TRAC is self-supporting and depends on foundation grants, individual contributions and subscription fees for the funding needed to obtain, analyze and publish the data we collect on the activities of the US Federal government. To help support TRAC’s ongoing efforts, go to:
Being able to say “toldya so” to the crowd in the Biden Administration is of little consolation to those of us in the Round Table of Former Immigraton Judges ⚔️🛡and the NDPA who have had to witness the unfolding (yet preventable) human disasters caused by the Biden Administration’s inept, tone-deaf, frankly spineless approach to EOIR and the rest of the dysfunctional USG immigration bureaucracy!
An operationally independent EOIR under dynamic progressive leadership and a BIA of judges who are practical experts in asylum and immigration could have cut the backlog by eliminating non- priority cases (most of what is in the EOIR backlog) and showing that fair, legal, timely, and generous administration of asylum laws can work and produce efficient, yet humane, correct, and consistent results!
Instead, the disgraceful mess at EOIR promotes human suffering and dysfunction, waste, and abuse in government. Backlog building “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” (“ADR”), continuing to move cases around to meet administrative objectives unrelated to the needs of the parties and the input of the sitting Immigration Judges, continues to plague Garland’s failed courts.
Indeed, if Garland’s EOIR were a country, it would be considered a “failed state!”
A reformed EOIR also could have exposed and perhaps corrected some of the continuing systemic abuses at DHS (see, e.g., “Baby Jails,” “Family Gulags,” and absurdly inconsistent and irrational bond procedures)!
NOTICE
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Office of Policy
5107 Leesburg Pike
Falls Church, Virginia 22041
Contact: Communications and Legislative Affairs Division Phone: 703-305-0289 PAO.EOIR@usdoj.gov
www.justice.gov/eoir @DOJ_EOIR Oct. 14, 2021
EOIR Announces New Appellate Immigration Judge
Agency Seeks Qualified Individuals for Immigration Judge Positions
FALLS CHURCH, VA – The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) today announced the appointment of Andrea Saenz as a Member of EOIR’s Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Attorney General Merrick B. Garland’s appointment of Appellate Immigration Judge Saenz brings the BIA to its regulatory maximum of 23 Members.
The BIA is the highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws,
having nationwide jurisdiction to hear appeals of decisions by adjudicators, including
Immigration Judges. EOIR has more than 2,300 employees in its 69 immigration courts
nationwide, at the BIA and at EOIR headquarters in Falls Church, Virginia. As provided in the
President’s Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2022, EOIR anticipates increasing its immigration
judge corps from 535 today to 734 by the end of the next fiscal year.
EOIR recognizes the many benefits of a diverse and inclusive workforce, and is looking for
qualified candidates from all backgrounds to join our corps of Immigration Judges. For
information about qualifications and application requirements to become an Immigration Judge,
please review EOIR’s current Immigration Judge Job Opportunity Announcement, which closes at 11:59 p.m. on October 15.
Biographical information follows:
Andrea Saenz, Appellate Immigration Judge
Andrea Saenz was appointed as an Appellate Immigration Judge in October 2021. Judge Saenz earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2002 from the University of California, Los Angeles, and a Juris Doctor in 2008 from Harvard Law School. From 2016 to 2021, she was Attorney-in-Charge of the New York Immigrant Family Unity Project, Brooklyn Defender Services, in Brooklyn, NY. From 2013 to 2016, she was a Clinical Teaching Fellow at the Immigration Justice Clinic, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law (New York). From 2012 to 2013, she was a Staff Attorney at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. From 2010 to 2012, she served as a Judicial Law Clerk at the New York – Varick Immigration Court, entering on duty through the Attorney General’s Honors Program. From 2008 to 2010, she was an Equal Justice Works Fellow at the Political Asylum/Immigration Representation Project, in Boston. Judge Saenz is a member of the New York State Bar.
Communications and Legislative Affairs Division
EOIR Announces New Appellate Immigration Judge Page 2
— EOIR —
The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) is an agency within the Department of Justice. EOIR’s mission is to adjudicate immigration cases by fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly interpreting and administering the Nation’s immigration laws. Under delegated authority from the Attorney General, EOIR conducts immigration court proceedings, appellate reviews, and administrative hearings. EOIR is committed to ensuring fairness in all cases it adjudicates.
Communications and Legislative Affairs Division
*******************
“Courtside” readers had this story three weeks ago:
Congratulations again, Judge Saenz! Capable as she is, Judge Saenz is just one among 23 BIA Appellate Immigration Judges. All of her colleagues are “government insiders,” and none has any recent experience representing individuals in Immigration Court!
Decades of skewed hiring at EOIR overwhelmingly favored those with government/prosecutorial backgrounds by a ratio of more than 9 to 1 (even worse at the BIA, where Judge Saenz is the first “private sector” appointee since the waning days of the Clinton Administration and the “Schmidt Board” in 2000).
This is in a system where studies such as the highly acclaimed Refugee Roulette have consistently shown that judges’ backgrounds and personal philosophies have more to do with the outcome of “life or death cases” than the actual merits of the claims. Claims that might be routinely and properly granted by one judge are summarily rejected by others, sometimes in another courtroom in the same court building!
The BIA as currently comprised has shown neither an interest in nor the ability to consistently protect due process, equal justice, individual rights, and enforce consistency among Immigration Courts. Indeed, there is a ridiculous and quite intentional dearth of positive asylum precedents from the BIA and the various AGs who have inserted themselves onto the process!
Remarkably, as shown by recent FOIA disclosures, “rubber stampism” in a race to make quotas, please political “handlers,” and hold onto jobs and careers is still “alive and well” at today’s EOIR, including the BIA:
EOIR recognizes the many benefits of a diverse and inclusive workforce, and is looking for
qualified candidates from all backgrounds to join our corps of Immigration Judges. For
information about qualifications and application requirements to become an Immigration Judge,
please review EOIR’s current Immigration Judge Job Opportunity Announcement, which closes at 11:59 p.m. on October 15.
That this belated announcement on October 14 cites a deadline at noon the next day (now expired) is probably a good indicator of the (lack of) sincerity of EOIR’s claims that it actively seeks “diversification,” particularly from the private/NGO/academic sector.
Fortunately, I’m aware that a number of exceptionally well-qualified NDPA members have “thrown their hats in the/ring.” There will be future announcements and opportunities.
So NDPA members need to “put DOJ/EOIR to the test” by flooding their “designed for insiders” system and pathetically inadequate recruitment mechanisms (e.g., where’s the “outreach” to HBCUs, to Hispanic, Black, and Asian American Bar Associations, and to human rights NGOs?) with a tidal wave of superior applicants who can change this broken system into a real due-process-oriented judiciary, even in the absence of dynamic progressive leadership at with a plan!
