"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.
Inside an Immigrant Caravan: Women and Children, Fleeing Violence
Photo
Central American migrants, members of a group making its way through Mexico, waited in line on Wednesday to review their visa status at a temporary camp in Matías Romero. CreditBrett Gundlock for The New York Times
MATÍAS ROMERO, Mexico — With a sarcastic half-smile, Nikolle Contreras, 27, surveyed her fellow members of the Central American caravan, which President Trump has called dangerous and has used as a justification to send troops to the border.
More than 1,000 people, mostly women and children, waited patiently on Wednesday in the shade of trees and makeshift shelters in a rundown sports complex in this Mexican town, about 600 miles south of the border. They were tired, having slept and eaten poorly for more than a week. All were facing an uncertain future.
“Imagine that!” said Ms. Contreras, a Honduran factory worker hoping to apply for asylum in the United States. “So many problems he has to solve and he gets involved with this caravan!”
The migrants, most of them Hondurans, left the southern Mexican border city of Tapachula on March 25 and for days traveled north en masse — by foot, hitchhiking and on the tops of trains — as they fled violence and poverty in their homelands and sought a better life elsewhere.
This sort of collective migration has become something of an annual event around Easter week, and a way for advocates to draw more attention to the plight of migrants.
But this particular caravan caught the attention of Mr. Trump, apparently after he heard about it on Fox News. In a Twitter tirade that began Sunday, he conjured up hordes of dangerous migrants surging toward the border. He demanded that Mexican officials halt the group, suggesting that otherwise he would make them pay dearly in trade negotiations or aid cuts.
Mr. Trump even boasted that his threat had forced Mexico’s government to halt and disperse the caravan participants. But there was no evidence of that on Wednesday.
. . . .
Irineo Mujica, Mexico director of People Without Borders, an advocacy group that is coordinating the caravan, called Mr. Trump’s Twitter attacks and promise of a militarized border “campaign craziness.”
“There are 300 kids and 400 women,” he said. “Babies with bibs and milk bottles, not armaments. How much of a threat can they be?”
. . . .
The group, organizers and advocates said, represented a regional humanitarian problem, not a security crisis for the United States, as Mr. Trump has suggested.
“What he’s attacking is a supremely vulnerable population,” said Gina Garibo, projects coordinator in Mexico for People Without Borders.
In response to Mr. Trump’s tweets and his plans to militarize the border, the Mexican Senate unanimously passed a nonbinding statement on Wednesday urging President Enrique Peña Nieto to suspend cooperation with the United States on immigration and security matters — “as long as President Donald Trump does not conduct himself with the civility and respect that the Mexican people deserve.”
Caravan organizers also said their intent was never to storm the border, especially not with a caravan of this size. While the original plan included the possibility of escorting the caravan to the northern border of Mexico, organizers had expected the group to mostly dissolve by the time it had reached Mexico City.
. . . .
**************************************
Read the complete article along with more pictures of ordinary folks forced to make an extraordinary journey at the link.
There has never been any doubt that folks like Trump, Sessions, Miller, Nielsen have nothing but contempt for the truth, laws, and human life. But, they also think that the American people are pretty stupid to fall for the “fantasyland claptrap” that they throw out to drum up support for their racist restrictionist ambitions.
Although you’ll never hear it from the disingenuous Trumpsters, individuals arriving at our borders have a legal right to apply for asylum guaranteed by both U.S. and international law. Most of the “law-breaking” involves the actions of the Trump DHS. By refusing to properly process asylum applicants at legal ports of entry, the Administration actually encourages illegal entry and the use of smugglers.
The only real “crisis” at the Southern border is a humanitarian one that this and past Administrations have had key roles in creating through failed immigration and foreign policies. Without better, smarter government, we’re bound to deep repeating the same mistakes.
Trump admin sending National Guard troops to the US-Mexico border
By Tal Kopan, CNN
President Donald Trump will sign a proclamation directing agencies deploy the National Guard to the southwest border, Homeland Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen announced Wednesday.
“The President has directed that the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security work together with our governors to deploy the National Guard to our southwest border,” Nielsen said at the White House.
The formal move follows days of public fuming by Trump about immigration policy, during which he has tweeted about immigration legislation in Congress, a caravan of migrants making its way through Mexico and what he calls weak border laws.
Since the passage of the government spending package for the year — which included $1.6 billion for border security but only a few dozen miles of new border barrier construction and a nearly equal amount of replacement fencing — Trump has been critical of Congress for denying him more money. Trump privately floated the idea of funding construction of a southern border wall through the US military budget in conversations with advisers, two sources confirmed to CNN last week — a plan that faces likely insurmountable obstacles in Congress.
Sending National Guard troops to the border is not unprecedented. Both of Trump’s predecessors also did so, though the moves were criticized for being costly and of limited effectiveness.
US law limits what the troops can actually do. Federal law prohibits the military from being used to enforce laws, meaning troops cannot actually participate in immigration enforcement. In the past, they’ve served support roles like training, construction and intelligence gathering.
From 2006-2008, President George W. Bush deployed 6,000 guardsmen to Southern border states, costing $1.2 billion and assisting with 11.7% of total apprehensions at the border and 9.4% of marijuana seized in that time.
From 2010-2012, President Barack Obama sent 1,200 guardsmen to the border to the tune of more than $110 million, and they assisted with 5.9% of the total apprehensions and 2.6% of the marijuana seizures on the border.
CNN’s Catherine Shoichet, Dan Merica and Betsy Klein contributed to this report
*******************************
Read Tal’s complete report at the link.
Here’s what you really need to know:
There’s no “border crisis” facing us except for that created in the minds of Trump and his White Nationalist restrictionist cronies;
The real threat to our “National Security” is Trump and his White Nationalist cabal;
According to all reliable reports, the few hundred “caravan” members who actually get to the border (the majority are “dropping out,” remaining in Mexico, or already have been removed by Mexican authorities) merely intend to apply for asylum, after consulting with lawyers, which they have every right to do under both U.S. and international law;
The more serious issue is that many observers have reported that the Trump DHS is violating U.S. and international laws by refusing to allow individuals who properly present themselves at a port of entry to apply for asylum (there is a law suit currently pending on this issue);
Trump is wasting time, money, personnel, and attention on a false “self-created” crisis that presents no realistic threat to the U.S.;
The Obama and Bush II Administrations did largely the same thing with disastrous results (actually helping to generate the “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” culminating in today’s near-700,000 Immigration Court case backlog).
But here’s a better reason to oppose the quotas: Session’s performance goals are not an effective way to deal with the backlog crisis.
As of March 5, 2018, there were approximately 350 judges, and the immigration court had 684,583 pending deportation cases.
If the judges do 700 cases-a-year, it will only dispose of approximately 245,000 cases-a-year. At that rate, it would take almost three years to eliminate the backlog … if there are no new cases. But there will always be new cases.
Sessions also will hire more judges, but the problems the immigration court is having with the current judges should be addressed first to determine whether the selection process needs to be changed.
From FY2013 through FY2017, 379 complaints were filed against the judges, approximately 30 percent of the judges every year!
Also, there are gross disparities in the way the judges are applying the law.
TRAC Immigrationreports that the outcome at asylum hearings over a six-year period depended largely on which judge was assigned to the case.
For the 6,922 asylum seekers whose applications were adjudicated at the San Francisco Immigration Court, the likelihood of a denial varied from only 9.4 percent up to 97.1 percent, depending on which judge handled the case.
For the 1,233 individuals whose cases were heard at the Newark Immigration Court, the likelihood of a denial ranged from 10.9 percent up to 98.7 percent, depending on which judge handled the case.
In other words, the likelihood of being granted asylum in these courts could be as high as 90 percent or as low as 3 percent, depending upon which judge handles the case.
According to a Reuters report on disparities in how frequently immigrants are deported in removal proceedings, “the findings underscore what academics and government watchdogs have long complained about U.S. immigration courts: Differences among judges and courts can render the system unfair and even inhumane.”
GAO makes similar findings in its November 2016 report on variations in the outcomes of applications across immigration courts and judges. GAO also found that judges with 7 years of experience were 28 percent less likely to grant asylum than less experienced judges, which could be a factor in explaining the disparities.
Are unqualified judges being hired? Is the training program for new judges inadequate?
To some extent, the problem may be due to misconduct on the part of officials involved in the selection process.
For instance, in 2004, the Justice Department paid $11.5 million to settle a class action suit claiming that the immigration judge hiring practices of the Executive Officer for Immigration Review were discriminatory. Four years later, Monica Goodling from the Office of the Attorney General admitted that she had taken political considerations into account in soliciting candidates and reviewing applications.
In any case, it is apparent that Sessions isn’t going to eliminate the backlog crisis by setting performance goals or hiring more judges. He has to reduce the number of cases the immigration court has to handle.”
. . . .
********************************************
Read Nolan’s complete article over on The Hill at the link.
Nolan’s points are well taken! He’s asking the types of obvious questions that folks genuinely interested in fixing this system should be asking. But, significantly, Jeff Sessions isn’t asking those types of questions!
The current Immigration Court system needs thoughtful quality controland due processtargeted reforms on many levels, including a real merit-based hiring system — preferably run by the Article III Federal Courts. After all, the Federal Courts are the “ultimate consumers” of the Immigration Court’s work product.
According to the recent GAO study, it currently takes an average of two years — fully half of an Administration — to hire an Immigration Judge! That’s longer than the Senate confirmation process!
Sessions has promised but not delivered on yet another bureaucratic opaque system that would supposedly reduce the hiring cycle to 10 months, still ridiculously long. At most, IJ hiring should be on a 3-6 month cycle.
By comparison, in 1995 when I was hired, then EOIR Director Tony Moscato and Attorney General Reno had the Chairman and eight additional Board Members (“Appellate Immigration Judges”) hired, background cleared, and actually on board within a six month period — even though it involved a regulations change to increase the number of Board Members.
And, it’s certainly not that the current process produces remarkable results in terms of either diversity or background. Nearly 90% of the Immigration Judges hired over the past 10 years have come from very similar government backgrounds — mostly DHS and DOJ attorneys.
Attorneys from the private sector and academia, even those with superior qualifications, effectively have been systematically excluded from the 21st Century Immigration Judiciary. As Nolan pints out, the system cries out for judges of the highest caliber and universal reputations for fairness and scholarship as well as the ability to deal in an effective professional manner with the many “performing artist” aspects of running a fair courtroom in a stressful high volume system.
Additionally, a comprehensive 2016 report by Human Rights First (“HRF”) found that the appropriate number of case completions per Immigration Judge should be no more than 500 per judge to produce fair, high quality decisions that would meet the criteria for judicial review. So, why, without even referencing that report or reaching out to HRF, would Sessions & Co. create a “quota” that is 140% of that optimum number?
How is this about building a real due process court system rather than a “deportation railroad?” Obviously, Sessions is only interested in the latter.
HRF actually went to experts involved in the Immigration Court system. Sessions, who has never been an Immigration Judge and disrespects most of those actually involved in the system, apparently invented his “quotas” without any meaningful input from any of the folks who actually work in and use the system.
As Nolan points out, the “wheels are coming off” the Immigration Court system. Mindless, “haste makes waste,” just pedal faster” invectives from Sessions can’t and won’t solve the problem.
That’s why Congress must create an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court — devoted to the only true purpose any court system can have: guaranteeing fairness and due process for all individuals appearing before it!That has nothing whatsoever to do with fake assembly line “production quotas!”
I have permission Judge Tabaddor to release the text of the following e-mail, dated April 2, 2018, that I received from her (solely in her capacity as NAIJ President) because I am a retired member of the NAIJ:
Dear NAIJ Members,
Last Friday we all received the Director’s announcement of his decision to impose quotas and deadlines on immigration judges as a basis of our individual performance evaluations effective October 2018. To clarify any confusion, I would like to re-iterate that at no point has NAIJ ever agreed that quotas and deadlines are an appropriate manner in which to evaluate immigration judge performance. To the contrary, NAIJ has always remained deeply concerned about this unprecedented decision which undermines our independent decision-making authority, invites unnecessary litigation, and adds to the existing burdens and demands on our judges.
I also would like to reiterate that NAIJ is pursuing all available means to ensure that these measures are fairly implemented. We have been engaged with EOIR for the past six months on these very issues and continue to stand in full support of our judges and the integrity of the Court. Prior to the email, NAIJ was pursuing the terms of an MOU with EOIR in an effort to reach a mutually agreeable solution in an informal and more cooperative fashion. However, with the Director’s announcement, NAIJ is now exercising formal bargaining rights.
We invite you to reach out to myself or any of our officers and representatives with any questions, concerns, or suggestions. We will keep you apprised of the ongoing negotiations and developments on this issue.
Thank you
Ashley Tabaddor
**************************************
As I had suggested earlier, the claim that the NAIJ had “agreed” to the production quotas was simply another lie by the Sessions DOJ. Lies, mis-representations, distortions, bogus statistics — why is this Dude our Attorney General given his proven record of disdain for truth, our law, our Constitution, and human decency as well as his total lack of any judicial qualifications to be administering perhaps the largest Federal Court system?
Another “under the radar” aspect of this toxic attempt to compromise due process in the Immigration Court system was pointed out to me by my good friend and colleague retired U.S. immigration Judge Carol King of San Francisco. As Judge King points out, by requiring U.S. Immigration Judges to render almost all final decisions at the hearing or within a few days of the hearing, the Attorney General is basically forcing them to use the widely discredited “contemporaneous oral decision” format rather than the preferred “full written decision” format.
Having reviewed thousands of Immigration Judge decisions during my career as an Appellate Immigration Judge on the BIA, and rendered thousands more during my time as a U.S. Immigration Judge in Arlington, I can say that with few exceptions, the “oral decision format” is grossly inadequate to meet the needs of today’s complex asylum litigation, particularly for cases to go to the Courts of Appeals. Oral decisions commonly have factual and citation errors as well as grammatical, spelling, and punctuation errors caused by the totally un-judicial format.
Moreover, except in unusual cases, Immigration Judges are not permitted to have a transcript made before rendering a decision! The case is only transcribed by EOIR at the time an appeal to the BIA is actually taken, well after the Immigration Judge has completed his or her decision.
At the beginning of my 45 year legal career, I used “real dictation” in some of my jobs. The basic idea was that the initial draft was a “quick and dirty” that was then reviewed, revised, and corrected numerous times before being issued as a “final.” Indeed, at Jones Day, which had a typing pool back in the 1980s when I was there, I used to leave my dictated drafts when I went home at night for the “overnight typing pool” to have on my desk the next morning. I would never have dreamed of issuing a client letter or brief that hadn’t been reviewed, revised, and retyped (and then probably read by one of my colleagues).
By contrast, a U.S. Immigration Judge must dictate a final oral decision at the conclusion of the hearing, or shortly thereafter, with the parties present (talk about a waste and disrespect for time) and no actual transcriber in the room. If an appeal is taken, the oral decision portion of the digital recording is “separated” and typed in a decision format. While the Immigration Judge does receive an electronic copy of the decision at the time it goes to the Board Panel for adjudication, my experience is that any corrections by the Immigration Judge are seldom in the BIA record file at the time the BIA acts on the case. Moreover, trial judges are specifically limited to making “editorial” changes. Major changes to legal analysis, fact-finding, or even results can’t be made during this review process.
Unlike other Federal and State judges in courts of comparable authority, U.S. Immigration Judges also are forced to work without any individually selected Judicial Law Clerks (“JLCs”). Immigration Judges must share a “pool” of JLCs (occasionally not even in the same court location) selected, assigned, and “supervised” by EOIR Headquarters with minimal, if any, input from the Immigration Judges.
Moreover, the JLCs report to and are “evaluated” by an Assistant Chief Judge who more often than not is in Falls Church, VA, far removed from the actual trial courts! (Immigration Judges are given an option to submit performance comments” to the ACIJ, but never see the final evaluations of the JLCs). Sometimes a JLC may go a year or more without any “in person” interaction with his or her “supervisor.” What other judges, in any system, are forced to work under these types of conditions?
I firmly believe that the clearly inferior work product produced by the “oral decision” format is one of the reasons the U.S. Immigration Judges have an unfortunate “unprofessional” reputation with some of the Courts of Appeals.
Let’s use a “real life” example. My son was a JLC for a U.S. District Court Judge. That Judge actually had sufficient “out of court” time to do some of his own writing. If asked to prepare a draft decision, my son submitted it to his District Judge who carefully reviewed, revised, and commented on the draft. Then my son reworked the decision to his District Judge’s individual specifications and all citations, fact-finding, and other references were carefully checked, as well as spelling, punctuation , style, etc. The end product looked somewhat like a scholarly law review article in judicial decision format. Not surprisingly, that District Judge’s opinions were seldom reversed by the Court of Appeals.
Now imagine a Court of Appeals Judge, just after reading that decision, picks up an immigration file involving a complex life or death asylum case. The decision looks like it was written by a high school student who flunked remedial English. Run on sentences, not many paragraphs, non-standard punctuation, mis-spellings and incomprehensible citations. Moreover, on further examination, the Circuit Court Judge’s personal law clerk has already discovered some glaring factual errors in the Immigration Judge’s “stream of consciousness” recitation of the facts. The BIA “summarily affirmed” the result in a single-Member decision with no reasoning! No wonder the Immigration Courts are often lowly regarded by the reviewing Circuit Courts!
U.S. Immigration Judges are being placed in an impossible position. While Sessions proposes to “grade” them on appellate reversals and remands, he simultaneously will restrict and artificially limit their ability to do research, review actual records and transcripts, and prepare careful, high quality written decisions. Sessions intends to impose new “quotas” without meaningful input from: 1) the ImmigratIon Judges who hear the cases; 2) the Appellate Immigration Judges on the BIA; 3) the parties and attorneys who appear in Immigration Court, or 4) the U.S. Circuit Court Judges who must review the Immigration Court’s work product. What kind of process is that? Why is Sessions being allowed to get away with this? No other court system in America operates in such an intentionally dysfunctional manner.
Instead of working on real reforms that would improve the quality of justice and the ability of already overwhelmed U.S. Immigration Judges to deliver fairness and due process, Jeff Sessions intentionally is further degrading both the Immigration Judges and the process! “Just say no” to the malicious incompetence of Jeff Sessions and his DOJ!
How Trump’s policies could worsen the migration issue he says he wants to solve
By Tal Kopan, CNN
President Donald Trump in recent days has decried “weak” US border laws that he says leave the US vulnerable to unfettered immigration — but some of his policies could have the effect of worsening a Central American migrant crisis.
Even as the Department of Homeland Security says the southern border “is more difficult to illegally cross today than ever before,” Trump has stepped up his hardline immigration rhetoric, calling on the US military to guard the US-Mexico border until his long-promised wall is complete. He’s hammered Mexico and other countries for policies that he says are disadvantageous to the US and that send unsavory individuals into the country.
But experts say the President has been pursuing other policies that could substantially harm Central America — and in doing so, he risks creating conditions that generate the exact kind of mass exodus north that he talks about wanting to solve.
Immigration is driven by what are called push and pull factors. The US has been seeking aggressive immigration powers to cut down on what they say are pull factors — the perception that immigrants can live illegally with impunity in the US. But those very policies could affect push factors — the conditions of poverty and violence that drive immigrants elsewhere out of desperation.
“The US sort of talks out of both sides of its mouth,” said Eric Olson, a Latin America expert at the nonpartisan Wilson Center.
“If you’re investing in the region to address the drivers of migration and at the same time pursuing a policy of large-scale deportation, or at least potentially large-scale deportation, and you’re creating more obstacles for people leaving the region for reasons like violence and so on, you’re really creating more instability, not less instability.”
As Tal says, there’s much, much more to her report on the total stupidity and counter-productivity (not to mention inhumanity) of the Trump Administration’s “Gonzo” enforcement policy. Go on over to CNN at the link to get the full picture.
I’ve been saying for some time now that Trump is pursuing facially “hard-line” policies that are proven failures. Indeed, that forced migration from Central America is a phenomenon that spans four decades and six different Administrations with varying degrees of “same old, same old” would suggest to rational leadership that a different approach is required.
Contrary to Trump’s oft-made bogus claim, his is not the first Administration to try a “close the border, detain and deter” policy. Beginning with Reagan, every Administration has tried largely the same thing (although perhaps without some of the inflammatory and outright racist rhetoric favored by the Trumpsters) and all have failed. I know because I’ve been involved in some aspect of trying to implement those failed policies in at least four of those Administrations, two GOP and two Democrat.
That’s why the trend of migration from the Northern Triangle continues and will continue and fester until we get some enlightened leadership that 1) correctly applies our refugee and protection laws in the generous humanitarian spirit they were intended; and 2) recognizes and starts to deal effectively with the “push” issues in the sending countries.
Contrary to the false narrative spread by current Administration, most Central American refugees that I encountered personally during my career would have preferred to remain in their home countries, if political and country conditions had permitted it. Indeed, many were forced by targeted violence to give up promising careers, studies, or businesses to flee for their lives to the U.S. Here, they often had to perform “entry-level” work to support themselves unless and until they achieved some type of legal status (often TPS , asylum, withholding of removal, CAT relief, Special Immigrant Juvenile (“SIJ”) status, or a green card under NACARA).
Of course, many were denied protection despite having very credible, well-documented fears of harm because they didn’t fit the intentionally restrictive asylum criteria engineered by the BIA over several Administrations largely as a result of political pressure on the system to be “unwelcoming” to Central American migrants. Some of those who returned were killed or disappeared; others were tortured or attacked again and forced to flee second or third times, now bearing the scars or injuries to prove their cases — only as “prior deportees” they were no longer eligible for asylum but had to accept withholding of removal or CAT deferral.
Nobody in this Administration, and sadly relatively few in Congress and among the public, are willing to deal honestly with the phenomenon of Central American migration and the “push factors” that will never, ever be controlled by more restrictive laws, more violations of statutory, Constitutional, and international rights, inhumane and life-threatening detention , and racist rhetoric. Nor will it be stopped by any bogus “Wall.”
As I’ve said before, “We can diminish ourselves as a nation, but that won’t stop human migration!” If only someone would listen!
The tragedy is that bad as this sounds, the reality of what’s going on every day in this broken, failed, and disingenuous system is probably much worse than what’s portrayed here.
Yup, we can all chuckle at others’ misfortune. But, if Trump, Sessions, and the White Nationalist restrictionist crowd aren’t removed from office, this will be how all of our rights are treated. Someday, all of us are going to need to rely on our Constitutional rights. And, if Trump & Sessions have their way, you’ll be longing for the “Kiddie Court” rather than the travesty that’s being called “Due Process” in our Immigration Courts.
Harm to the most vulnerable among us is harm to all. Join the New Due Process Army and fight for the real America! Due Process Forever! Trump & Sessions Never!
Recently, the White House announced that it sought to reduce the current immigration court backlog by requesting appropriations for additional immigration judges and instituting performance metrics for all immigration judges.1 Sen. Claire McCaskill and Reps. Jim Sensenbrenner, Zoe Lofgren, and Trey Gowdy asked the General Accountability Office (GAO) the following questions: 1. What do Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) data indicate about its caseload, including the backlog of cases, and potential contributing factors and effects of the backlog according to stakeholders? 2. How does EOIR manage and oversee immigration court operations, including workforce planning, hiring, and technology utilization? 3. To what extent has EOIR assessed immigration court performance, including analyzing relevant information, such as data on case continuances? 4. What scenarios have been proposed for restructuring EOIR’s immigration court system and what reasons have been offered for or against these proposals?2
A close read of the GAO’s report provides a chilling window into a system in chaos.
. . . .
Moving the immigration courts out of the executive branch
would help alleviate the perception that they are not independent tribunals with DHS and the respondents as equal participants. This would also cure the perception that the immigration courts have become so politicized that decisions change not with the law but with the politics of the current administration. Moreover, due to
the number of immigration judges who are former DHS attorneys and the co-location of some immigration courts with Immigration and Customs Enforcement offices, a broad perception exists that immigration judges and DHS attorneys are working together. This perception leads to significant lapses in perceived due process; for example, individuals don’t appear because they think the system is rigged, don’t appeal a bad decision because they lack resources after the long wait for a merits hearing, or don’t pursue potential relief for which they might be eligible. Plus, such a move would allow DHS the opportunity to appeal the Article I appellate division’s decisions to the circuit courts of appeals—providing those courts with a broader, more balanced view of issues and decisions of the trial-level immigration court.21 EOIR’s FY 2016 Statistics Yearbook indicates that one quarter of the initial cases decided were grants—none of which were ever reviewed by the courts of appeals.22
With a move to an Article I court, both trial level and appellate di- vision judges would have fixed terms of office and tenure protections that would facilitate judicial decisions without fear or favor. (If one believes that current members of the Board of Immigration Appeals are truly independent, one should research the “streamlining” of
the board down to just 11 members.23) Current board members and immigration judges are arguably government attorneys with the same client as DHS attorneys.24 They are subject to case completion goals—with or without express reliance on numerical goals—and may be subject to discipline by the attorney general.25 The currently proposed performance metrics are not new—most have been in place in one form or another since 2002.26
Last but not least, removing the immigration courts from the Department of Justice should speed the courts’ ability to regulate itself. First and foremost, the individual immigration judges would have control over their dockets and not be subject to decisions by headquarters to prioritize case A over case B (and then back again)—or send trial judges off to border courts to handle a few cases when their backlogged dockets have to be re-scheduled.27 The Article I court as a whole would be able to issue rules and regulations without the current byzantine requirements for consultation with a number of different offices and agencies. And, finally, hiring an immigration trial judge would not take two years.28
Other options exist; all have flaws. None of the options will single-handedly fix the backlog. We all have strong opinions about whether our nation’s immigration laws need a complete overhaul or a quick x—and how to go about either or both—but as we look to implement changes in our current immigration system, we must also aspire to lift the immigration courts from “halfway there” not-quite- courts to true Article I courts.
[Text of Footnotes Omitted]
Elizabeth J. Stevens is
the chair of the Federal
Bar Association’s Immi-
gration Law Section.
***********************************
Read Betty’s highly cogent and incisive full article in The Federal Lawyer at the link! You’ll also be able to get all of Betty’s terrifically informative footnotes.
Betty is not just “any” lawyer. In addition to being the head of the FBA’s highly regarded and very active Immigration Law Section, Betty’s distinguished career in the Department of Justice has touched on all aspects of the Immigration Court practice.
While in law school at George Mason, Betty interned at the Board of Immigration Appeals during my tenure there. When I arrived at the Arlington Immigration Court, Betty was serving as the sole Judicial Law Clerk for all six Immigration Judges.
Betty then began a distinguished career at the Office of Immigration Litigation (“OIL”) where her primary job was to defend the orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals. She had a meteoric rise through the ranks of OIL, culminating in position as a Senior Supervisor and a trainer of newer OIL attorneys.
I well remember Betty shepherding numberous groups from OIL over to the Arlington Court to introduce them to immigration litigation at the “retail level of our justice system.” Since her retirement from Federal Service, Betty has been an energetic, well-informed, and steadfast voice for better legal education of attorneys on both sides practicing immigration law and for Immigration Court and BIA reform.
“Chilling” is exactly the right word to describe the utter chaos in our U.S. Immigration Courts today, as the backlog approaches 700,000 cases with no end in sight. It’s “chilling” to the individual Constitutional rights of all Americans, as well as “chilling” as to the fantastic degree of “malicious incompetence” of the DOJ’s pathetic attempt to administer the Immigration Courts under Jeff Sessions.
Betty is someone who has “looked at life from both sides now!” When Betty Stevens says the system is broken and “in chaos,” you’d better believe it’s true! Thanks again Betty for all you do! It’s an honor and a privilege to work with you on the “Due Process Team.”
A federal judge issued a nationwide order temporarily preventing the government from blocking access to abortion services and counseling for teens detained in immigration custody, saying current administration policy and practices probably are unconstitutional.
The order came in a case brought last fall on behalf of a Central American girl in a government-funded shelter that set off a national debate over the constitutional rights of such undocumented teens to terminate their pregnancies.
The late Friday ruling, by U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan of Washington, allowed the case to proceed as a class action on behalf of any other teens who have crossed the border illegally and while in federal custody may want to seek abortion services. In filings, the U.S. government acknowledged there were at least 420 pregnant unaccompanied minors in custody in 2017, including 18 who requested abortions.
The Trump administration has refused to “facilitate” such procedures for pregnant teenagers traveling alone on the grounds that they had the option to voluntarily return to their home countries or to find private sponsors in the United States to assist them in obtaining procedures.
The policy position marked a departure from that of the Obama administration, whose Office of Refugee Resettlement did not block immigrants in U.S. custody from having abortions at their own expense, and paid for services for teens in cases of rape, incest or a threat to the woman’s life.
In her 28-page opinion, Chutkan, a 2014 Obama appointee, said the change in policy posed irreparable harm to pregnant teens, writing that “ORR’s absolute veto nullifies a UC’s right to make her own reproductive choices,” referring to unaccompanied children.
“The court concludes that ORR’s policies and practices infringe on female UC’s constitutional rights by effectively prohibiting them from ‘making the ultimate decision’ on whether or not to continue their pregnancy prior to viability — a quintessential undue burden,” the judge wrote.
A Justice Department spokesman did not immediately comment on the ruling.
The American Civil Liberties Union, representing the teens, expressed relief at the court action.
“The Trump administration’s cruel policy of blocking young immigrant women in federal custody from accessing abortion is a blatant abuse of power,” Brigitte Amiri, deputy director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, said in a statement. “With today’s rulings, we are one step closer to ending this extreme policy once and for all and securing justice for all of these young women.”
In all, four pregnant teens in custody have asked Chutkan to force the administration to stop blocking access to abortion services. The initial case involving the teen in Texas is still pending in the Supreme Court after the Justice Department took the unusual step of asking the justices to consider disciplining the teen’s lawyers.
Abortion rights advocates and some Democrats in Congress have called for the firing of E. Scott Lloyd, the head of the refugee resettlement office within the Department of Health and Human Services. Court records show that Lloyd has personally intervened to try to block abortion services.
*****************************************
Read the full article at the above link.
Hard to figure out why guys like E. Scott Lloyd and Jeff Sessions shouldn’t be both 1) fired, and 2) held personally liable under Bivens for knowing and intentional violations of constitutional rights.
The Trump administration will no longer seek to automatically release pregnant immigrants from detention — a move in line with the overall efforts by the administration to hold far more immigrants in custody than its predecessors.
The change in policy was sent by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement to Congress on Thursday morning and obtained by CNN.
According to the new directive, immigration officers will no longer default to trying to release pregnant women who fall into immigration custody, either because they are undocumented or otherwise subject to deportation. The Obama administration policy urged officers to presume a pregnant woman could be released except for extreme circumstances.
But a FAQ sent with the directive makes clear that ICE is not going to detain all pregnant immigrants. The policy will require a case-by-case evaluation, the FAQ explains, and will keep in custody “only those whose detention is necessary to effectuate removal, as well as those deemed a flight risk or danger to the community.”
ICE will also lean towards releasing pregnant women if they are in their third trimester, and will also make an effort for detention facilities to provide services to pregnant women and parents.
The move follows controversial efforts by the Department of Health and Human Services to keep unaccompanied minor immigrants in custody rather than releasing them to obtain abortions, a policy that has been the subject of intense litigation.
White House reviewing plan to restrict immigrants’ use of government programs
By: Tal Kopan, CNN
The White House is reviewing a proposal that could penalize immigrants who use certain government programs, the Department of Homeland Security confirmed Thursday.
The proposed rule change would substantially expand the type of benefits that could be considered as grounds to reject any immigrants’ application to extend their stay in the US or become a permanent resident and eventually a citizen.
The move continues efforts by the Trump administration to overhaul the US immigration system and the changes could have the effect of substantially tipping the scales in favor of high-income immigrants — all without requiring an act of Congress. The changes could amount to an effective income test of immigrants to the US, critics say.
The expansion would going forward include programs like children’s health insurance, tax credits and some forms of Medicaid as black marks against immigrants seeking to change their status to stay.
By including benefits used by family members of the immigrants, the proposal could also apply to benefits being used by US citizens, who may be the spouse or child of the immigrant applying for status
DHS spokesman Tyler Houlton said the proposed rule had been sent to the White House Office of Management and Budget — the final step of the approval process before it’s released.
Houlton would not comment on the specifics of the proposal, but did said that DHS is “committed to enforcing existing immigration law … and part of that is respecting taxpayer dollars.”
CNN first reported on the changes as they were in development last month. The Washington Post obtained a more recent version of the proposal on Wednesday.
Why the change matters
US law authorizes authorities to reject immigrants if they are likely to become a “public charge” — or dependent on government.
Since the 1990s, that has meant that immigrants shouldn’t use so-called “cash benefits,” but a large number of programs were exempt from consideration.
But the new rule would include programs such as some forms of Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, food stamps, subsidized health care under Obamacare and the Earned Income Tax Credit, according to the latest draft obtained by the Post.
In one change from the earlier draft obtained by CNN, educational programs that benefit children, including Head Start, will not be included under the administration’s plan. Programs like veteran’s benefits that individuals earn would also be excluded.
The rule would not explicitly prohibit immigrants or their families from accepting the benefits. Rather, it authorizes the officers who evaluate their applications for things like green cards and residency visas to count the use of these programs against the immigrant, and gives them authority to deny the immigrants visas on these grounds — even if the program was used by a family member.
The decision sets up a difficult scenario for immigrants who hope to stay in the US. If they accept any public benefits — or their family members do — they could potentially be denied future abilities to stay. That includes decisions about whether to use health insurance subsidies for them or their children, or tax credits they qualify for otherwise.
Immigrants are no more likely to qualify for these programs than the native US population, according to tables included in the documents, the Post reported. There is no substantial difference in the rate between the two groups — in some cases foreign-born residents are slightly more likely to use a program, but in some cases the native-born population is, according to the tabulations.
US to require immigrants to turn over social media handles
By Tal Kopan, CNN
The Trump administration plans to require immigrants applying to come to the United States to submit five years of social media history, it announced Thursday, setting up a potential scouring of their Twitter and Facebook histories.
The move follows the administration’s emphasis on “extreme vetting” of would-be immigrants to the US, and is an extension of efforts by the previous administration to more closely scrutinize social media after the San Bernardino terrorist attack.
According to notices submitted by the State Department on Thursday, set for formal publication on Friday, the government plans to require nearly all visa applicants to the US to submit five years of social media handles for specific platforms identified by the government — and with an option to list handles for other platforms not explicitly required.
The administration expects the move to affect nearly 15 million would-be immigrants to the United States, according to the documents. That would include applicants for legal permanent residency. There are exemptions for diplomatic and official visas, the State Department said.
The decision will not take effect immediately — the publication of the planned change to visa applications on Friday will start a 60-day clock for the public to comment on the move.
The potential scouring of social media postings by potential immigrants is sure to rankle privacy and civil liberties advocates, who have been vocal in opposing such moves going back to efforts by the Obama administration to collect such information on a more selective and voluntary basis.
Critics complain the moves, amid broader efforts by the administration, are not only invasive on privacy grounds, but also effectively limit legal immigration to the US by slowing the process down, making it more burdensome and making it more difficult to be accepted for a visa.
Federal authorities argue the moves are necessary for national security.
In addition to requiring the five years of social media history, the application will also ask for previous telephone numbers, email addresses, prior immigration violations and any family history of involvement in terrorist activities, according to the notice.
Since its early days, the administration has been telegraphing a desire to more closely dig through the backgrounds and social media histories of foreign travelers, but Thursday’s move is the first time that it will formally require virtually all applicants to come to the US to disclose that information.
After the San Bernardino terrorist attack in 2015, greater attention was placed on immigrants’ social media use, when it was revealed that one of the attackers had advocated jihad in posts on a private social media account under a pseudonym that authorities did not find before allowing her to come to the US.
The move by the Trump administration stops short of requiring passwords or access to those social media accounts, although then-Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly suggested last year that it was being considered.
The administration has been pursuing “extreme vetting” of foreigners as a centerpiece of its immigration and national security policy, including through the contentious travel ban that remains the subject of heavy litigation.
Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the liberal face of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, died Thursday afternoon, a court spokesman said. He was 87.
The spokesman said Reinhardt died of a heart attack during a visit to a dermatologist in Los Angeles.
“All of us here at the 9th Circuit are shocked and deeply saddened by Judge Reinhardt’s death,” 9th Circuit Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas said. “We have lost a wonderful colleague and friend.”
Thomas called Reinhardt “deeply principled, fiercely passionate about the law and fearless in his decisions.”
“He will be remembered as one of the giants of the federal bench. He had a great life that ended much too soon,” Thomas said.
Reinhardt, an appointee of former President Carter, was dubbed the “liberal lion” of the federal circuit courts.
His rulings in favor of criminal defendants, minorities and immigrants were often overturned by the more conservative U.S. Supreme Court.
Many lawyers have joked that Reinhardt’s name on a ruling was probably enough to get the attention of the conservatives on the Supreme Court. In 1996, after Reinhardt was reversed several times by the Supreme Court, The Times asked him if he was upset.
“Not in the slightest!” he boomed. “If they want to take away rights, that’s their privilege. But I’m not going to help them do it.”
No matter how many reversals he endured, Reinhardt used the bench to try to help the underdog. Just a few months ago, he called The Times to read a reporter a letter from a woman who had just been released from prison and who wanted to thank him for ruling in her favor.
“He was a giant not just on the 9th Circuit but within the law,” UC Berkeley law school Dean Erwin Chemerinsky said. “He also was a judge with a particular vision of the law, based on enforcing the Constitution to protect people.”
Reinhardt joined another judge in ruling that the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance were unconstitutional, a decision that was later overturned.
He wrote a ruling that said laws prohibiting physician-assisted suicide were unconstitutional and another that overturned California’s previous ban on same-sex marriage.
Reinhardt also lamented Supreme Court rulings that limited judges’ ability to overturn convictions and sentences on habeas corpus and complained about the flaws in death penalty cases.
He was among the federal judges who decided that overcrowding in California’s prison system was unconstitutional.
“His view was to decide cases as he believed the law required, not to predict what the Supreme Court would do,” Chemerinsky said. “He was unapologetic about that.”
Conservatives often railed against Reinhardt, calling him lawless. They accused him of never voting to uphold a death sentence. Reinhardt, asked about that, said he was not sure.
He was particularly close to former 9th Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, considered a conservative with libertarian views. They were dubbed the “odd couple.”
When Kozinski retired under pressure in December in response to sexual harassment allegations, Reinhardt bemoaned the departure. He said he kept a photograph of Kozinski planting a kiss on his cheek in his chambers.
********************************************
Read Dolan’s complete obit on Judge Reinhardt at the above link.
************************************************
My friend and former BIA colleague Judge Lory Diana Rosenberg added this heartfelt tribute:
I am heartbroken to learn of Judge Reinhardt’s dying. Just knowing he was alive and participating in our courts gave me deep hope that justice would prevail, at least in some quarters. I am so fortunate to have known him and to have spent a tiny bit of time with him and his wife at an international meeting years ago. He is a giant among judges. I will miss him.
********************************************
Here’s an excerpt from my favorite Judge Reinhardt concurring opinion in Magna-Ortiz v. Sessions:
The government’s insistence on expelling a good man from the country in which he has lived for the past 28 years deprives his children of their right to be with their father, his wife of her right to be with her husband, and our country of a productive and responsible member of our community. Magana Ortiz, who first entered the United States at 15, is now 43 years old, and during his almost three decades here has raised a family and built a successful life. All of his children, ages 12, 14, and 20, were born in this country and are American citizens, as is his wife. His eldest daughter currently attends the University of Hawaii, and he is paying for her education.
. . .
President Trump has claimed that his immigration policies would target the “bad hombres.” The government’s decision to remove Magana Ortiz shows that even the “good hombres” are not safe.3 Magana Ortiz is by all accounts a pillar of his community and a devoted father and husband. It is difficult to see how the government’s decision to expel him is consistent with the President’s promise of an immigration system with “a lot of heart.” I find no such compassion in the government’s choice to deport Magana Ortiz.
We are unable to prevent Magana Ortiz’s removal, yet it is contrary to the values of this nation and its legal system. Indeed, the government’s decision to remove Magana Ortiz diminishes not only our country but our courts, which are supposedly dedicated to the pursuit of justice. Magana Ortiz and his family are in truth not the only victims. Among the others are judges who, forced to participate in such inhumane acts, suffer a loss of dignity and humanity as well. I concur as a judge, but as a citizen I do not.
2 The family’s right to occupy their home will terminate upon Magana Ortiz’s removal.
3 On January 25, 2017, the President signed a series of executive orders dismantling the system of priorities that had previously guided Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol in determining whom to deport. The orders also gave far greater authority to individual agents and officers, who are now removing non-citizens simply because they are here illegally, regardless of whether they have committed any offense. In light of the breadth of these orders and the lack of any apparent limit on agents’ discretion, the undocumented must now choose between going to work, school, hospitals, and even court, and the risk of being seized. See James Queally, ICE Agents Make Arrests at Courthouses, L.A. Times, March 16, 2017.
************************************************
I must say that I had the same feelings as Judge Reinhardt on a number of occasions in my judicial career, although I never expressed them as eloquently as he did.
The wastefulness and futility of spending Government time, money, and authority removing fine people who were making remarkable contributions to our country, our economy, and our society certainly was apparent at the Immigration Court level. That this Administration has cynically chosen to aggravate this inhumane and quite frankly stupid situation rather than to attempt to fix it is most disheartening as is the fact that by placing them and retaining them in power we all become complicit in their bias and injustice! Harm to the most vulnerable among us is harm to all!
You can read the 9th Circuit’s complete decision in Magana Ortiz v. Sessions including Judge Reinhardt’s concurrence at this link:
Joshua Matz is a constitutional lawyer based in the District. He is also the publisher of the legal analysis blog Take Care.
President Trump is hard at work making animus the law of the land. Justice Department lawyers revealed his latest effort Friday night, announcing a revised plan to exclude nearly all transgender soldiers from the armed forces.
As many commentators haveobserved, the reasoning offered to support Trump’s policy is riddled with empirical errors and anti-trans stereotypes. It comes nowhere close to disproving the comprehensive study in 2016 that recommended allowing transgender people to serve openly. Like so many other missives from this White House, it makes only a token effort to conceal the disdain and disgust that underlie it.
Trump’s original “transgender ban” was blocked byfourfederal courts. After two of those rulings were affirmed on appeal, the administration decided against seeking Supreme Court review. It’s therefore safe to assume that Trump’s latest order will not go into effect unless it survives constitutional challenges.
And in thinking about that litigation, it’s hard to escape a feeling of deja vu. A little more than 14 months into Trump’s presidency, a pattern has emerged in cases challenging some of his most despicable decisions.
. . . .
It remains to be seen when and where these arguments will succeed. As a logical matter, there must be some limits. Evidence that Trump originally acted with impermissible motives cannot (and should not) permanently preclude him from making policy.
But that isn’t the situation we confront. Trump has made no effort whatsoever to dispel or deny the aura of animus that envelops so many of his orders. To the contrary, he and his advisers have leaned into the hate. With each passing day, it spreads like a poison.
We thus live in a strange new world, where bigots serve openly and soldiers are forced into closets.
********************************************
Go on over to the WashPost at the link for the complete article.
The problem, as noted by Matz, is that our system isn’t designed to deal with unremitting hate and bias from it’s most active, and supposedly most responsible, litigant, the U.S. Government. Usually, after a few “warning shots across the bow,” the Executive gets the picture and changes strategies.
But, led by White Nationalists like Trump and Sessions, this Administration simply “doubles down” on thinly disguised hate and bias motivated policies. At some point, the Article III courts are likely to become both frustrated and exhausted. By continuing to “knock down” bias-based policies and actions, the Article IIIs become part of the political fray, which makes them uncomfortable. Perhaps at that point, they will just start giving Trump & Co. “free passes.” Indeed, some Federal Courts, including perhaps the Supremes, already appear prepared to “punt” on the daily dose of legally questionable and indecent legal positions spewed forth by this Administration.
AARON REICHLIN-MELNICK writes in Immigration Impact:
As thousands of Central American families arrived at the U.S.-Mexico border asking for asylum in 2014, human rights organizations raised alarms about asylum seekers’ treatment by Customs and Border Protection officials. But these organizations were not the only ones expressing concern—asylum officers within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services also raised alarms about CBP misbehavior.
A new Freedom of Information Act lawsuit hopes to reveal how asylum officials’ repeated concerns about CBP officer misconduct were left unaddressed. The lawsuit, filed by Human Rights Watch and Nixon Peabody LLP, seeks information about such misbehavior, including hundreds of reports that CBP failed to properly screen asylum seekers.
This lawsuit comes after Human Rights Watch, along with the American Immigration Council, filed a FOIA request asking for records of complaints made by officers in USCIS’s Asylum Division. The lawsuit asks USCIS to turn over all records of complaints about CBP misconduct from 2006 to 2015, arguing that the agency violated FOIA by failing to provide requested key documents following the original request. These documents included a spreadsheet where asylum officers purportedly documented hundreds of instances of “problematic Border Patrol practices.”
CBP officers at ports of entry and along the U.S. border are generally the first to encounter newly arriving asylum seekers. When asylum seekers express a fear of returning to their home country to a CBP officer, the officer is required to refer them to an asylum officer with USCIS for an interview. The asylum officer decides whether the asylum seeker has a “credible fear” of persecution, a determination which allows the asylum seeker to pursue an asylum case in immigration court.
Because these credible fear interviews occur after an asylum seeker has already been processed by CBP officers at the border or ports of entry, asylum officers are able to ask about any encounters with CBP. The limited records USCIS offered in response to the FOIA show that asylum officers often had serious concerns about the behavior of its sister agency.
The documents produced to date demonstrate how grave the problem is:
One email from an asylum officer to a supervisor expresses a belief that there are “significant issues in how some Border Patrol officers are screening individuals.”
A second email discusses an incident where “CBP mocked a transgender woman for hours and refused to record her fear” of returning to her home country. These internal reports of CBP abuse match the reports of many asylum seekers who encountered abuse at the hands of CBP officers during the same time period.
A third email from an asylum officer expressed concerns that an asylum seeker was coerced into withdrawing his request for asylum, with the officer writing that: “What is especially disturbing about this is that … the record indicates that [the asylum seeker] has been subjected to harassment, intimidation, and physical mistreatment by CBP upon his recent entry into the United States, and this mistreatment. . . affected his decision to dissolve his case.”
Records of CBP’s mistreatment of asylum seekers is especially important as the numbers of asylum-seekers at the border continue to rise. Last year, groups sued CBP, alleging a pattern or practice of unlawfully turning away asylum seekers who arrived at ports of entry and requested asylum. In light of CBP’s own inadequate complaint system, this new lawsuit could substantiate the many reports of the agency’s misconduct.
*************************************
Both Judge Jeffrey Chase and I have “roasted” in prior blogs the BIA’s disingenuous and “clearly erroneous greenlighting” of Border Patrol statements in Matter of J-C-H-F, 27 I&N Dec. 211 (BIA 2018). Quite contrary to the BIA’s unjustified “head in the sand” presumption of regularity given these flawed statements, there is clear public evidence, compiled over more than a decade, that such statements should be considered “presumptively unreliable.”
In addition to addressing the elements of the bogus “test” enunciated by the BIA in J-C-H-F- what should advocates do to fight this type of clearly biased, largely “fact free,” unwarranted pro-DHS decision-making by the BIA?
First, as Jeffrey and I have pointed out, get the publicly available reports of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (“USCIRF”) which show that glaring errors in accuracy and reliability raised as long ago as 2006 remained unaddressed as of 2016.
Second, use the additional materials cited in the above article to show how DHS has suppressed its own internal documents establishing the unreliability of the Border Patrol statements.
Third, get in touch with Human Rights Watch and the American Immigration Council to see if any additional FOIA materials have been made available which establish unreliability.
Fourth, ask someone from Human Rights Watch about a database I have heard they are establishing to provide “hard evidence” to challenge the reliability of Border Patrol statements.
In the “Age of Sessions,” I wouldn’t hold my breath for the “captive” BIA to recede from its travesty in J-C-H-F-. That’s why it’s critically important for advocates to do a great job of “setting the record straight” in the Courts of Appeals.
But, to do that, evidence challenging the Border Patrol statements must be offered at the trial stage before the Immigration Judge. Documenting and exposing the BIA’s disingenuous decision-making will also undermine the BIA’s overall credibility before the Courts of Appeals and perhaps eventually lead to a reversal of the unjustified “Chevron deference” the Board currently receives.
Today’s Board masquerades as a deliberative “expert tribunal” that neither publicly deliberates nor possesses any obvious expertise — a situation aggravated because nobody who works for the biased White Nationalist xenophobe Jeff Sessions can legitimately be considered “unbiased” or “impartial” when it comes to adjudication of migrants rights. Don’t forget, even if the BIA rules in the respondent’s favor, something that happens less and less these days, each an every BIA decision is subject to an inappropriate “certification and reversal” process by Sessions that he has shown little hesitation in invoking recently.
How can a respondent receive a “fair hearing” from a “court” where the Government’s leading enforcement figure holds all the cards? Obviously, he or she can’t! You can help make a record that eventually should force the “Article III’s” to shut down this “caricature of American justice.”
Where Fear and Hope Collide: Images From Mexican Border, and Beyond
Photo
A man killed in a suspected drug-related execution in 2012 in Acapulco, Mexico. Violence has surged in Acapulco, once Mexico’s top tourist destination, spurring the flight of many Mexicans.CreditJohn Moore/Getty Images
For nearly a decade, the photographer John Moore has traversed the Mexico-United States border, covering the story of immigration from all sides — American, Mexican, immigrant and border agent.
His depiction of the border is both literal and figurative.
Families at a memorial service for two boys who were kidnapped and killed in February 2017 in San Juan Sacatepéquez, Guatemala.CreditJohn Moore/Getty Images
. . . .
A boy from Honduras watched a movie in 2014 at a detention facility for unaccompanied minors in McAllen, Tex.
. . . .
But wherever the numbers go, Mr. Moore’s images reflect an American truth: The fury and debate over immigration to the United States appears to be going nowhere.”
*****************************************
Go to the above link to the NYT for the full article and all of Moore’s pictures.
What do you suppose the “boy from Honduras” is thinking about America? Are these the images by which we want to be remembered as a country? If not, join the New Due Process Army and work for constructive change!
Amicus Brief Filed in 10th Cir. Petition for Remotely-Detained Asylum Seeker
An amicus brief was filed yesterday by attorneys at the law firm of Sidley Austin on behalf of an asylum seeker from the Democratic Republic of Congo in the case of Matumona v. Sessions. Fleeing for his life and seeking asylum in the U.S., the petitioner upon arrival was detained by DHS in the Cibola County Detention Center in New Mexico.
To call Cibola remotely located is truly an understatement. If you Google Map it, you will see that the detention center is surrounded on the east, south, and west by the stunningly scenic, 263,000 acre El Malpais National Conservation Area. Moving out a bit further, the map shows reservations of the Zuni, Navajo, and Apache nations, beyond which lies the Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge, and both the Carson and Santa Fe National Forests.
In fairness, Albuquerque is an hour and a half drive away. However, that city has a total of 36 attorneys who are members of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, working for 25 offices or organizations. By comparison, New York City has well over a thousand AILA members (not including many others located in the surrounding suburbs). The problem of representation is compounded by the fact that the petitioner, although detained at Cibola, had his removal hearings in the Immigration Court in Denver, 500 miles away. The National Immigrant Justice Center was able to identify only 21 attorneys in all of New Mexico and Texas who would be willing to represent detainees at Cibola in their removal proceedings. For those requiring pro bono representation, the options are even fewer. According to the latest figures provided by DHS, there were 689 non-citizens being detained in Cibola, and that was less than the facility’s full capacity.
Therefore, close to none of those detained at Cibola are able to exercise their constitutional right to be represented by an attorney, as assigned counsel at government expense does not exist in immigration proceedings. A study by the Vera Institute of Justice found a staggering 1,100 percent increase in successful outcomes when universal representation was made available to the detained population at the Varick Street Detention Facility in New York City. I will note that universal representation was possible there because the Varick Street facility is located in the heart of New York City, within walking distance of a multitude of immigration law offices, law school clinics, and not-for-profit organizations.
Left to represent themselves, asylum seekers detained at Cibola and other similar remote facilities are further hampered in their limited access to phones (which are necessary to contact friends and relatives abroad who might provide evidence to corroborate the asylum claim), and lack of access to the internet (which would allow detainees to research the law and to access and download country condition materials in support of their claims). Additionally, detention centers tend to have inadequate law libraries. Furthermore, detainees are required to complete their applications, conduct research, and file supporting documents in English, which is incredibly difficult for someone such as the petitioner, whose native language is Lingala. EOIR’s own statistics show that only ten percent of respondents in removal proceedings last year had enough of a command of English to allow them to participate in their proceedings in that language. As asylum seekers have often suffered torture or other violence, post-traumatic stress disorder and other physical or psychological remnants of their past mistreatment (which might be further exacerbated by their detention) creates an additional obstacle to self-representation. All of this overlooks the fact that U.S. asylum law is highly complex even for educated English-speakers.
The latest amicus brief raises these and other points on behalf of a group of former immigration judges and BIA Board members. The brief further makes recommendations for practices to be adopted by immigration judges to help mitigate the above-cited obstacles to pro se applicants in pursuing relief. These recommendations include having the immigration judges explain the applicable legal standard (and any bars to relief) to pro se applicants; introducing country condition evidence (as well as making applicants aware of country condition resources available on EOIR’s own Virtual Law Library); and advocating for free, uninterrupted access to telephones for respondents in detention centers.
To my knowledge, our amicus brief filed with the BIA last summer in the U.S. Supreme Courts remand of Negusie v. Holder was the first time that former immigration judges and Board members identified as a group for amicus purposes. The seven of us who participated in that brief doubled to 14 for the next such brief, filed with the Attorney General last month in Matter of Castro-Tum. I see it as a positive development that in the short time since these briefs were filed, we have been called upon to provide our experience in expertise in two more cases, one filed last week in the Ninth Circuit on the issue of representation for children in immigration proceedings (C.J.L.G. v. Sessions), and now in this case filed yesterday in the Tenth Circuit. Hopefully, this outstanding group will continue to contribute to the cause of justice for vulnerable noncitizens in removal proceedings.
And our heartfelt thanks to the dedicated attorneys at Sidley Austin, Jean-Claude Andre and Katelyn Rowe, for drafting the outstanding brief.
Copyright 2018 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General
The Attorney General referred the decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals to himself for review of issues relating to when there is “good cause” to grant a continuance for a collateral matter to be adjudicated, ordering that the cases be stayed during the pendency of his review.
BEFORE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.l (h)(1)(i) (2017), I direct the Board of Immigration Appeals to refer these cases to me for review of its decisions. The Board’s decisions in these matters are automatically stayed pending my review. See Matter of Haddam, A.G. Order No. 2380-2001 (Jan. 19, 2001). To assist in my review, I invite the parties to these proceedings and interested amici to submit briefs on points relevant to the disposition of these cases, including the following question:
An Immigration Judge is authorized to “grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (2017); see also id. § 1240.6 (2017) (authorizing an Immigration Judge to “grant a reasonable adjournment either at his or her own instance or, for good cause shown, upon application”). In these cases, Immigration Judges granted continuances to provide time for respondents to seek adjudications of collateral matters from other authorities. Under what circumstances does “good cause” exist for an Immigration Judge to grant a continuance for a collateral matter to be adjudicated?
The parties’ briefs shall not exceed 15,000 words and shall be filed on or before April 17, 2018. Interested amici may submit briefs not exceeding 9,000 words on or before April 24, 2018. The parties may submit reply briefs not exceeding 6,000 words on or before May 2, 2018. All filings shall be accompanied by proof of service and shall be submitted electronically to AGCertification@usdoj.gov, and in triplicate to:
United States Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General, Room 5114 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530
