"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.
One is the “practical wisdom” that was
Kronman’s focus. That’s a big topic, of course, but
part of it involves recognition that the function of
the legal system is ultimately to provide answers to
very practical questions.
Frances Perkins (1880-1965) U.S. Secretary of Labor (1933-45) PHOTO: Public realmDr. Rebecca Brenner Graham Teacher, Author, Historian PHOTO: Rebeccabrennergraham.com
Dear Miss Perkins: A Story of Frances Perkins’s Efforts to Aid Refugees From Nazi Germany
By Rebecca Brenner Graham
Citadel Press 2025
Reviewed by Paul Wickham Schmidt[1] for immigrationcourtside.com
May 29, 2025
As someone who has spent more than five decades working on immigration issues, many of them involving refugees and those seeking asylum, in and out of Government, I found Dear Miss Perkins by Rebecca Brenner Graham interesting and in many ways moving.
True, the book suffered from some editorial and organizational difficulties: more like a string of essays than a unified volume with a thesis or overall theme; lots of repetition; some awkward sentence structure; and lack of a comprehensive index were among the most noticeable and occasionally annoying. Full disclosure: I mostly listened to the audiobook while driving from the D.C. area to Kansas City, Missouri to participate as a faculty member in the 2025 Immigration Court Trial Litigation College sponsored by Pen & Sword. The “road trip audio experience” might have minimized some of the book’s weakness as noted above.
I related to Perkins’s struggle to achieve “good government” and humane, sensible, practical administration of the immigration laws, as well as her frustrations on being thwarted, mirrored by my own Government experiences. Like her, my efforts at institutionalizing best practices and interpretations were ultimately largely unsuccessful. Yet, like her, I was able to solve “real life” (often life or death) problems, save lives, teach and inspire others, and get some degree of personal satisfaction in achieving things that helped others and overall benefitted our nation.
Here, in my own somewhat random order, are my major “takeaways” from the book, most of which remain as troublesome today as they did in Perkins’s era.
1) The prevalence of antisemitism in Government and society, a continuing issue.
2) The persistence of racism, misogyny (frequently directed at Perkins herself), bigotry, and false economic arguments being used against immigrants.
3) The use of “legal fictions” in place of common sense in immigration legal opinions (e.g., the “charge bond controversy”).
4) Focusing more on what particular immigrants can do for the U.S., than on the humanity, needs, situation, and potential of the immigrants themselves.
5) Lumping Nazism, socialism, and communism together as “totalitarianism.”
6) Minimizing the culpability of the German people for Nazism and the holocaust.
7) The extraordinarily poor performance of Congress in protecting refugees and other immigrants in a nation of immigrants.
8) The subservience of legal, Constitutional, and human rights of immigrants to domestic political considerations.
9) The enduring, and often toxic, nature of “turf battles” and arcane bureaucratic distinctions in overruling “good government,” efficiency, and practicality in the immigration bureaucracy.
10) Who you know often trumping fair treatment in individual cases.
11) Creative, progressive actions within the bureaucracy, such as those championed by Perkins, can save individual lives even if they can not systematically save everyone who should be saved.
12) The remarkable lack of empathy for child migration and family separation.
13) “Sanitization” of the saga of World War II (e.g., “Hogan’s Heroes Syndrome”), and diffusing or watering down the responsibility for the holocaust, and the other dehumanizing effects.
14) Intentionally overplaying immigration, particularly by refugees and other forced migrants, as primarily a national security/law enforcement concern rather than as a practical humanitarian response to recurring situations (e.g., the transfer of immigration responsibility from DOL to DOJ and eventually to DHS).
My parting thought is that Perkins’s tale confirmed what many of us already knew. It’s hard to survive as a progressive in Government even with friends in high places.
In an age of human progress in technology, I find it disturbing and puzzling indeed that regression has come to dominate immigration policy and that so many of the deadly and tragic mistakes, misconceptions, and lack of courage that faced Perkins remain very much with us today. As caring and engaged humans, we must strive for just solutions for the sake of future generations. Despite the current, largely unrelentingly negative rhetoric, immigration is integral to our country, is here to stay, and will continue to shape our nation and our world.
[1] *Retired U.S. Immigration Judge, retired adjunct law professor, former Chairman, Board of Immigration Appeals, former Deputy General Counsel and Acting General Counsel, “Legacy” Immigration & Naturalization Service, former law partner, current member of the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges. These are my views and do not represent the views of any organization or entity with which I am currently associated, have been associated in the past, or might become associated with in the future.
Professor Karen Musalo
Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Hastings Law
In times like these, we should not depend solely on the courts. There are many of us here in the U.S. who believe that the world’s refugee framework — developed in response to the profound moral failure of turning back the St. Louis — is worth fighting for. We need to take a vocal stand. The clear message must be that those fleeing persecution should never be returned to persecution.
It’s been a busy time for Karen. She writes in Linkedin:
I was very honored to be chosen by the 2025 graduates of UC Law, San Francisco, to be their faculty speaker. Our students truly inspire me, and make me hopeful for the future.
Karen Musalo speaking at UC Law graduation, May 2025. PHOTO: Linkedin
***********************
Thanks for speaking out so forcefully and articulately, my friend! Sticking to and standing up for values and the rule of law is important, particularly in an age of scofflaws, myth spreaders, and dehumanizers! One need look only as far as the St. Louis incident that you cite to see how even with the benefit of historical knowledge and fact, some among us stubbornly stick to lies, myths, and xenophobia with tragic and deadly results.
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
[T]he Board in Matter of A-A-R- impermissibly reinterpreted the evidence in a very selective way in order to reach a different conclusion than that reached by the trier of fact. As the Fourth Circuit recently held in reversing the Board, “In conducting clear error review, the BIA may not reweigh evidence or ‘substitute[ ] its own judgment for that of the IJ.’”
For all of the above reasons, a prediction that A-A-R- will not withstand circuit court scrutiny would not be clearly erroneous.
Thanks, Jeffrey, my friend and colleague, for your scholarly exposition of the BIA’s result-oriented sophistry. It’s no coincidence that in erroneously reversing a solid CAT grant to El Salvador the BIA chose, as it seldom does in other than a negative context, to reject a very viable form of mandatory protection, to a country currently in the news, which is available without regard to criminal record, alleged gang membership, and /or discretionary factors.
By choosing to designate it as a rare precedent, the “captive” BIA appears to be fulfilling the political demands of the Trump Administration to be able to argue, contrary to the Supremes, that no fair hearings are necessary in similar cases of illegal removals because an ultimate negative result is foreordained by precedent (even though that is clearly wrong, even under A-A-R-).
Administration lawyers have even gone to the extraordinary extent of trying to— so far unsuccessfully — submit and argue that bogus “predictive denials” — basically the DHS’s position without any opportunity to challenge — can be relied upon by a reviewing Article III court to deny the return of individuals wrongfully deported. What a complete crock and insult to the rule of law, as well as to the judges to which these disingenuous arguments are addressed! 🤬🤮
While “third country removals” are possible for those granted withholding of removal or deferral of removal under the CAT, proper legal procedure and due process require that 1) the DHS seek to reopen the case for designation of a new country of removal (unless such alternative country was previously designated and named in the Immigraton Judge’s order), and 2) the respondent be given a reasonable opportunity to raise any protection claims relating to that country.
Christie Thompson Staff Writer The Marshall Project PHOTO: The Marshall ProjectHon. Sarah Burr Retired U.S. Immigration Judge Knightess of The Round Table Photo Source: Immigrant Justice Corps website
“These all have the same objective, which is to strip immigrants of their rights in court,” said former immigration judge Sarah Burr. “The idea that this would somehow speed up the process is ridiculous. It’s only going to slow it down.”
Burr said that forcing someone to appear in court without an attorney makes it a judge’s responsibility to ensure someone understands what is happening and can make decisions in their case. “That takes a long time,” she said. “You’re being put in an awkward position. You almost become a party instead of the judge.”
It was a “full house:” full of talent, energy, skills, and determination to fight for due process for all! Thanks to all who participated from across the nation. This year’s timely focus was on detention and bond.
I was honored to serve on this distinguished and congenial faculty. Kudos to “Dean” Rekha Sharma-Crawford for her leadership in putting everything together and making it happen! (All while winning two TROs against the DHS overreach in “real time.” Nothing like showing “applied practical scholarship” to inspire and motivate a student body!)
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
From Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” S. Chase:
Hi all: The Supreme Court issued its decision today in Monsalvo-Velazquez v. Bondi, in which our Round Table filed an amicus brief at the request of Petitioner’s counsel.
I’m happy to report that in a 5-4 decision written by Justice Gorsuch (attached), the Court agreed with the position that when the deadline for voluntary departure falls on a weekend or holiday, the period for VD extends to the next business day.
We had explained in our brief that this reading is consistent with long-settled practices in the immigration courts.
Congrats to all, and much thanks to attorneys Collin White and Scott Angstreich of the law firm of Kellogg Hansen for representing us on the brief..
For our new members, this is the fifth time that the Round Table has filed a brief in a winning Supreme Court case. The others are:
Niz-Chavez v. Garland, holding that the INA’s “stop time” rule for cancellation of removal may only be triggered by the filing of an NTA that is a single document, containing all the necessary information (this decision made many thousands eligible for cancellation of removal);
Nasrallah v. Barr, allowing CAT applicants to seek judicial review of factual challenges to a CAT order notwithstanding the limitations created by sections 1252(a)(2)(C) and (D) of the Act;
Wilkinson v. Garland, holding that hardship determinations in cancellation B cases are mixed questions of fact and law, and are therefore reviewable by circuit courts; and
Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, which held that where the BIA commits error in its decision, a respondent need not first seek reopening by the Board in order to exhaust its remedies before seeking judicial review.
The BIA’s use of wrong standard to deny life-saving relief really, really stinks! PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
Excerpt:
This Circuit has long recognized the clearly erroneous standard, articulating it memorably as requiring the appellate body to find that the factual findings are “wrong with the force of a five-week-old, unrefrigerated dead fish.” Cox Enters., Inc. v. News-Journal Corp., 794 F.3d 1259, 1272 n.92 (11th Cir. 2015) (quoting Parts & Elec. Motors, Inc. v. Sterling Elec. Inc., 866 F.2d 228, 233 (7th Cir. 1988)). Rather than follow this approach, in the case at bar the Board instead treated the immigration judge’s findings like fresh sushi-grade tuna, ready to be cut and served as the BIA wished.
“There’s so much crying from Republicans that racism is over and it’s done,” Leguizamo said in October. “Well, try being a Latin person one day in America and see what racism does to you, with them destroying the DEI programs and affirmative action. It’s so undermining of creating a better and stronger country.”
Immigrant storytelling through compelling, well-conducted, skillfully organized direct examination is one of the skills NDPA faculty litigators have been teaching at various seminars and workshops, like the upcoming Immigration Court Trial Litigation College sponsored by Pen & Sword ✒️🗡️ scheduled for later this month in Kansas City. Many thanks to our “Dean” of the Trial College, Rekha Sharma-Crawford, for making it happen. Life can imitate art, and the “real-life drama of the Immigration Court” — where human lives and our nation‘s future are at stake every day — is more compelling than any TV legal series!
A Helping Hand.jpg Image depicts a child coming to the aid of another in need. Once we have climbed it is essential for the sake of humanity that we help others do the same. It is knowing that we all could use, and have used, a helping hand. Safiyyah Scoggins – PVisions1111 Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 White Nationalist Xenophobes have abandoned Traditional Judeo-Christian values in favor of neo-fascism.But, the rest of us should hold true to our “better angels.”
Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase writes:
Hi all: Attached is our just-filed amicus brief in support of the Unaccompanied Children Program.
Once again, this was a real team effort. Major thanks to Ashley Tabaddor, for lending her expertise and powerful anecdotes on very short notice. Also thanks to Sue Roy, the eagle-eyed editing of Helen Sichel, and Denise Slavin for your contributions.
We never stand so tall as when we file an amicus brief to help unaccompanied children.
Hon. Jennie Giambastiani U.S. Immigration Judge (retired) Member, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges PHOTO: Linkedin
The Trump administration is stripping funding for legal representation from tens of thousands of children who are unaccompanied migrants in the United States, a move immigration lawyers warn violates their legal rights and will leave minors vulnerable to abuse.
“Picture yourself thrown into a detention center in a foreign country where you don’t speak the language, where you don’t understand that country’s complex legal system, only to be told that now you must fend for yourself, assert your rights and seek whatever protections that country might offer you,” Jennie Giambastiani, a retired immigration judge, said Tuesday during a call organized by the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights.
“Now picture yourself as a child in that situation,” she added.
Government-funded attorneys changed that dynamic, Giambastiani said, because they worked hard “to make sure that the children understood the proceedings and could present their claims in court.” Most unaccompanied children can’t afford to hire their own legal representation.
Without those lawyers, Giambastiani said separately, the immigration courts would be thrown into “chaos”: “The judge won’t have any sense that this child understands why [they’re] there in court.”
Thanks for speaking out for American justice, my friend and colleague! Expect more soon from our Round Table ⚔️🛡️ on this outrageous breach of due process, good government, and common sense!
Kansas City folks! It’s that time! The Annual Immigration Court Trial Advocacy College convenes in just over a month. Come play a witness and help train the next class of fearless immigration trial lawyers! Share with your networks please! 🙏🏽
*******************************
See you in Kansas City in April, along with my wonderful faculty friends and colleagues at the Annual Immigraton Court Trial Advocacy College. Never has effective advocacy been more important!
Professor Karen Musalo
