"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.
Courtney Greene Accredited Representative Catholic Charities of Central Texas VIISTA Villanova Grad PHOTO: Linkedin
Courtney writes:
I went to my first merits hearing with a client yesterday in San Antonio and she was granted asylum!! Thank you for your continued advocacy for due process and your participation in my training as a VIISTA student. I feel so thankful that there are people like you, ensuring that people experience justice after so much suffering!
***************************
Thanks, Courtney. It’s YOU, and others like you, getting the job done. Saving individual lives every day!
As my friend and former partner at Fragomen Cynthia Lange pointed out at a recent PLI conference, if every attorney or accredited representative who cares about justice saves just one life over the next four years, that’s thousands of lives saved, including family members! And, that will inspire others to do the same. Eventually, it can be tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of lives saved!
As I’ve previously observed:
Rather than looking for expensive ways to diminish asylum-seekers’ rights and inflict more cruelty, Congress and the Administration should be investing in cost-effective programs like VIISTA that actually work, protect rights, and have promise for the future!
Building hope rather than intentionally causing despair!😎 Why don’t our public officials “get it?”
So much of the suffering that Courtney references is unnecessarily caused, compounded, or aggravated by our own nation’s lousy, inhumane, and often scofflaw asylum policies and procedures!
If only our national leaders were paying attention! 🤯 The best answers are out here, and they don’t involve expensive and counterproductive “mass deportations,” more inhumane detention facilities, or spreading fear among communities! Never too young to become a member of the “New Due Process Army!”
Twilight Near Sedona, AZ Paul Wickham Schmidt June 13, 2024
In September 2024, I was invited to address a group of prospective social workers on immigration policy in the Biden Administration. They had read my previous published article “An Overview and Critique of US Immigration and Asylum Policies In The Trump Era” (2018). They requested an “update” on that article to cover significant developments during the Biden Administration.
While, obviously, things have changed since the election, I believe this speech still has relevance. Therefore, I publish it in a revised and updated version.
REVISITED: U.S. Immigration & Asylum Policies In The Twilight Of The Biden Administration
Originally Delivered in September 2024
Edited and Revised, Nov. 4, 2024
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
I call on you to join our NDPA, use your skills, commitment, and power to resist the haters, oppose the wobbly enablers, expose political bullies who trade away lives and rights that aren’t theirs, and fight to finally deliver on our nation’s yet-unfulfilled promise of due process, fundamental fairness, and equal justice for all in America!
INTRODUCTION
Good evening, and thanks for inviting me. Please listen very carefully to the following important announcement.
In the next hour, you will hear no party line, no bureaucratic doublespeak, no sugar coating, no BS, or other such nonsense. Just the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, of course as I define truth and see it through the lens of my five decades of work with and in the American immigration system.
The views expressed herein are mine, and mine alone. They also do not represent the position of any group, organization, individual, or other entity with which I am presently associated, have associated with in the past, or might become associated with in the future.
But, that’s not all folks! Because today is Wednesday and you are such a wonderful audience, I give you my famous, “industry best,” absolute, unconditional, money back guarantee that the following presentation will be free of power points, split screens, and all other forms of distracting modern technology that might interfere with your comprehension and total listening enjoyment. For the next hour, I will be your “power point.”
Congratulations and my deep appreciation for your noble choice of social work as a career. Your skills and talents are desperately needed in our society. As you might imagine, as an Immigration Judge I heard and relied upon expert testimony from professional social workers, among others.
I am also well aware of the important behind the scenes efforts of social workers to get individuals and families beyond their often-traumatic situations here and abroad, to adjust to and be able to function in our society, and thereby to have the confidence and devote the necessary attention to working with their legal representatives to present the best cases possible in court. As a decision-maker, sound information cogently presented is the key to getting it right and doing justice.
You are fortunate to have some great, inspirational examples to guide you.
Three of my personal heroes come to mind. First, Aimee Miller who owns and operates a group practice called Interconnect: Counseling and Consulting, LLC, dedicated to conducting psychosocial and mental health evaluations and providing expert testimony and reports for immigration proceedings. She also teaches at the University of Michigan, School of Social Work.
My friend Joan Hodges Wu, a licensed social worker, is the founder and CEO of AsylumWorks in Washington, D.C. Her organization is devoted to helping newly arrived asylum seekers and their families navigate the legal, language, employment, educational, and other potential hurdles of adjusting to a new life while facing the uncertainties of the future.
Another friend, Hanna Cartwright, received dual degrees in social work and law from Catholic University in D.C. She was an intern at the “Legacy” Arlington Immigration Court and a “charter member” of what I call the “New Due Process Army,” or “NDPA.” This is a group of outstanding professionals, many of them former students of mine at Georgetown Law, interns, and judicial law clerks at the Arlington Court, who are committed to social justice and “fighting the good fight” to force our nation to deliver on its promise of due process for immigrants. Hannah has had a varied career and has risen to become the co-founder and Director of Mariposa Legal in Indianapolis, Indiana.
Additionally, I am proud to be on the Advisory Council of AYUDA, a community group serving the needs of asylum seekers and other immigrants in the D.C. metro area. AYUDA attorneys appeared before me pro bono when I was on the bench. Social work is one of the major service divisions of AYUDA, in addition to legal and language services.
These are all great and inspiring examples of individuals and organizations that “put it all on the line,” every day, to make their communities, America, and the world better places. And certainly, as you will find, there are many more of these throughout America.
I recently read an article in the Washington Post about the struggles and divisions in a small community in Massachusetts with resettling, on a temporary basis, a limited number of pregnant women, children, and families. Most of those at issue are recent arrivals to the U.S., many camping in a concourse at Logan Airport for weeks or even months. [1]
We need better resettlement programs. For some inexplicable reason, the Biden Administration thought that it would be a good idea to essentially “outsource” resettlement to restrictionist GOP governors like Abbott and DeSantis. They, in turn, bussed, or in some cases even flew, recently-arrived asylum seekers to locations in so-called “blue states,” where they believed they would overload local resources and cause problems, thereby inflaming xenophobic resentment.
Instead of such inexcusable nonsense, we need asylum resettlement programs that are “dressed for success” – some type of “national clearing house” to match asylees in an orderly fashion with locations across the U.S. where their skills are needed and they would be welcomed. Then, these communities and the asylum seekers must have support services to insure a mutually beneficial transition and reduce misunderstandings and resentments on both parts.
These organized programs should concentrate on preparing, supporting, informing, educating, and communicating with communities and migrants, requirements that are often overlooked or inadequate today. Change is an inevitable part of life, but that doesn’t mean everybody will like or accept it. We need better ways of “getting over the hump together.”
Tragically, neither political party appears interested in investing in the successful resettlement efforts that will benefit our nation and those seeking refuge through asylum. Therefore, it is likely to fall to the private/NGO sector to “model success” and innovative thinking. Certainly, social work services are an important part of this multi-disciplinary approach.
Now, to the main part of my presentation. You have read my 2019 article “An Overview and Critique of US Immigration and Asylum Policies in the Trump Era.” You have asked me to update you on the current status of the four “membership categories” that I posited in that article: full members; associate members, friends, and outcasts. So, here goes.
FULL MEMBERS
With respect to full members, essentially U.S. citizens, I’m pleased to report that naturalizations are up under the Biden Administration. As of this summer, more than 3.3 million new citizens had been naturalized as opposed to a little under 3 million during the entire Trump Administration. [2]
I think this is the result of ending the misallocation of resources and intimidation tactics used by the bureaucracy under Trump to discourage naturalization. The end of COVID also played a role. Plus, the Trump Administration’s message of hate, lies, and overt xenophobia probably convinced many lawful permanent residents that they would be safer with the protections of U.S. citizenship and the ability to vote on their political leaders.
Of course, you have probably heard of Trump’s outrageous threat to mess with birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment. Since this is a constitutional right, it legally can’t be abridged by either executive action or legislation. The intent here appears to be to harass, dehumanize, and spread fear among our ethic communities and to basically cast doubt on the status of many loyal Americans, mostly of color, who obtained citizenship in this manner notwithstanding the immigration status of their parents.
ASSOCIATE MEMBERS
Turning to “associate members,” basically green card holders, refugees, and asylees, admissions and adjustments to lawful permanent residence are up. Again, this probably stems largely from the end of COVID and the elimination of some bureaucratic hurdles, as well as some efforts to address backlogs at USCIS.
There has been a significant improvement and revival of U.S. overseas refugee programs. They are now on target to exceed 100,000 refugee admissions, although probably falling a bit short of the 125,000 announced target number. Compare that with the paltry fewer than 12,000 admissions in the final fiscal year of the Trump Administration.[3]
Still, refugee programs are underutilized and not targeting all our real needs. For example, while the Administration has significantly improved refugee admissions from Latin America and the Caribbean, they are still well below the number necessary to meet actual demand. Of the top five refugee admission countries, DRC, Syria, Afghanistan, Burma, and Guatemala, only the latter is in the Western Hemisphere.
Worse yet, has been the cowardly bipartisan attack on our legal asylum system at the Southern Border. This culminated in some of the most draconian anti-asylum executive actions ever in relatively recent regulations issued over the strenuous, well-founded objections of experts, advocates, and NGOs with actual experience in the plight of asylum seekers.
Disgracefully, the Biden Administration is considering extending these legally questionable provisions, now under attack in litigation. At the same time, V.P. Harris has pledged that if elected she would attempt to resurrect a horrible, anti-asylum “Bipartisan Border Bill” aimed at accomplishing much of the same damage. For his part, Trump has long demeaned and dehumanized legal asylum seekers and would happily seek to eliminate or further restrict their admission.
Neither party seems interested in “doing the right, and obvious, thing” – building an asylum screening and adjudication system that actually works in a fair, generous, and timely manner. The Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”), an agency of the USDOJ that contains the Immigration Courts, where I once worked, is a particularly dysfunctional mess, with out-of-control backlogs burgeoning to nearly 4 million cases. It also produces wildly inconsistent results with asylum grant rates ranging from approximately 0% to 100% among nearly 700 Immigration Judges.
Essentially, both parties seek to improperly punish and demean legal asylum seekers for their bipartisan failure to fix the asylum adjudication system across more than two decades. That’s what “bipartisanship” has come to mean in immigration: Basically, a race to the bottom to find the lowest common denominator!
FRIENDS
With respect to so called-friends, those with limited permission to be here, but no clear path to permanent residence or citizenship, nonimmigrant visas have rebounded with the lifting of COVID restrictions.
However, so-called “Dreamers” remain in limbo. There is no foreseeable prospect for legislative relief and a “red-state” challenge to the legality of their DACA status is in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, likely headed for the Supremes.
The Biden Administration used executive actions to create some new “legal pathways” programs allowing up to 30,000 per month pre-screened individuals with U.S. sponsors to be “paroled” into the U.S. for an initial two-year period. This program has proved somewhat successful in reducing pressure at the Southern Border.
However, it is limited to nationals of Cuba, Haiti, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. That plus the numerical limitations diminish its ameliorative effect. In addition, the program had to be temporarily paused to look into allegations of sponsorship fraud.
Moreover, unlike those admitted in refugee or asylum status, those paroled have no statutory path to green cards and eventual U.S. citizenship. They would need special legislation to gain lawful permanent status.
But, given strong GOP opposition to these humanitarian programs, these individuals are likely to remain in “limbo,” and become “political footballs” subject to the whims of the next Administration. Many have been, or will be, forced into the already backlogged asylum adjudication system, thereby defeating part of the original purpose of these parole programs.[4]
Remarkably, the Administration also chose to use parole, rather than the refugee system, to allow large numbers of our Afghan allies to come to the United States following the Taliban takeover. These also remain in limbo, in the absence of a legislative path to permanent status.
Unlike Trump, who tried to restrict and eliminate so-called Temporary Protected Status, or “TPS” wherever possible, the Biden Administration has made relatively robust use of TPS. The Administration has also made some improvements in the timely issuance and renewal of important “Employment Authorization Documents” (“EADs”) for those awaiting adjudication of applications filed with USCIS and EOIR.
OUTCASTS
With respect to those “outcasts” who don’t fit within any of the three foregoing categories, sometimes called “undocumented,” their numbers are probably around 10 to 12 million. [5]It is certainly not the bogus 20 million figure that GOP politicos and the right-wing media like to throw around. It’s also unclear to me whether this figure subsumes the many asylum applicants who actually are neither “undocumented” nor “illegal,” but here with Government permission to pursue their legal asylum applications before the USCIS Asylum Office and/or EOIR.
The Biden Administration tried to help noncitizen spouses and stepchildren of USCs regularize their status with a widely-hailed practical, humanitarian program called “Parole in Place” (“PIP”). However, perhaps predictably, a Trump-appointed Federal Judge blocked the PIP Program, at least temporarily. He acted at the request of “red states” with anti-immigrant agendas. So, while PIP registrations are still taking place, the fate of the program is unclear at this juncture.
Perhaps, worst of all, as I mentioned earlier, the Immigration Courts remain a dismal mess, with nearly 4 million case backlog that has grown exponentially under A.G. Garland. Instead of fixing EOIR and standing up for the legal and human rights of asylum seekers, Garland has instituted “built to fail” gimmicks like “expedited dockets” and approved regulations barring most asylum claims at southern border in violation of the statutory right, not to mention human right, to seek asylum “regardless of status.”
NGOs, practical experts, and advocates who, unlike Garland and his lieutenants, actually work with asylum seekers at the border and elsewhere, have documented how these tone-deaf policies increase deaths and abuses of asylum seekers in Mexico and beyond. However, truth has been to no avail in this appalling situation. I’d argue that most of the Administration’s misguided “maximum enforcement/no due process” at the border has been in response to their abject failure to bring long-overdue reforms to EOIR and the AO. They now seek to “cover-up” this massive failure by scheming to avoid the system entirely, rather than fixing it.
Trump outrageously threatens mass deportations. These would not only violate laws guaranteeing due process, but also sow fear and terror in many ethnic communities, which is, of course, the real point of such threats: essentially “dehumanization” or “de-personification” of wide swarths of our society going far beyond immigrants. At the same time, he would waste money, misdirect law enforcement resources, and likely tank our economy, which depends heavily on the labor of immigrants, both legal and undocumented. Not a pretty picture.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the Biden Administration has been a “mixed bag” on immigration, human rights, civil rights, and the rule of law. Basically, it has been “one step forward, and two steps back.”
A number of the Administration’s ameliorative programs for immigrants, like retention of DACA, humanitarian parole, increased refugee admissions, and “Parole in Place” have been too timid, limited, or blocked by restrictionist litigation.
On the other hand, bad border policies and largely ignoring the due process crisis in the Immigration Courts have undermined the rule of law, promoted the “bipartisan demonization and dehumanization of asylum seekers and other migrants at the border,” squandered scarce resources in the private/NGO sector, and wrecked death, despair, and untold misery on some of our most vulnerable fellow humans.
In extremely unfortunate ways, we are now replicating the very pre-1980 programs and disorganized, ad hoc, often-biased approaches that the Refugee Act of 1980 and the creation of EOIR were intended to solve.
Refugee provisions are avoided when dealing with so-called “emergencies,” leading to the mass parole of Afghans, limbo status, and the need for Congressional action for permanent status. Asylum determinations are basically reverting to ad hoc, often arbitrary and capricious, decisions that favor some nationalities and ethnicities over others based on US internal politics and foreign policy concerns. Humanitarian parole programs, while potentially a step in the right direction, deny individuals the stability and clear route to green cards and citizenship as well as some of the protections that come with refugee, asylum, and other types of legal admissions. It also makes them “political footballs” for the restrictionist right.
Making EOIR an independent entity within DOJ, back in 1983, a process I was involved in, was supposed to advance quasi-judicial independence and professionalism. Instead, after decades of bipartisan misdirection and mismanagement, the Immigration Courts have essentially resumed some of their pre-EOIR characteristics of being perceived, and often acting, as politicized arms of DHS enforcement, too often lacking professionalism, expertise, consistency, practical problem-solving abilities, and compassion.
I recently posted on Linkedin an article by Eduardo Porter that summarized the current gloomy and disturbing state of our national non-debate on immigration:
Consider immigration, the epicenter of zero-sum thinking in voters’ minds. It’s an issue that is critical to the United States’ future and a topic that is easily demagogued as a struggle between endangered Americans and some predatory “other.” Harris, like Biden, has worked to distance herself from Trump’s most implausible ideas (such as expelling 11 million people). Still, she leads a Democratic Party that believes one of its paramount challenges is stopping immigrants from coming to the United States. [6]
That’s a rather sad, yet fundamentally true, commentary on how our nation of immigrants now thinks and acts. The GOP demonizes, dehumanizes, and lies about immigrants; the Dems roll over and want to change the subject. As you witnessed in the Presidential “debate,” actually more of an exercise in “performative entertainment” than a serious discussion of issues, we don’t know November’s winners, but we already know the losers: Immigrants, due process, and social justice advocates.
Few, if any, politicos on the national level have the moral courage and clear vision to mount a well-justified, evidence-based defense of asylum seekers and other migrants. Likewise, few of them advocate for investing in achievable improvements in the system. Instead, they seek partisan political advantage, on the backs of the desperate and disenfranchised, by eagerly and cynically pouring money and manpower into cruel, ultimately ineffective, enforcement and “deterrence” gimmicks.
The latter, not incidentally, have spawned a highly profitable and politically potent industry that benefits from every deadly, failed border deterrence “enhancement.” No wonder positive change and creative problem solving are so elusive, and so many of our politicos lack the guts effectively to protect immigrants’ lives, human dignity, and rights at the border and beyond!
More than 50 years of experience working in our immigration systems, at different levels, and from many angles, tell me the following inalienable truths:
Human migration is real;
Forced migration is exactly that;
It won’t be stopped by walls, prisons, deterrents, or other cruelty;
Asylum is a human and legal right;
Immigrants are good for America; and
Due process for all persons in the U.S. is essential.
My time on the stage is winding down. But, yours, my friends, is just beginning. I call on you to join our NDPA, use your skills, commitment, and power to resist the haters, oppose the wobbly enablers, expose political bullies who trade away lives and rights that aren’t theirs, and fight to finally deliver on our nation’s yet-unfulfilled promise of due process, fundamental fairness, and equal justice for all in America!
The Lion King by Giles Laurent Creative Commons 4.0 Attribution
HINT: It’s neither the one that let NFL MVP leading candidate Saquon Barkley walk (and proceed to run wild over the league), nor the one that signed Aaron Rodgers to an overpriced contract!
The Board’s holding in Matter of Fernandes, 28 I&N Dec. 605, 610–11 (BIA 2022), that an objection to a noncompliant notice to appear will generally be considered timely if raised prior to the close of pleadings is not a change in law, and thus Matter of Fernandes applies retroactively.
“In a decision dated October 24, 2022, the Immigration Judge granted the respondents’ motion to terminate their removal proceedings based on a noncompliant notice to appear. The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) has appealed, arguing that the Immigration Judge erred in not applying Matter of Fernandes, 28 I&N Dec. 605 (BIA 2022). The appeal will be sustained, and the record will be remanded. … Our guidance in Matter of Fernandes as to the timeliness of the claim-processing rule objection to a noncompliant notice to appear applies retroactively. The respondents did not object to the missing information in their notices to appear before the close of pleadings and have not otherwise demonstrated that their objection should be considered timely. Thus, they have forfeited their objection. We will sustain DHS’ appeal, vacate the Immigration Judge’s decision, and remand for further proceedings.”
Immigration will be a key issue in the next administration. Join a panel of experts from the Cornell Law School immigration law and policy research program to learn what immigration laws and policies might change, both in the lame duck session and in 2025.
🇺🇸⚖️🗽😎BRINGING HOPE 🙏& LIGHT💡: ROUND TABLE🛡️, NDPA ALL-STARS ✨HELP CA 2 👩🏽⚖️CORRECT YET ANOTHER TOTAL SCREW-UP BY GARLAND’S DOJ! — This time EOIR blew competency determination, couldn’t properly apply own precedents to achieve due process, fundamental fairness!🤯
Hon. Cecelia M.Espenoza Former Appellate Immigration Judge, BIA Source: Denverdemocrats.org
DISTRICT 4:
Candidate
Total Votes
% Votes
Cecelia Espenoza (D)
20,806
80.5%
Jack Daus (R)
5,042
19.5%
SOURCE: AZCENTRAL.com
****************************
You go, my friend and colleague! Thanks for running and for standing up for a better, fairer America! Building a “values based movement” starts at the “grass roots level.” You’re getting it done, Cecelia!
Creator: Ike Hayman Credit: Ike Hayman SOURCE: Wikipedia
Hillary’s statement from X:
I set out to build a new political home in West Michigan, and with this decisive victory, we’ve proven that what we made is built to last. It truly is a new day in West Michigan. It has been the honor of my lifetime to serve you in Congress, and I’m ready to get back to work.
42-years-old, brilliant, practical, solution-focused, works well with others, dedicated to family, flipped a formerly GOP seat in 2020. As Dems examine the “carnage of 2022,” maybe it’s time to thrust this rising superstar 🌟 into a more prominent leadership role!
Michelle N. Mendez, ESQ Director of Legal Resources and Training National Immigration Project, National Lawyers Guild PHOTO: NIPNLGVictoria Neilson NDPA SUPERSTAR ATTORNEY PHOTO: CLINIC
Michelle writes:
The American Immigration Lawyers Association has just released its first ever book on immigration court trial skills. The book is authored by my colleague Victoria Neilson and myself, and was reviewed by several retired immigration judges, including the Hon. Dana Leigh Marks. It grew out of a collaboration between the National Immigration Project and the National Institute for Trial Advocacy, through which we have been providing intensive trial skills training courses in the context of immigration court for several years.
We hope the book will become a go-to resource for immigrant defenders as they prepare for individual hearings and think through rules of evidence, trial strategy, and best practices for questioning, objections, closing arguments, and more.
The book is available for purchase as an e-book or print book. It will also be posted on AILALink in a couple of months.
What an important and monumental contribution to “practical scholarship!”
I look forward to appearing with Michelle on an Immigration Court practice panel with Aimee Mayer-Salens & Sarah Owings at AILA New England in Boston this Friday, Nov. 8!
With lots of help from our friends, the Round Table has become a “Powerful Force of Nature,” carving out a spot for due process even along the most wild and rugged coasts! PHOTO: PWS Maine Collection“Our Fearless Leader,” Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
“Sir Jeffrey” Chase forwarded this note of appreciation from one of the all-star advocates who represented The Round Table in drafting an amicus brief:
You, Paul and the Roundtable played a central role in this decision. Beyond the persuasive amicus brief, your group—along with . . . . —gave me the confidence to pursue the due process claim . . . . Your advocacy is admirable and much needed; it also has an impact beyond just the individual cases you support as an amicus. . . . . [T]his case has been one of the most impressive collaborative efforts I’ve had the opportunity to be involved with [in my decade of professional experience.] Thank you again for your interest and support of this important case, as well as your work in this space more broadly.
This is also a great space to once again thank all of the top flight legal talent, law firms, NGOs, and legal clinics that have donated their time and talents pro bono to the cause of due process, equal justice for all, and advancing best practices. Indeed, you have “given us a voice” — one that has proved to have an outsized impact on our American justice system.
Working with our wonderful“partners in due process and professional excellence” has been a total joy and fulfilling career opportunity for each of us! We never, ever forget what we owe to your skill and generous donation of time, resources, and effort. Just as we are committed to insuring that all individuals appearing in Immigration Court — the essential “retail level” of our justice system — have a right to be heard, YOU have insured that WE will be heard — loudly and clearly for a long time to come! Thank you again from the bottom. of our “collective hearts!”💕
The Center for Migration Studies is proud to present Karen T. Grisez Esq. with the Humanitarian Service Award, in recognition of her extraordinary commitment to the protection of migrants and refugees, impact and leadership in the practice of immigration law, and tireless dedication to justice. Ms. Grisez has served as Chair of the American Bar Association’s (ABA’s) Commission on Immigration, is a member of the Advisory Board of the ABA’s Immigration Justice Project in San Diego, and is a former co-chair of the ABA Section of Litigation’s Immigration Litigation Committee.
Each week, we send a FREE newsletter which covers the latest US and international policy updates in English and Spanish, news articles related to migration issues, CMS featured articles, and Catholic/Faith-based updates. Click the button below to sign up for this weekly newsletter, and share it with your friends and colleagues.
The Center for Migration Studies (CMS) is a New York-based educational institute devoted to the study of international migration, to the promotion of understanding between immigrants and receiving communities, and to public policies that safeguard the dignity and rights of migrants, refugees, and newcomers. For more information, please visit www.cmsny.org.
Dr. Alicia Triche Superlawyer, Co-Editor, immigrationcourtside.com Memphis, TN
🗽📰
Featured cases:
Tista-Ruiz de Ajualip v. Garland, 114 F.4th 487 (6th Cir. 2024)
Al Otro Lado v. Mayorkas, ___ F.4th ___, 2024 WL 4551637 (Oct. 23, 2024).
MEANINGLESS WORDS. …It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning… George Orwell, Politics and the English Language.
I draft this first Courtside during a pivotal moment in US History. Readers can barely power up any screen, anywhere, without seeing dire warnings that the “rule of law” is on the ballot; that the “rule of law.” Hangs on a string. But, those who advocate for the integrity of US refugee law have seen that string threaten to come unraveled for almost a decade. And in this first of blogs, I offer two unequivocal rays of hope. In two of its most vulnerable places—possibly even the most unlikely of places—the fragile thread has endured; the rule of law has held fast.
When I reference this “rule of law,” I’m invoking the idea that “words are supposed to carry meanings,” and great “danger lies in straining a text beyond the outermost limits of its natural elasticity.”[i] When words lose meaning, we don’t have rule of law, we have rule of people, with all that implies. At its core, protection for US refugees is not people-based; it is statutory. It is comprised not by executive or political policies, but in the words of the US Immigration and Nationality Act. Yet, as the subject of “immigration” endures focus-glare equal to the Eye of Sauron, in a constant stream of press, litigation, and politicization, the legal nature of the words in the statute become ever more vulnerable to deterministic and bad-faith interpretation.
Because they involve some of the most controversial aspects of current immigration law—that is, the arrival and protection of the most vulnerable of the world’s refugees—the words at issue in today’s two cases are particularly vulnerable to political appropriation. As seen in our first case, Tista-Ruiz de Ajualip, survivors of severe domestic violence seek protection from persecution on account of “membership in a particular social group,” which is referenced at INA Section 101(a)(42)(A). The phrase originated in the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees,[ii] and it is well known among scholars that its definition was not meaningfully discussed during drafting history of the Convention. Indeed, it was not until the final drafting phase, at the Geneva Conference, that the Swedish delegate, Monsieur Petren, proposed (without further explanation) that “membership of a particular social group” should be added to the definition of refugee.[iii] The amendment did pass, but the transcriber of the summary records indicates no discussion whatsoever regarding what “particular social group” meant to the delegate who approved its addition.[iv]
This flexible nature of the language of “particular social group” has a good side, for it has made room for the phrase to be interpreted consistently with developing human rights norms, especially regarding the rights of women. Our illustrious Courtside founder, when he was Chairman of the BIA, initiated the use of the phrase for gender-based protection in the landmark case Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1996). As Judge Schmidt explains it, Kasinga constructed a PSG that the Board, sitting en banc, was willing to accept as a whole. And, key to the case was the central tenet that “FGM can be a basis for asylum.” 21 I&N Dec. at 358.
Years later, after ongoing advocacy by Karen Musalo, Deborah Anker and others, PSG also became the vehicle through with the Board (in effect) ruled that severe domestic violence, when sufficiently unchecked by the State, may be a legitimate ground for asylum. Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 388 (BIA 2014). But, especially in the domestic violence context, the case “law” regarding PSGs was vulnerable to an ongoing, seemingly endless parade of developing rules and “interpretations,” many of which seemed to defy the normal rules of logic.[v] In 2018, the Board sacked refugee attorneys with an affirmative duty to articulate their PSGs—or lose them—in Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 189 (BIA 2018). This has led to attorneys regularly providing 5, 10 or even more “particular social groups,” in effort to provide the one an Immigration Judge might hook onto. It has led to PSG formulations that might sound less than perfect, to put it mildly, such as the “Salvadoran women of childbearing age” proposition that unexpectedly led to the good result in Zometa-Orellana v. Garland, 19 F.4th 970 (6th Cir. 2021). And, most importantly for this Blog, it has provided an opportunity for some executive adjudicators at EOIR to engage in decision making that arguably crosses the line from legal to political, divorcing too far from the words at hand, the words contained in the law itself.
This is why what the Sixth Circuit did a few weeks ago in Tista-Ruiz de Ajualip is so very remarkable. The Court’s central holding is that the group “victims of domestic violence” does not, on its face, violate what’s known as the “circularity” rule. The reasoning of the Court is what’s so remarkable, for it constitutes a strong assertion of integrity of the rule of law in the refugee context. The Court holds that no PSG can be dismissed “in a perfunctory manner,” solely by looking at the words used in formulating it. 114 F.4th at 498. Invoking Zometa-Orellana’s emphasis on “international obligations”, the Court says that any PSG analysis must utilize an independent review of the record “as a whole”, including country conditions. Id..
The case doubles down on what I (frankly) thought was the most vulnerable aspect of Zometa-Orellana v. Garland: that the point of a domestic-violence based adjudication is to comply with US “international obligations” to protect refugees (id. at 498) (italics in original (!)) The Court also repeats that failure to “exactly delineate a convoluted legal concept” (i.e., PSG), is not a grounds for denial of refugee protection (id. at 501), and that there is an “independent role” (read, power) for BIA and Immigration Judges to assess domestic-violence based claims consistently with international obligations—particularly during assessment of the proposed PSG. (id. at 500–502.) In other words, the Court doubles down on the admonition that had already been implied in Zometa-Orellana: refugee law, is, law; the words contained therein are not to be used as a pretext to deny protection to domestic violence survivors who otherwise qualify as refugees under the CSR; and if the ”decision” being reviewed seems to do so, it will be reviewed, substantively, for signs of having crossed that line.
A final note for any advanced PSG practitioners who might be tuned in—there’s a good argument, in my opinion, that Tista-Ruiz can be invoked to assert that, as long as any one PSG is offered up in compliance with W-Y-C-/H-O-B-, , the IJ and/or the Board can delineate any cognizable group that it finds to exist on the record. It’s worth remembering here that, in Kasinga, the PSG formulated by the Board, was “very similar to” but not the exact “formulation suggested by the parties.” 21 I&N Dec. at 365.
In these blogs, I do intend to stay in my own lane, which is individual removal defense. But I can’t help noting that, as I went to press on this one, the Ninth Circuit also issued Al Otro Lado v. Mayorkas, ___ F.4th ___, 2024 WL 4551637 (9th Cir. 2024). The case is a complex, substantial class-action suit that is deserving of its own individual treatment in another context. But it also contains at least one prime example of a Court giving meaning to words. The Ninth Circuit stood fast in the language and purpose of the INA, even in the context of border arrivals—the group in the hottest of flames under Sauron’s eye. Under INA Section 208(a)(1), any non-citizen “who arrives in the United States…may apply for asylum” under INA Section 208(a)(1). In one of several controversial iterations of a “metering” program, Ports of Entry run by US Customs and Border Patrol had been sending arriving asylum seekers back into Mexico, claiming they had not yet “arrived” in the country. The Ninth Circuit “conclude[d] that a noncitizen stopped by U.S. officials at the border is eligible to apply for asylum under” § 208(a)(1). Al Otro Lado v. Mayorkas, ___ F.4th ___, 2024 WL 4551637, *10 (Oct. 23, 2024)
One of the intrepid litigators of Al Otro Lado, Melissa Crow, issued a statement in reaction to the decision, and I will let her observations take us out:
“Our government has a legal duty to provide a fair and meaningful legal process to all people seeking safety at our border, no matter what. Border agents cannot arbitrarily turn people back to Mexico, a practice that violates our laws, exacerbates chaos at the border, and places refugees directly in harm’s way.”[vi]
[i] Ben Saul, Defining Terrorism in International Law 55 (2006) (citations omitted).
[ii] July 28, 1951, 189 U.N.T.S. 150. The US is bound by Articles 2 through 34 as a party to the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, Jan. 31, 1967, 19 U.S.T. 6224, 606 U.N.T.S. 267 (‘Protocol’). A Convention refugee is a person who, “owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion…is unable or…owing to such fear, is unwilling to return” home. CSR Art. 1A(2).
[iii] Terje Einarsen, “Drafting History of the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol”, in Andreas Zimmermann (ed), The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol: A Commentary 37, [52] (2011), citing UN Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Status of Refugees and Stateless Persons, Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Status of Refugees and Stateless Persons: Summary Record of the Twenty-second Meeting, 26 November 1951, A/CONF.2/SR.22, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae68cde10.html [accessed 11 April 2016].
[v]See, e.g., Karen Musalo, A Short History of Gender Asylum in the United States: Resistance and Ambivalence May Very Slowly Be Inching Towards Recognition of Women’s Claims, Refugee Survey Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 2 (2010); Blaine Bookey, Gender-Based Asylum Post-Matter of A-R-C-G-: Evolving Standards and Fair Application of the Law, 22 SW J. Intl. L 1, 4 (2016). In addition, BIA decisions were and are subject to direct alteration by the Attorney General, and in 2018, Jeff Sessions blatantly attempted to end “claims pertaining to domestic violence or gang violence perpetrated by non-governmental actors” as a grounds for asylum. Matter of A-B-I, 27 I&N Dec. 316, 310 (A.G. 2018), vacated, Matter of A-B-III-, 28 I&N Dec. 307 (A.G. 2021).
