⚖️MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, BUT SLOWLY: President Biden Orders Work To Begin On Representation Issues In Immigration Court, Re-Establishes Interagency Round Table On Civil Legal Services — Basically, Study Without Any Immediate Action!

President Joseph R.Biden
46th President of The United States
(Official portrait of Vice President Joe Biden in his West Wing Office at the White House, Jan. 10, 2013. (Official White House Photo by David Lienemann)..This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House.)

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/05/18/fact-sheet-president-biden-to-sign-presidential-memorandum-to-expand-access-to-legal-representation-and-the-courts/

BRIEFING ROOM

FACT SHEET: President Biden to Sign Presidential Memorandum to Expand Access to Legal Representation and the Courts

MAY 18, 2021 • STATEMENTS AND RELEASES

Today, President Biden will sign a Presidential Memorandum to expand access to legal representation and the courts. As President Biden knows from his experience as a public defender, timely and affordable access to the legal system can make all the difference in a person’s life—including by keeping an individual out of poverty, keeping an individual in his or her home, helping an unaccompanied child seek asylum, helping someone fight a consumer scam, or ensuring that an individual charged with a crime can mount a strong defense and receive a fair trial. But low-income people have long struggled to secure quality access to the legal system. Those challenges have only increased during the public health and economic crises caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. At the same time, civil legal aid providers and public defenders have been under-resourced, understaffed, and unable to reach some of the people in greatest need of their services.

The federal government has a critical role to play in expanding access to the nation’s legal system and supporting the work of civil legal aid providers and public defenders. President Biden’s executive action today will reinvigorate the federal government’s role in advancing access to justice, and help ensure that the Administration’s policies and recovery efforts can reach as many individuals as possible.

The Presidential Memorandum is the Biden-Harris Administration’s latest action to protect vulnerable Americans, reform the justice system, and advance racial equity. On his first day in office, the President issued an executive order establishing a government-wide initiative to put equity at the heart of each agency’s priorities and management agenda. His discretionary budget request called for $1.5 billion in funding for grants to strengthen state and local criminal justice systems, including by investing in public defenders. Improving access to counsel in civil and criminal proceedings builds on each of these efforts.

Specifically, President Biden is directing the following actions:

. . . .

*************************

Read the rest of the “White House Fact Sheet” at the above link.

On one hand, this is welcome news for the NDPA and all who favor equal justice under law in America.

On the other hand, four months into his Administration, President Biden has just gotten around to undoing some of the inane, White Nationalist actions of the Trump Administration by re-establishing initiatives that failed to solve the problems under the Obama Administration only to be completely eradicated by Trump. In plain terms, more study and dialogue, no real action that helps any of the more than one one million poor souls and their loved ones caught up in Garland’s dysfunctional Immigration Courts.

I submit that the huge problems with lack of effective representation in Immigration Court were well known at the outset of the Trump Administration. Over the last four years, lots of creative ideas have surfaced and a number of states, localities, and NGOs have substantially “upped” their commitment to pro bono or low bono services for asylum seekers, detainees, and other migrants. There is lots of “practical scholarly” literature out there on the subject.

Therefore, it would have been reasonable to expect the Biden Administration to take office with specific plans in hand to immediately start building on existing structures and to have immediately re-started the dialogue with legal service providers. Instead, more than 100 days in, we have plans for more study, talk, and recommendations, but no action; the actual situation in the Immigration Courts under Garland continues rapidly to deteriorate; progressive groups of experts with plans on how to solve representation issues have basically been “frozen out” by Biden — writing op-eds, “white papers,” and studies, rather than leading the representation effort from within the Biden Administration and working as part of a team to solve problems in “real time.”

I’ve heard that some plans for improving representation, at least for “vulnerable groups,” are “in the offing” at DOJ. To date, we’ve seen nothing!

And, I can’t name anyone on “Team Garland” or in current EOIR senior management who actually has first-hand experience with pro bono representation in Immigration Court or who has previously offered concrete, positive suggestions for immediate actions to solve this pressing problem. Consequently, I’m frankly skeptical that the expertise exists, particularly at DOJ, to solve this problem without some dramatic personnel shakeups, more aggressive due process restoring actions, and bringing in progressive experts from the outside to administer and improve judging at EOIR. So far, Garland has shown little interest in addressing the dysfunction in his “wholly owned courts,” nor has he shown any ability to reach out and actively recruit the progressive experts he needs to fix EOIR.

Given the disaster of the last four years and Garland’s poor start (including “in your face” judicial appointments and retention of non-progressive Barr holdovers) its going to take a positive outreach campaign to progressives by Garland to stop the bleeding at DOJ.

Therefore, I personally view the White House announcement with “very cautious optimism,” hoping to be pleasantly surprised when it spurs immediate practical action.

Stay tuned!

🇺🇸🗽Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-18-21

REBEKAH WOLF @ AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL ECHOES MY CRITICISM OF GARLAND’S INEXCUSABLE FAILURE TO PROMOTE DIVERSITY, SELECT PROGRESSIVE EXPERTS IN INITIAL IJ PICKS — A Wasted Opportunity That Neither Progressives Nor The Biden Administration Can Afford!

https://immigrationimpact.com/2021/05/13/immigration-judges-under-biden/

First Round of Biden Immigration Judges Fails to Increase Diversity

Posted by Rebekah Wolf | May 13, 2021 | Due Process & the Courts, Immigration Courts

The Biden administration announced its first round of immigration judge appointments on May 6. Unfortunately, the immigration court appointments do not show the commitment to diversity that President Biden has demonstrated in his federal court appointments.

All of the new judges had received conditional offers from the Trump administration. The current administration was under no obligation to continue with the appointments, however. Advocates expressed disappointment in the hires and lack of balanced perspectives and backgrounds. Most of the 17 new immigration judges have experience as prosecutors and/or working for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)—and no experience defending immigrants.

Of the 17 new immigration judges, seven have worked for ICE and five have worked as prosecutors. Only two have worked as immigration defense attorneys, both of whom have also worked for ICE. The perceived bias of having worked for years on one side is concerning enough. But many of the appointees also do not have the substantive knowledge some believe is necessary for the position.

Former Immigration Judge Paul Schmidt commented on the appointments, saying:

“No one on that list is among the top 100 asylum authorities in the country, and that’s the kind of people they should be hiring.”

The appointments include one Assistant Chief Immigration Judge (ACIJ) and six supervisory Unit Chief Immigration Judges (UCIJs), a newly invented position. The UCIJs, only one of whom has a background in immigration law, will be working from a new Immigration Adjudication Center (IAC) in Richmond, Virginia. Like at the two existing IACs, these new immigration judges will hear cases by video-teleconference in office buildings that are closed to the public. Litigation is pending over the government’s failure to provide public information on IACs.

Immigration judge appointments strongly affect immigration court decisions. The Trump administration appointed approximately two-thirds of the 520 current immigration judges. With these new judges and along with significant court policy changes, the asylum denial rate increased from 54.6% in fiscal year 2016 to 71.6% in fiscal year 2020.

The number of immigration judges Biden appoints will also affect the immigration court backlog, currently at 1.3 million cases. Biden’s proposed budget calls for hiring 100 new immigration judges, which many experts say is insufficient. Still, the need for expediency in hiring additional judges cannot outweigh the need for a balance of experience on the bench.

Over a million people are involved in an immigration court system that is inconsistent and unfair. The Biden administration should apply its commitment to judicial diversity to immigration judge appointments, especially a diversity in perspectives and experience.

Ultimately, immigration courts will not be free of the bias inherent to being part of the same branch responsible for prosecution. As advocates have longed called for, Congress must establish Article I immigration courts for immigration proceedings to be truly fair and independent.

FILED UNDER: immigration judges

*************

To date, Garland’s lousy performance @ DOJ gets an “F.” Simply not acceptable with lives on the line!

“Miller Lite” – Garland’s Vision of “Justice @ Justice” for Communities of Color, Women, & Asylum Seekers.”

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-18-21

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA) JOINS CALL FOR GARLAND TO QUICKLY REVERSE TRUMP-ERA RACIST, MISOGYNIST, INCORRECT PRECEDENTS AIMED AT PUNISHING WOMEN REFUGEES FROM THE NORTHERN TRIANGLE!

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Official Portrait

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?id=D36F6BAC-ADE5-4173-BE85-8CE83CD6FE09

Home News Room Press Releases

Feinstein to Garland: Reverse Trump-Era Asylum Eligibility Rules

May 14 2021

Washington—Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) called on Attorney General Merrick Garland to review decisions made by the Trump administration restricting asylum eligibility for victims of domestic and gang violence.

The Refugee Act of 1980 extended asylum protections to foreign nationals who fear to return to their home countries due to past persecution or fear of persecution “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” The Trump administration rejected established precedent by restricting asylum eligibility for victims of gang and domestic violence.

“As a result of these decisions, the United States denies humanitarian relief to asylum-seekers fleeing countries in which 95 percent of sexual violence cases are never investigated and in which gang-related killings and extortion are common practice. This is out of step with our nation’s reputation as a safe haven for those fleeing persecution,” wrote Senator Feinstein.

“I ask that you … consider vacating … those decisions and bring our asylum system back into alignment with the law and the values informing it,” Feinstein added.

Full text of the letter is available here and below:

May 13, 2021

The Honorable Merrick B. Garland

Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530

Dear Attorney General Garland:

I write regarding two decisions issued by Attorneys General Session and Barr during the Trump administration in Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018), and Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 581 (A.G. 2019), as well as other opinions based on these decisions. Enclosed are copies of letters I sent the Attorneys General on these decisions, which in my opinion, ignored precedent by eliminating asylum eligibility for many victims of domestic and gang violence. I am sure you share my belief that all who Congress made eligible for asylum should receive the law’s protections.

As a result of these decisions, the United States denies humanitarian relief to asylum-seekers fleeing countries in which 95 percent of sexual violence cases are never investigated and in which gang-related killings and extortion are common practice. This is out of step with our nation’s reputation as a safe haven for those fleeing persecution.

The Refugee Act of 1980 extends asylum to foreign nationals who are unwilling or unable to return their country of origin due to past persecution or fear of persecution “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1158(b)(1)(A). The Trump Administration rejected established precedent when it concluded that victims of domestic or gang violence ignored by their home countries could not claim the protections of asylum.

Accordingly, I ask that you, as part of your review of “precedential decisions … governing the adjudication of asylum claims” directed by President Biden in Executive Order No. 14,010, consider vacating Matter of A-B-, Matter of L-E-A-, and subsequent opinions based on those decisions and bring our asylum system back into alignment with the law and the values informing it. This approach has been used before to provide timely relief in anticipation of formal rulemaking.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Dianne Feinstein

United States Senator

###

*******************

It’s a very modest, straightforward, well-justified, and long overdue “ask” by Senator Feinstein and others.

It’s simply shocking that Garland continues to dither and “swallow the whistle” on “Basic Day 1 Immigration/Human Rights Stuff” while abused refugee women and their children continue to suffer and die on his watch. Meanwhile, their long suffering pro bono and “low bono” attorneys tear their hair out at Garland’s lack of attention to the horrible human rights, due process disaster in his Immigration “Courts.”

Woman Tortured — “She struggled madly in the torturing Ray” — Despite outrage from progressives and women’s rights advocates, AG Garland has shown no concern for the suffering of women because of bad Trump-era precedents that he has allowed to remain in effect as well as his continuation of Trump’s lawless refusal to enforce asylum laws at border!
Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-19-21

DEADLY ☠️ EOIR CLOWN SHOW 🤡 PLAYS ON UNDER BIDEN — ACIJ’S “Exit Interview” By SF Chron’s Tal Kopan Reveals Total Dysfunction, Systemic Abuse Of Human Rights, Waste Of Taxpayer Funds By Stunningly Incompetent DOJ — Other Than A Few Cosmetic Changes, Garland Enables Trump’s Abuses & Uses Barr’s Discredited, Politically & Racially Suspect “Judicial” Hiring Practices, Fails To Establish Due Process, Best Practices, Professionalism, Expertise, Respect For Human Dignity As Overriding Values! — Garland Presides Over “A ‘soul-crushing bureaucracy’ . . . shockingly unlike the regular American legal system.”🤮 Why Is He Ignoring Pressing Need For Progressive Reforms, Due Process Dedicated Judges?

EYORE — “Eyore In Distress” — “Help, help, help, help! I’ve fallen, and I can’t get up!”
Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”

From Tal:

Exclusive: Outgoing SF immigration judge blasts courts as ‘soul-crushing,’ too close to ICE

By Tal Kopan

When William Hanrahan decided to take a job managing the San Francisco immigration court last year, he hoped he could “do some good” by bringing his expertise to resolving the legal morass many U.S. migrants must navigate to stay in the country.

He knew the justice system well. He had spent 20 years as a prosecutor and more than a decade as a state judge, including two years as a chief judge, and taught law on the side for 13 of those years. He’d worked in both criminal and civil law.

But Hanrahan said he encountered a “soul-crushing bureaucracy” that he found shockingly unlike the regular American legal system. After little more than a year in the job, he called it quits this month, frustrated, he said, with a system run by the U.S. Department of Justice and subject to its political whims, a top-down management style that throttled innovation and slow-walked modernizing reforms, and a disconcerting proximity to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement attorneys who act as the court’s prosecutors.

“There needs to be a wholesale reform,” Hanrahan said. “On a daily basis I really felt I was being forced to rearrange the deck chairs on a ship that was going down.”

Hanrahan’s last day as Assistant Chief Immigration Judge was May 7, capping a 14-month tenure as the top manager overseeing the 25 immigration judges and dozens of staff at the San Francisco court. Before that, he was a county assistant district attorney, state assistant attorney general, state circuit court judge and chief circuit court judge during a 30-year career in Wisconsin. He also taught law as an adjunct professor at three Wisconsin colleges and universities.

He spoke with The Chronicle in an exclusive interview about what he said were perplexing management decisions and failures of court administration, exacerbated by seemingly daily “absurdities.” Sitting immigration judges are prohibited by the Justice Department from talking to the press, so Hanrahan’s insights provide a rare account from inside the courts into dysfunction that has long been described by the immigrant advocacy community.

More: https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Exclusive-Outgoing-SF-immigration-judge-blasts-16183235.php

****************

Thanks, Tal! Those with SF Chron access should read the full article at the link!

Shocking as this is, it’s no surprise to those of us who have been following the unseemly demise of EOIR and its daily perversions of the basics of due process, human decency, and competent government!

The problems are well documented; the solutions well developed and widely distributed; the experts to fix the system available, mostly from the private sector! There is no need for more “study” and dawdling from Garland!

What is stunning and infuriating is Garland’s abject failure to stand up for human rights, human decency, the rule of law, and to bring in the progressive experts who will shake up this national disgrace from top to bottom, get rid of the deadwood, can the bad rules, vile precedents, and bloated unnecessary bureaucracy, and put some humanity, scholarship, fairness, and professionalism back in this ungodly, deadly, and completely unnecessary mess!

Not rocket science!🚀 So, why hasn’t Garland gotten the job done?

🗽⚖️🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-17-21

⚖️👍🏼😎LAW YOU CAN USE: Professor Geoffrey Hoffman Tells Us How To Use Niz-Chavez v. Garland To Fight DHS/EOIR’s “Fake Date NTA” Travesty!

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2021/05/another-twist-on-niz-chavez-by-geoffrey-hoffman.html

Geoffrey writes on ImmigrationProf Blog:

Geoffrey Hoffman previously has blogged about the recent Supreme Court decision in Niz-Chavez v. Garland. Here is the sequel.

Another Twist on Niz-Chavez . . . by Geoffrey Hoffman

A fascinating twist on the factual scenario in Niz-Chavez is what to do if your client had an NTA with a so-called “fake date.” The “fake date” problem is one you will remember well if you practice immigration law before EOIR, and it garnered national attention in 2019 when ICE issued these fake dates for thousands of immigrants, many of whom showed up in court only to find that there was nothing on any judge’s docket to indicate they were scheduled for a hearing that day. Reports of fake dates were prevalent in Dallas, Orlando, Miami, Seattle, and I am sure other places as well. See news articles such as this one. In addition, and as a separate matter, there was a well-known so-called “parking date” (November 29) issued on thousands of NTAs and that was also never a “real date” as everyone knew.

There is an interesting theory about why the “fake dates” were issued in the first place: that the government was trying to respond to Pereira v. Sessions itself. Despite its argument in federal court to try to restrict Pereira as much as possible, in practice ICE tacitly was affirming, so the argument goes, that in Pereira the Supreme Court had defined, as we have argued all along, what is and what is not a proper and valid NTA. In an effort to immunize itself from responsibility for defective NTAs without any time or place of hearing, ICE thought it might make sense to input “fake dates” in their NTAs, thus (at least superficially it would seem) immunizing itself from the argument that the NTAs were defective for “lack” of a real date and place. Then the “real date” – according to the argument – could be issued as a follow-up in the form of a notice of hearing by EOIR.

The question now arises whether clients with fake-date NTAs can utilize Pereira and now Niz-Chavez to defeat the “stop-time” effect for cancellation of removal, where such fake NTAs existed, even where there is a subsequent notice of hearing with a “real date” from EOIR. The short answer is “Yes” – and I will discuss in the rest of this article why this should be the case and why it should not come as a surprise for several reasons.

It is arguably a much stronger case for the application of Niz-Chavez because the issuance of a “fake date” that was never intended to be used by EOIR in any way is affirmatively wrong. It is not just mere negligence by leaving “TBA” with a blank date and place of hearing on the NTA. ICE should not be able to hide behind an NTA where the information is filled in on the NTA but the information is patently false and made up or fabricated. Just as an asylum seeker who fabricates a date or other information on their forms cannot benefit from such information in applying for relief before the court, the government should get no benefit either from their incorrect and misleading actions. The counter-argument from the government will be that the NTA was valid “on its face” since it had some “date and place” in the document and therefore (a) stopped time for cancellation purposes and (b) conferred jurisdiction because it was “facially” valid.

This counter-argument is flawed. To embrace such a rationale would exalt form over substance. It also would allow an agency to game the system. It would also defeat the very mechanism that the Supreme Court set out in Pereira and now Niz-Chavez. Respondent should be entitled to reopen their proceedings in all “fake date” cases since a valid NTA was not filed in the immigration court. The only remaining issue will be proof. The respondent and his or her attorney will have to prove there was no hearing that was actually held on that day. If no hearing existed at all, then the stop time rule should not apply and the fake NTA cannot be “cured” by a subsequently issued notice by a different agency, that is EOIR, as per Niz-Chavez.

Finally, in reopening a client’s case it would be helpful if there were a showing of some effort on the part the respondent to check. Proof may be difficult and EOIR FOIA and other investigation will be important. Ideally, the client or the their attorney or both went to court but no hearing was on the docket that day, and there was an effort to check that was documented in some way. If there never was receipt of the NTA at all, whether containing a fake date or not, and an in absentia order was issued, then the question becomes whether jurisdiction could have vested at all in such a case. As I have argued, if the NTA is defective it cannot result in the vesting of jurisdiction. A fake date and place arguably cannot confer jurisdiction, even if the NTA was filed with the court. Since there was no hearing actually scheduled the NTA should be found defective under Pereira and Niz-Chavez.

K[evin] J[ohnson]

********************

Sure sounds to me like ‘affirmative misconduct” by the USG that should stop them from relying on the “fake dates. In the “old days,” INS actually used to settle potential “affirmative misconduct” cases, rather than litigate.

By contrast, today’s DOJ seems perfectly willing shamelessly to defend a wide range of legally and ethically questionable conduct and then “blow off” criticism from the Article III Judiciary. Recently, a frustrated U.S. District Judge referred to Bureau of Prisons officials as “idiots.”

One might have thought that would have spurred some type of apology and corrective action from the DOJ. But, that doesn’t seem to have registered with Garland. He just keeps rolling along with Barr’s “Miller Lite” appointments while dissing advice from progressives who actually helped put him in his current job. About the only thing you can count on from Dems is that when it comes to progressive immigraton reforms and EOIR, they’ll blow it!

Thanks, Geoffrey, for your timely and creative “practical scholarship.” Of course with better leadership, the Biden Administration could solve this problem without protracted litigation that often takes years and produces inconsistent results before the Supremes or Congress can resolve them. In the meantime, lives unnecessarily are ruined and the system becomes more inefficient and unfair.

Garland should appoint progressive practical scholars like Geoffrey to the BIA and senior management at EOIR, OIL, OLP, and the SG’s Office and let them “lead from above” — rather than having to fight bad interpretations and worst practices from the outside.

In this case, the DHS/EOIR “fake date policy” was both fraudulent and unethical. Remember that some folks actually showed up at Immigration Court buildings, often with families in tow, after having traveled hundreds of miles, @ 3:00 AM on Sunday mornings (or on a Federal Holiday or some other bogus date) only to find out that the “joke” was on them.

And, let’s not forget folks, that thanks to the BIA’s permissive attitude (when it comes to the Government, but not with individual rights), under the now “being phased out” “Remain in Mexico Program” (a/k/a “let “em Die In Mexico”), folks basically got NTAs with the equivalent of this: “Maria Gomez, somewhere on some Calle in Tijuana, Mexico.” But, the BIA said that this was basically “good enough for Government work.”

We should also remember that the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause guarantees the individual’s rights against the Government, not the other way around! But, you sure wouldn’t know that from reading BIA and AG precedents issued under the Trump kakistocracy.

Meanwhile, IJs and the BIA under Garland continue to “in absentia” folks for being a few minutes late for a hearing or misreading an NTA in a language they can’t understand. Anybody had a problem with their U.S. Mail lately? We have, in our “upper middle class neighborhood” in Alexandria, VA. Yet, EOIR and some Article IIIs continue to promote the “legal fiction” of a “presumption of proper (and timely) delivery” of notices sent by regular U.S. Mail.

Until, Garland has the backbone to restore ethics and the rule of law at EOIR and the rest of the DOJ, particularly by reassigning or otherwise removing those who “went along to get along” and replacing them with ethical, qualified, experts from the NDPA who will speak truth to power and hold immigration enforcement bureaucrats accountable, our justice system will continue its tailspin!

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

O5-15-21

9TH WHACKS BIA ON IN ABSENTIA & DERIVATIVE CITIZENSHIP — Garland’s Losses Continue To Pile Up!

Hernández-Galand v. Garland — In Absentia

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/05/12/17-70538.pdf

SUMMARY BY COURT STAFF:

Immigration

The panel granted a petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the denial of a motion to reopen filed by Patricia Marisol Hernandez- Galand and her minor child, and remanded, holding that exceptional circumstances warranted reopening of petitioners’ in absentia removal orders.

Petitioners, natives and citizens of El Salvador, appeared pro se at their initial hearing. An Immigration Judge (“IJ”) orally informed Ms. Hernandez that her next hearing date was July 12, 2016, and gave her a written notice with a hearing date of “07/12/2016.” Due to chronic memory problems from a childhood head injury, Ms. Hernandez did not remember the date the IJ had told her, and because she cannot read, she asked family members to read the notice. The family interpreted the date as December 7, 2016, based on how numerical dates are typically written in Latin America, with the day appearing before the month.

When Ms. Hernandez did not appear at the July 12, 2016, hearing, the IJ ordered petitioners removed in absentia. Petitioners timely filed a motion to reopen under 8 U.S.C. §1229a(b)(5)(C)(i), contending that that exceptional circumstances warranted reopening. The IJ denied the motion, and the BIA affirmed.

** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

HERNANDEZ-GALAND V. GARLAND 3

First, the panel considered the circumstances that caused Ms. Hernandez’s failure to appear. The panel explained that Ms. Hernandez non-conclusory and unrefuted testimony in her sworn declaration about her memory problems was not inherently unbelievable, and there was no evidence in the record to contradict it. Thus, the panel concluded that the BIA erred to the extent it disregarded this aspect of Ms. Hernandez’s declaration simply because it lacked corroboration, and the panel credited Ms. Hernandez’s statements regarding her memory problems. The panel further concluded that the facts regarding Ms. Hernandez’s inability to read and her family’s misinterpretation of the hearing date were not disputed by the government or inherently unbelievable, and thus must be credited. The panel therefore concluded that Ms. Hernandez’s failure to appear was due not to her choices or a lack of diligence, but to circumstances beyond her control.

The panel further explained that the BIA abused its discretion by concluding that Ms. Hernandez should have confirmed her hearing date through the immigration court’s automated system, noting that the only evidence suggesting that she was advised of the system were the written instructions she could not read, and explaining that she and her family had no reason to suspect that the hearing was not on December 7, 2016.

Next, the panel concluded that the BIA erred in not addressing whether Ms. Hernandez had any motive for failing to appear, and whether petitioners’ in absentia removal orders would cause unconscionable results. Since the BIA made no findings as to either, there were no findings entitled to substantial evidence review, and the panel concluded that both factors weighed in favor of reopening. First, the panel concluded that there was no basis to infer that

4 HERNANDEZ-GALAND V. GARLAND

Ms. Hernandez was attempting to evade or delay her proceedings.

Second, the panel concluded that imposing the removal orders here would present an unconscionable result, explaining that the court has held that such results occur where a petitioner who demonstrated a strong likelihood of relief is removed in absentia. The panel recognized that Ms. Hernandez had not yet established a likelihood of success similar to that made in the relevant precedent, but concluded that her claims to asylum and related relief were not baseless. The panel observed that a likelihood of prevailing is not a sine qua non of exceptional circumstances; the court has made such a finding without a showing of the strength of the petitioner’s case on the merits, and the probability of relief is but one factor in the totality of circumstances to be considered. The panel concluded that Ms. Hernandez had made a compelling showing on the other factors.

Lastly, the panel explained that the IJ also entered an in absentia order against Ms. Hernandez’s minor child (“M.E.”), who was four years old at the time, and whose presence had been waived for the hearing at which he was ordered removed. Noting that an asylum officer had previously determined that M.E. had a credible fear of persecution on account of his family social group, the panel concluded that Ms. Hernandez’s failure to appear also prejudiced M.E.’s opportunity for relief from removal.

****************************

Cheneau v. Garland — Derivative Citizenship — En Banc

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/05/13/15-70636.pdf

SUMMARY BY COURT STAFF:

Immigration

Remanding to the three-judge panel that previously denied Monssef Cheneau’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the en banc court held that the second clause of the derivative citizenship statute set out at former 8 U.S.C. § 1432(a)(5) does not require that the child have been granted lawful permanent residency prior to the age of eighteen in order to derive citizenship from a parent who naturalized, but the child must have demonstrated an objective official manifestation of permanent residence.

Former 8 U.S.C. § 1432(a)(5) (1994) (repealed 2000) provides two different pathways to child of a naturalized parent to derive U.S. citizenship: 1) a child “residing in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence at the time of the naturalization of the parent” is eligible; and 2) a child is eligible who “thereafter begins to reside permanently in the United States while under the age of eighteen years.”

Cheneau entered the United states lawfully at age thirteen under a non-immigrant student visa. His mother naturalized in 1999, he applied for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident at age fifteen in 2000, and was granted adjustment of status in 2003, after he turned eighteen. After theft convictions, removal proceedings were initiated, and Cheneau moved to terminate, asserting a claim of derivative

** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

CHENEAU V. GARLAND 3

citizenship. The three-judge panel in this case held that it was required to hold that Cheneau was not a derivative citizen under either pathway because this court, in Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2008), had held that both pathways required the child to have lawful permanent resident status.

Reconsidering Romero-Ruiz in the present context, the en banc court concluded that Congress did not intend to require lawful permanent residency for the second pathway. First, the en banc court observed that Congress chose to use two different terms in the statute, creating a presumption that the terms have different meanings. Second, the en banc court explained that the two terms have different meanings in the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). Third, the en banc court concluded that construing the second pathway to derivative citizenship as not requiring lawful permanent residence does not render either provision superfluous, as the court suggested in Romero-Ruiz. Rather, each pathway applies distinct requirements to distinct categories of children with distinct timing, and does so with logical reason. Finally, the en banc court explained that Congress’s decision to eliminate the “reside permanently” pathway and narrow the availability of derivative citizenship in 2000 indicates that the previous version of the statute was broader.

The en banc court also explained that the history of the INA (which was enacted in 1952 and established lawful permanent residency as a term of art) and earlier naturalization statutes further buttressed its conclusion that Congress intended “reside permanently” and “lawful admission for permanent residence” to have different meanings. Further, the en banc court concluded that the tenet of statutory construction that repetition of the same language

4 CHENEAU V. GARLAND

in a new statute generally indicates the intent to incorporate its administrative and judicial interpretations as well did not apply, because none of the administrative or judicial interpretations preceding the INA had “settled” whether “reside permanently” could mean lawfully residing on a temporary visa with the intent to remain permanently.

Finally, the en banc court agreed with the Second Circuit that, to satisfy the “reside permanently” requirement in the second pathway, an individual must demonstrate “some objective official manifestation of the child’s permanent residence.” Here, the en banc court explained, Cheneau filed an application for adjustment of status after his mother naturalized, expressing such intent to reside permanently.

Dissenting, Judge Bress, joined by Judges Hunsaker, Bumatay, and VanDyke, wrote that the en banc court’s decision adopted the very “unreasonable” reading of the statute that Romero-Ruiz had rejected. Judge Bress concluded that the new interpretation: 1) is an untenable construction of the statutory text; 2) fails to account for decades of statutory history in which derivative citizenship necessarily required lawful permission to reside permanently in the United States—the legal backdrop against which the statutory language “reside permanently” has long existed in our immigration law: and 3) produces significant problems of practical administration, creating confusion as to who qualifies for derivative citizenship while extending derivative citizenship without authorization to a potentially wide range of additional people—including people like the petitioner in this case, who committed crimes in this country and who might otherwise be removable.

*******************

Congrats to my friend and NDPA superstar Kari Hong, then Director of the Immigration Clinic at BC Law, who was lead counsel in Cheneau.

Professor Kari Hong
Educator, Litigator, NDPA Superstar
Photo: BC Law Website

Also, it’s worthy of emphasis that in Hernández-Galand, among other legal errors, the BIA tried to “in absentia” an unrepresented 4-year-old whose mother had been found to have a “credible fear” of persecution! Nice touch!

Is this nonsense from Trump holdover BIA “judges” what we elected President Biden to continue to inflict on asylum seekers and other migrants? I doubt it! So, why is AG Garland continuing to inflict this non-expert, un-progressive BIA on us? And, why is he continuing to appoint “Miller-Lite” leftovers from the Trump regime to precious, life or death Immigration Judge positions?

The NDPA needs to take the fight for due process and the human and legal rights of your clients to the Biden Administration! Let your outrage at the lousy performance of Garland and his team in restoring due process, humanity, expertise, and professionalism @ EOIR be known in word and deed!

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-14-21

Note

UNCONFIRMED, BUT “ON THE STREET” — TOTAL INSANITY? — Heard On The “Rumor Mill” — Unconfirmed Reports That Garland Is About To Appoint Trump Tea Party Politico To Top Judicial Post In NYC!

Was this guy

Judge Merrick Garland — Judge Merrick B. Garland
Official White House Photo
Public Realm

Really this guy

Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com

In disguise all along?

An anonymous source reports:

As a follow-up to the recent IJ appointments, I thought you might be interested to know that Anna Little is rumored to be the new ACIJ in NYC. I haven’t seen that officially, though, so you would need to confirm before posting about it (and you didn’t hear it from me). I honestly know nothing about her and she might be great, but there’s a little concern given that she was appointed as an IJ by Trump just two years ago, has never worked as an IJ at a NY court, and apparently was a Tea Party political candidate.

https://newjerseyglobe.com/national/report-trump-administration-names-anna-little-nj-tea-party-favorite-as-u-s-immigration-judge/

*******************

Normally, I’d say that this is far, far too insane to be true, even in a Dem Administration! But, given Garland’s incredibly abysmal performance so far at DOJ, I can’t completely rule it out.

Progressives who helped Biden get his job need to start demanding better from this Administration. If true, and I personally don’t want to believe it, this should call into question Garland’s continued tenure @ Justice!

What kind of “Dem” Administration promotes GOP Tea Partiers as judges over better qualified progressive candidates?

True or not, the fact that this rumor is even out there shows a dramatic loss of confidence by progressive Dems in Garland in an amazingly short amount of time! It’s basically the equivalent of a rumor that Joe Biden intends to name Kevin McCarthy as his Chief of Staff. And, where, oh where, is Vice President Harris as Garland is totally undermining the Administration and grotesquely failing to reverse the course of injustice @ Trump’s broken and corrupt “Justice” Department?

We all know who won the 2020:election. So, why is Stephen Miller apparently still in charge of the DOJ?

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-13-21

MAINE’S BRIGHT FUTURE IN A GLOBAL SOCIETY DEPENDS ON ROBUST IMMIGRATION & WELCOMING ATTITUDES! — Professor Joseph W. McDonnell Writes In The Portland Press Gazette

News Day in Maine — Let’s Hope That A New Day Is Dawning , Fueled by Immigrants, For Maine & America After 4 Years of Unrelenting Darkness. The Biden Administration Must Help By Re-establishing Our Legal Asylum Program!

https://www.pressherald.com/2021/05/12/maine-voices-new-u-s-intelligence-report-suggests-how-maine-can-address-global-trends-2/

Maine Voices: New U.S. intelligence report suggests how Maine can address global trends

We’re in a good position to improve the lives of people without college degrees, to welcome foreigners to a democratic society and to diversify our workforce.

. . . .

The Global Trends report provides analysis but not policy solutions. Maine could assist by demonstrating that democracy can work here by taking steps to bridge the ideological divide and reduce political polarization. Maine can become a welcoming state for immigrants by easing their entry into the workforce to replace our retiring baby boomers.

Maine can also develop public-private partnerships to teach workforce skills that raise incomes and improve the quality of life for those without a college degree. Finally, Maine can exercise soft power by welcoming foreigners as tourists and recruiting students from China to our high schools and universities, offering an opportunity to experience a democratic society with both its flaws and freedoms, and to forge friendships between the two contested countries.

Joseph W. McDonnell is a professor of public policy and management at the Edmund S. Muskie School of Public Service at the University of Southern Maine

********************

You can read Professor McDonnell’s article (along with a couple of comments that show exactly why our hope for the future has to be in immigrants — not that the commenters probably weren’t immigrants of some sort at some point in our history).

B/T/W Congresswoman Omar (D-MN) is a naturalized U.S. citizen — an example of someone who not only immigrated, survived racial and religious bigotry and bullying in school, graduated from college, established a successful career as an educator and civic advocate, and further had the courage and commitment (which most native-born Americans, including me, do not) to successfully seek elective office and work through the system to make America a better place for all, regardless of whether or not one agrees with all of her views.

The vast majority of immigrants of any status “learn the language” (many better than some native-born U.S. citizens) and become at least bi-lingual if not tri-lingual, a skill set that few native-born Americans achieve.

Of course, in an intentionally diverse society, important Government documents should be printed in languages that individuals are most comfortable with. You might have become proficient in French in college, but if involved in a legal dispute in France, most of us would need and expect an English translation to be sure we understood and, in turn, were understood.

I knew enough German to study in Germany during college. I was comfortable going down to the local watering spot and ordering “bauernbrat mit kraut und bier.” But, if I had been involved in a legal proceeding, I wouldn’t have dared to proceed in German.

Also, although undoubtedly some students and foreign workers are exploited by the American system, overall they make huge contributions to both education and our workforce. As an Adjunct Professor at Georgetown Law, my classes are continually enriched by the presence of foreign students and scholars, many of whom are willing to share their own immigration stories and to enlighten us on the culture and legal system they experienced.

Also, if we have learned anything during the pandemic, it is how very dependent we are on our immigrant and ethnic communities, regardless of “status,” for essential workers. The “exploitation” is an “American home grown problem,” not one caused by immigrants! As a society, we need to stop “shooting the messenger!”

Where we spend much of our summers, Boothbay Harbor in the “Mid-Coast Region of Maine,” the tourism, hospitality, recreational, and resort industries that power this town are highly dependent on talented foreign workers. Their upbeat attitudes, eagerness to learn and contribute, and fascinating multiculturalism is one of the primary factors that comes bursting out in town and throughout this area, making this one of the best summer tourist locations in America. (Obviously, it’s “world famous,” since these folks seek to come here from literally around the world.)

I remember commenting several summers ago about the amazing refugee assistance and appreciation programs generated by the local religious community here in Boothbay Harbor, as well as the impressive social justice awareness and activism of some of the talented local artists who performed at a fundraiser for refugees and asylum seekers. http://immigrationcourtside.com/2019/07/15/the-new-due-process-army-is-alive-and-well-in-boothbay-harbor-singer-songwriter-john-schindler-friends-inspire-uplift-with-benefit-concert-for-maines-immigrant-legal-advocacy-pr/

Our “next-door neighbors,” here on beautiful Linekin Bay, Larry and Janey Anderson, were long time year around residents of Maine before retiring to “warmer climes” near their family (and us) in Northern Virginia. They were very involved with the African refugee community in Southern Maine, calling me several times for advice on how to get legal help on asylum cases. I well remember on occasions hearing the rhythm of a “drum circle” in which Larry participated with his refugee friends coming from the Anderson cabin.

It actually made me feel good about the lives I had been able to save and the positive progressive legal changes, precedents, and attitudes that I was able to help, at least in some modest way, forge over a 40+ year career in immigration and human rights, most of it with the U.S. Government.

Of course, I was fortunate enough to have retired in 2016, before the institutionalized White Nationalist, racist, misogynistic, xenophobia of the Trump regime arrived. Unfortunately, they undid some of the hard work that many of us had done to improve the system, further due process, and insure fairness and humane treatment for foreign nationals under U.S. laws.

However, the lives we were able to save (yesterday’s post about my Arlington Immigration Court/Round Table colleague Judge Joan Churchill and our joint NDPA colleague Deb Sanders is an example) have remained saved! “A life saved, is a life saved,” as I always say! https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/05/12/ndpa-all-star-debi-sanders-round-table-judge-ret-joan-churchill-featured-in-story-of-inspiring-immigrant-sumera-haque-her-family-from-george-bushs-recent-book-out-of-many-one/

The folks we welcomed under the law, their families, and their descendants continue to make America great despite all the destructive actions and false, misleading hate rhetoric promoted by Tump and his party.

Now, it’s up to the “new generation” of the NDPA to seize the baton and lead the fight to assist migrants of all types in creating a new and better day for Maine, America, and the world! I actually just had inspiring conversations this week with “two of the best out there” in the private/NGO sectors who are competing for positions at EOIR to help return due process, efficiency, practicality, and humanity to a disgracefully dysfunctional and unfair system. These are the folks who are “inspiring a new day for America.” They have already got Professor McDonnell’s message and are working to make it a reality!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-13-21

NDPA ALL STAR DEBI SANDERS & ROUND TABLE JUDGE (RET.) JOAN CHURCHILL FEATURED IN STORY OF INSPIRING IMMIGRANT SUMERA HAQUE & HER FAMILY FROM GEORGE BUSH’S RECENT BOOK “OUT OF MANY, ONE!”

SKM_554e21051216390

Judge Joan Churchill — Honorable Joan Churchill
Retired U.S. Immigration Judge
Member Round Table of Retired Judges

Debi Sanders ESQ
“Warrior Queen” of the NDPA
PHOTO: law.uva.edu

030114-O-0000D-001.President George W. Bush. Photo by Eric Draper, White House.

**************************

Thanks to my long-time friends Joan and Debi for showing how our asylum system and the rest of our legal immigration system could and should work for the greatness of our nation. It also demonstrates the critical importance of pro bono representation in Immigration Court.

How wonderful that President Bush selected this as one of his examples of how immigrants ARE America! And, how different from the White Nationalist, racist, xenophobic myths that his GOP has made a vile staple of their despicable attempt to overturn our democracy and our cherished institutions. I have little doubt that if President Bush were in politics today the GOP would ride him out of the party like others who have spoken truth to his party’s horrible, Anti-American leaders!

With better leadership and independent expert Immigration Judges, our Immigration Courts could once again be a source of pride for our nation and our legal system rather than a deadly, unmitigated, self-created national disaster that undermines our national values while actively harming and dehumanizing those we should be protecting and welcoming.

🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-12-21

THE GIBSON REPORT — 05-10-21 —Compiled By Elizabeth Gibson, Esquire, NY Legal Assistance Group

COVID-19 & Closures

Note: Policies are rapidly changing, so please verify information with the government and colleagues.

EOIR Status Overview & EOIR Court Status Map/List: Unless previously specified on the court status list, hearings in non-detained courts are postponed through, and including, June 11, 2021. (It is unclear when the next announcement will be. EOIR announced 6/11 on Wed. 4/28, 5/14 on Mon. 3/29, 4/16 on Fri. 3/5, 3/19 on Wed. 2/10, 2/19 on Mon. 1/25, 2/5 on Mon. 1/11, and 1/22 on Mon. 12/28.) There is no announced date for reopening NYC non-detained at this time.

USCIS Office Closings and Visitor Policy

TOP NEWS

Schumer Readies Plan B to Push Immigration Changes Unilaterally

NYT: Should bipartisan talks stall, the Senate majority leader is exploring trying to use budget reconciliation to legalize millions of undocumented immigrants.

Immigration Courts Aren’t Real Courts. Time to Change That.

NYT Editorial Board: If the goal was to empty the United States of all those asylum seekers, Mr. Trump clearly failed, as evidenced by the huge backlog he left Mr. Biden. But the ease with which he imposed his will on the immigration courts revealed a central structural flaw in the system: They are not actual courts, at least not in the sense that Americans are used to thinking of courts — as neutral arbiters of law, honoring due process and meting out impartial justice.

Biden fills immigration court with Trump hires

The Hill: The first 17 hires to the court system responsible for determining whether migrants get to remain in the country is filled with former prosecutors and counselors for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as well as a few picks with little immigration experience. See also The Director Of The Nation’s Immigration Courts Has Stepped Down.

ICE deportations fell in April to lowest monthly level on record, enforcement data shows

WaPo: ICE deported 2,962 immigrants in April, according to the agency. It is the first time the monthly figure has dipped below 3,000, records show. The April total is a 20 percent decline from March, when ICE deported 3,716.

How Police “Gang Databases” Are Being Used to Wage War on Immigrants

InTheseTimes: Gang databases have drawn criticism from national civil rights groups including Human Rights Watch and Detention Watch Network, which co-signed an April 1 petition calling on the Department of Homeland Security to end its discriminatory “prioritization” practices.

ICE Subverting Biden’s Priorities For Detention And Deportation

Intercept: A new report sheds light on how, despite orders from the Biden administration to narrow its immigration enforcement, ICE is still casting a wide net.

US Officials Have Discussed Asking Mexico To Do More To Stem The Tide Of Immigrants Ahead Of Kamala Harris’s Meeting

Buzzfeed: The proposals that have been discussed include Mexico officials prioritizing repatriating adults turned back by US border officials under a controversial Trump-era policy, increasing apprehensions of immigrants moving through their country to an average of 1,000 per day, and taking in more Central American families turned around at the border, according to the documents.

US awards huge shelter contracts amid child migrant increase

AP: In its haste to provide new facilities, the Department of Health and Human Services awarded the largest contracts — worth more than $2 billion — to two companies and a nonprofit without a bidding process and has exempted providers from the staffing requirements that state-licensed child facilities must meet, according to HHS and federal spending records.

Department of Homeland Security scraps Trump-era plans to collect more biometric data from immigrants

CBS: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has scrapped plans formed under President Trump to expand the collection of biometric data — including voice prints and DNA — from anyone applying to enter the United States and their sponsors, including children.

Lawmakers call to defund immigration cooperation program

RollCall: Led by Rep. Ritchie Torres, D-N.Y., the lawmakers warned that continued funding of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement program, known as the 287(g) program, will undermine trust in law enforcement within immigrant communities, discouraging undocumented immigrants from calling the police for help or reporting crimes.

Biden finally raised the refugee cap. Now comes the hard part.

Vox: After months of indecision and blowback from within his own party, President Joe Biden has finally raised the cap on refugee admissions for 2021 to 62,500 — but he has made clear he doesn’t think the US will actually admit that many people.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andyjsemotiuk/2021/05/10/more-immigration-best-solution-to-us-economic-decline-and-continued-world-leadership/

More Immigration Best Solution To U.S. Economic Decline And Continued World Leadership

Forbes: In their publication Room to Grow, National Immigration Forum’s president and CEO, Ali Noorani and his colleague Danilo Zak argue that the U.S. should increase net immigration levels by at least 37 percent, or about 370,000 additional immigrants a year, to prevent a “demographic deficit” stemming from low population growth.

San Diego County will provide immigrants with lawyers

AP: San Diego would be the first southern border county in the United States to provide legal representation for those in federal immigration custody who are facing removal proceedings, although more than 40 other places nationwide have similar programs.

Trump Policies And COVID Have Left Immigrant Couples Trying To Get Marriage-Based Visas In Limbo

Buzzfeed: The United States immigration system has been gutted by the pandemic — between threats of mass government furloughs during COVID, the near-complete shutdown of consular offices abroad, and former president Donald Trump’s hard line against immigration, the Biden administration has inherited not only a crisis at the southern border, but also a virtual freeze on marriage-based visa applications that has left couples stranded.

Democratic Mayoral Candidates Talk Issues of Importance to Immigrant Communities

Gotham Gazette: At a virtual forum on Thursday night, four of the leading Democratic candidates for mayor in the June primary weighed in on issues affecting New York City’s large immigrant population, including housing, education, employment, and participation in the political process.

LITIGATION/CASELAW/RULES/MEMOS

2nd Circ. Says BIA Wrongly Defined Asylee’s ‘Social Group’

Law360: The Second Circuit revived an asylum bid from a Guatemalan immigrant who witnessed gang violence and helped a law enforcement investigation, ruling that the Board of Immigration Appeals hadn’t properly considered whether he fell into the right social group to claim deportation relief.

3rd Circ. Says BIA Can Close Cases, Contrary To 2018 Rule

Law360: A split Third Circuit ruled Wednesday that the Board of Immigration Appeals and immigration judges have the authority to administratively close deportation proceedings, handing a win to a Mexican man hoping to renew his Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status after being freed of criminal charges.

3rd Circ. Says Immigration Notice Doesn’t Need Hearing Info

Law360: The Third Circuit on Wednesday shot down a native Guatemalan’s challenge to an immigration judge’s jurisdiction over his case on the grounds that a referral notice initiating his removal proceedings did not have the date and time of a hearing, saying regulations do not require such information in that document.

20-Year-Old Robbery Blocks Bid For Asylum, 3rd Circ. Says

Law360: The Third Circuit on Tuesday said a more than two-decade-old robbery conviction in New Jersey constituted an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act and thus barred a Nigerian man from avoiding deportation amid fears he would face mistreatment in the West African nation due to his bisexuality.

CA4 Holds That IJs Have Authority to Grant Requests for Inadmissibility Waivers Under INA §212(d)(3)(A)(ii)

The court held that DOJ’s regulations empower IJs to consider a petitioner’s application for an inadmissibility waiver under INA §212(d)(3)(A)(ii), and that an IJ’s ability to grant such a waiver is consistent with the statutory and regulatory scheme. (Jimenez-Rodriguez v. Garland, 4/29/21) AILA Doc. No. 21050433

CA4 Says Petitioner Failed to Exhaust Argument That Pardoned Offenses Do Not Qualify as Convictions Under the INA

Where the petitioner had been pardoned by the state of Georgia for drug and firearm offenses after DHS had sought to remove him based on his convictions, the court held that he did not exhaust his argument that pardoned offenses do not qualify as convictions. (Tetteh v. Garland, 4/27/21) AILA Doc. No. 21050432

CA7 Upholds Denial of Asylum to Petitioner Who Feared Retaliatory Gang Violence in Mexico

The court concluded that the petitioner had raised no arguments against the BIA’s dispositive determination that his asylum application was statutorily time-barred, and found that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal. (Guzman-Garcia v. Garland, 5/3/21)

8th Circ. Says TPS Grant Does Not Constitute An Admission

Law360: An Eighth Circuit panel on Wednesday denied a Salvadoran man’s petition to avoid deportation from the United States, ruling that a grant of temporary protected status is not considered an admission for canceling removal proceedings.

No Error In Illegal Reentry Arrest, 8th Circ. Rules

Law360: North Dakota police officers accused of violating a Mexican man’s constitutional rights acted within their authority when they detained him during a burglary investigation on suspicion of being illegally present in the U.S., the Eighth Circuit ruled Monday.

Feds Say Fiance Visa Delay Suit Is Moot

Law360: The State Department urged a D.C. federal court Friday to throw out a lawsuit over the slow processing of K-1 fiance visas, arguing that the case is moot after the department issued a “national interest” exemption to aid the applicants.

DHS Ratifies Rule Removing 30-Day EAD Processing Requirement for Asylum Applicants

DHS issued a statement noting that Secretary Mayorkas has ratified a rule that removes the 30-day EAD processing requirement for asylum applicants. AILA Doc. No. 21050745

DHS Withdrawal of Proposed Rule on Eliminating Employment Authorization for Individuals with a Final Order of Removal

DHS withdrawal of a proposed rule published at 85 FR 74196 on 11/19/20, which would have eliminated employment authorization eligibility for individuals who have final orders of removal but are temporarily released from custody on an order of supervision. (86 FR 24751, 5/10/21) AILA Doc. No. 21050731

DHS Withdrawal of Proposed Rule on Use and Collection of Biometrics

DHS withdrawal of the proposed rule on the use and collection of biometrics in the enforcement and administration of immigration laws, which was published at 85 FR 56338 on 9/11/20. (86 FR 24750, 5/10/21) AILA Doc. No. 21050730

ICE Provides Updated FAQs on Sensitive Locations and Courthouse Arrests Policy

Following the issuance of new guidance limiting ICE and CBP civil enforcement actions in or near courthouses, ICE updated its FAQs on sensitive locations and courthouse arrests. AILA Doc. No. 18013142

EOIR Announces 17 New Immigration Judges

EOIR announced 17 new immigration judges, including one assistant chief immigration judge and six unit chief immigration judges. The notice provides the judges’ names, courts of appointment, and biographical information. AILA Doc. No. 21050630

EOIR Provides Information for Individuals Who Have Come to the U.S. After Waiting in Mexico for Hearings Under MPP

EOIR provided a flyer with instructions for individuals who have come to the United States after waiting in Mexico under the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP). The flyer provides information on the individuals’ responsibilities and phone numbers to reach the immigration court helpdesk. AILA Doc. No. 21051030

CIS Ombudsman’s Office Issues Reminder for DACA Renewals

The CIS Ombudsman’s Office issued a reminder that individuals who are eligible to renew their DACA and employment authorization may submit their renewal request between 150 days and 120 days before the expiration on their current Form I-797, Notice of Approval, and on the EAD. AILA Doc. No. 21051035

Presidential Proclamation Suspending Entry as Nonimmigrants of Certain Individuals Present in India Who Pose a Risk of Transmitting COVID-19

President Biden issued a proclamation suspending the entry into the U.S., as nonimmigrants, of certain individuals who were physically present in India during the 14-day period preceding their entry or attempted entry. This proclamation is effective at 12:01 am (ET) on 5/4/21. (86 FR 24297, 5/6/21) AILA Doc. No. 21043038

ACTIONS

USCIS Request for Public Input on Reducing Administrative Barriers: Comments are due 5/19 2021.

EOIR 60-Day Notice and Request for Comment on Proposed Revisions to Form EOIR-26A: comments due 5/28/21.

RESOURCES

AILA: Asylum Cases on Social Group

AILA: Asylum Cases on Serious Nonpolitical Crime

AILA: Asylum Cases on Relocation

AILA: Asylum Cases on Past Persecution

AILA: Asylum Cases on Motion to Reopen

AILA: Asylum Cases on Deferral of Removal Under CAT

AILA: Asylum Cases on Credibility

AILA: Asylum Cases on Miscellaneous

AILA: Featured Issue: Ensuring Legal Representation for People Facing Removal

AILA: Think Immigration: Adjectives Matter: What Does “Exceptional and Extremely Unusual Hardship” Mean?

AILA: Think Immigration: Iranians Forced Into Military Service Face Immigration Blockade

CLINIC: Book List for Día de los niños (Day of the Children)

CLINIC: Guidance for Practitioners: Understanding the 2018 Settlement Agreement in the Family Separation Litigation

CRS: U.S. Naturalization Policy

CRS: Applications for Liberian Refugee Immigration Fairness (LIRF): Fact Sheet

HFR: Do Expedited Asylum Screenings and Adjudications at the Border Work?

ICE: Detention FY 2021 YTD, Alternatives to Detention FY 2021 YTD and Facilities FY 2021 YTD, Footnotes

IDP: How Can I Learn What Happened in My Criminal Court Case in New York City? (English and Spanish)

ILRC: Preparese Para Su Caso De Inmigracion

ILRC: Avoiding Fraud When Seeking Immigration Legal Services

ILRC: Criminal Records for DACA

ILRC: The Trump Public Charge Rule is No Longer in Effect

NIP/NLG: Practice Advisory: Settling FTCA Litigation for Immigration Relief

EVENTS

5/10/21 All About DOJ Recognition and Accreditation

5/11/21 From a Humanitarian Exodus to Long-Term Growth: Latin America’s Journey Responding to the Venezuelan Exodus

5/12/21 NYIC: Legal Research and Writing Training Series

5/12/21 New Virtual Workshop Models

5/13/21 Marijuana and Immigrants

5/17/21-5/20/21 CLINIC Convening 2021

5/18/21 DOJ Recognition & Accreditation

5/18/21 Ethics in Representing Family Members in U Visa, U AOS/929, and VAWA Cases

5/19/21 EOIR to Host National Stakeholder Meeting

5/19/21 Phase 1 of a SIJS case: the intersection of immigration law and family law

5/20/21 Understanding your Client’s Contact with the Criminal Legal System in New York City

5/20/21 A Trauma-Informed, Anti-Rascist Approach to Legal Advocacy

5/26/21 Hot Topics in Removal Defense

5/26/21 “Immigration Relief Under the Violence Against Women Act”

6/1/21 VAWA Adjustment of Status Fundamentals

6/2/21-6/23/21 CLINIC Webinar Series: Overview of Immigration Consequences of Crimes

6/3/21 Steps to Analyze the Immigration Impact of Criminal Contact and Convictions for Immigrant Clients

6/8/21-6/29/21 CLINIC Webinar Series: Citizenship and Naturalization

6/9/21-6/11/21 ‘Ageing Gracefully? The 1951 Refugee Convention at 70’

6/9/21-6/12/21 2021 AILA Virtual Annual Conference on Immigration Law

6/9/21 Hot topics: Adjudication and Enforcement Trends

6/10/21 Public Charge and Hot Topics in Consular Processing

6/14/21 Taxes at the Border: Understanding the Tax Consequences of Immigration Status

6/15/21 U Visa Hot Topics

6/15/21 Motions to Reopen in Immigration Court: Part III – VAWA Self-petitioners

6/16/21 Phase 2 of a SIJS case: Preparation & submission of the immigration forms to USCIS

6/17/21 Practice tips for representing clients with criminal legal system contacts in affirmative applications

6/22/21 Defending Immigration Removal Proceedings 2021

6/30/21 Immigration Update – June 2021

7/21/21 The ethics of dual representation (child and guardian) in SIJS practice

7/22/21 PLI: Defending Immigration Removal Proceedings 2021

9/23/21 Representing Children in Immigration Matters 2021: Effective Advocacy and Best Practices

ImmProf

Monday, May 10, 2021

Excerpt of Driving While Brown: Sheriff Joe Arpaio versus the Latino Resistance by Terry Greene Sterling and Jude Joffe-Block

Immigration Article of the Day: Jailhouse Immigration Screening by Eisha Jain

Sunday, May 9, 2021

Criticism of Biden’s New Immigration Judges Continues

Saturday, May 8, 2021

Job Announcement: Exec. Dir. of Stanford’s Immigration Policy Lab

RIP Cruz Reynoso, first Latino justice on California Supreme Court

Immigration Article of the Day: Reversing Immigration Law’s Adverse Impact on Health by Wendy Parmet

A Podcast Episode on Sanctuary

Friday, May 7, 2021

From The Bookshelves: My Mom Melts ICE by Hamid Yazdan Panah

Biden administration withdraws biometrics regulation from consideration

Third Circuit Rejects Castro-Tum, Trump Limitations on Immigration Judge Discretion to Close Cases

Controversy over New Immigration Judges

Thursday, May 6, 2021

From the Bookshelves: José M. Alamillo, Deportes: The Making of a Sporting Mexican Diaspora

Former President Bush Optimistic About Immigration Reform

Census 2020 data implications: immigration fuels population growth

Wednesday, May 5, 2021

Your Playlist: Gaby Moreno

U.S. Senator Alex Padilla to Headline Final Day of UCLA Center for Immigration Law and Policy Conference, May 7

House Dems Call to De-Fund 287(g) Programs

Corporate Crimmigration?

Tuesday, May 4, 2021

Migration Policy Institutie’s “Roadmap” for Legal Immigration Reform

Four Separated Families to be Reunited In the United States

Monday, May 3, 2021

President Biden’s First 100 Days: A Symposium

Memorandum for the Secretary of State on the Emergency Presidential Determination on Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2021

DHS Releases Information about Developments in Detention Conditions in U.S./Mexico Border Region

***************************

Thanks, Elizabeth!

Of particular interest, and an item I haven’t previously covered, is the article from Forbes recommending that we increase legal immigration levels by at least 37% to remain competitive in the world. But, it certainly echoes and confirms things I have said on this blog.

I have talked about the total stupidity of the Trump White Nationalist war on immigration. To a lesser extent, the Biden Administration is repeating the same mistakes by illegally keeping the Southern Border largely closed, to asylum seekers, while “slow walking” both refugee admissions and a restart of our legal immigration programs.

Many of the great folks we need to get our country back on track and build for future prosperity and success are qualified refugees — asylum seekers in this case — being wrongfully turned around without due process. They are right there, on our borders, coming to us, and we’re too dense and discombobulated to reestablish a legal system to screen and admit those qualified for legal admission.

A fair, properly generous, professionally run and led, and expert-staffed asylum system could harness this power rather than not only squandering the human lives involved but wasting time and money on detention, “deterrents,” “incentives” for other nations to violate human rights, and other misguided and wasteful enforcement gimmicks.

Doubt what I’m saying? You shouldn’t! The last three decades of actual experience bear me out. We have approximately 11 million undocumented individuals in the U.S. right now. The vast, vast majority, probably about 95%, present no threat and are actually productive, often essential, contributing members of our society.

There’s your 350,000 per year additional that we should have been legally admitting over the past three decades! Of course, it would have been better if we had screened, vetted, and processed them in a timely manner. But, that’s hard to do when 1) our legal immigraton system was designed to intentionally disregard and work against “market forces;” and 2) we’ve wasted incredible amounts of human and monetary capital on counterproductive and wasteful “enforcement gimmicks.”

That’s why it’s high time to reform our legal refugee, asylum and immigration systems to make them much more robust, realistic, and in furtherance of our true national interests, rather than a fruitless pursuit of White supremacist myths. Instead of wasting time and money on expensive, counterproductive, and divisive immigration enforcement gimmicks, immigration enforcement could be targeted at the real problems — smugglers and cartels (whose business opportunities would be diminished by a “real world” immigraton system), and identifying the relatively small number of individuals seeking admission who present an actual (rather than imagined and overhyped) threat to our nation’s safety and security. Jobs in a more rational, focused, humane, and professional immigration bureaucracy would also be attractive to a wider range of Americans seeking employment,

This is hardly a “pipe dream” unless you listen only to right wing media and Trump-type “magamoron” nativist myths. Indeed thoughtful experts and scholars across the ideological spectrum — from the Center for Migration Studies to the Cato Institute — recommend some variation of the robust, courageous, forward-looking approach to immigration I have described above. A bigger problem, as always, is getting politicians to do the right thing.

But, after four years of perhaps the biggest and most preventable failure to deal intelligently with immigration since the end of World War II, it’s high time we tried a better approach.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-11-21

🏴‍☠️☠️⚰️🆘NO JUSTICE @ JUSTICE! — OUTRAGE OF PROGRESSIVE EXPERTS CONTINUES TO GROW AS GARLAND FAILS TO VACATE SESSIONS/BARR RACIST, MISOGYNIST, ANTI-IMMIGRANT, UNETHICAL, BIASED PRECEDENTS — “Garland’s Star Chambers” Careen Further Out Of Control As AG Dithers While Lives Of Vulnerable Refugee Women Hang in Balance & Pro Bono Advocates Are Forced To Exhaust Resources Fighting Trump DOJ’s Misdeeds That Biden Has Failed To Fix, Despite Promises — “Unforced Errors,” Lack Of Competent Progressive Leadership Continue To Plague Flawed Immigration Agenda @ Justice, Offend Dem Supporters! — Expert Professors Karen Musalo & Stephen Legomsky Call For Immediate Vacating Of Repulsive Matter of A-B- Abomination Before More Lives Of Women Of Color Are Lost!

Professor Karen Musalo
Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Hastings Law

Stephen Legomsky — Professor Stephen H. Legomsky
Emeritus Professor of Law & Former USG Senior Executive
Washington U. Law
PHOTO: Washington U. Law website

https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/552539-one-quick-asylum-fix-how-garland-can-help-domestic-violence-survivors

Karen & Steve write in The Hill:

With the stroke of a pen, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland could restore access to life-saving protection for domestic violence survivors and others caught in the crosshairs of his predecessors’ campaign to exclude refugees. Garland can and should immediately vacate Jeff Sessions’ 2018 decision in the case known as Matter of A-B-, which all but eliminated asylum for people fleeing brutal domestic violence.

On the campaign trail Joe Biden pledged to reverse Matter of A-B- and ensure a fair opportunity for survivors to seek asylum. As president, Biden has issued an executive order directing his Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to review their asylum policies and, by August, determine whether our country protects people fleeing domestic violence in a way that’s consistent with international standards. Following this review, the agencies will issue regulations that bring our treatment of asylum seekers into alignment with our treaty obligations, and with basic principles of humanity and fairness.

But this process will span many months, and when lives are on the line, more immediate action is imperative. Every day Matter of A-B- remains in effect, people are being wrongly denied asylum and delivered into the hands of the very persecutors they’ve fled.

How did we get into this mess? In 2018, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions personally intervened in the case of Ms. A.B., a Salvadoran woman. He used her case as a vehicle to overrule a landmark Justice Department opinion recognizing domestic violence as a potential basis for asylum. That ruling was the culmination of 15 years of advocacy and extensive consideration by government agencies and refugee law experts.

The impact of Sessions’ decision was immediate and catastrophic. Immigration judges around the country began denying asylum in cases that — pre-Matter of A-B- — should have been relatively straightforward. Though some survivors could still prevail in immigration court, Trump administration attorneys would often appeal these cases to the Justice Department’s appellate tribunal, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and get them overturned.

. . . .

One of the authors — Professor Musalo — represents a victim of Sessions’ attack on survivors: We’ll call her “Cristina” to protect anonymity. Cristina fled Honduras after enduring nearly two decades of domestic violence so severe it once put her in a month-long coma. Cristina was also terrorized by a politically powerful family that murdered multiple siblings and close relatives. When Cristina received a note threatening her with the same fate, she knew she had no choice but to seek asylum.

Cases like Cristina’s have life-or-death stakes, but with Sessions’ ruling intact they are being denied automatically. Though Cristina presented a strong asylum application, in 2020 the Board of Immigration Appeals denied her case, ruling that Matter of A-B- precluded protection. Cristina now faces imminent deportation to Honduras, where she is terrified she’ll be killed.

Merrick Garland can protect survivors like Cristina by simply vacating Sessions’ decision and related asylum rulings from Trump’s Department of Justice. This would at least bring us back to where we were before — not a perfect world, but one where asylum seekers had a fairer shot — while the Justice Department prepares a more humane and legally defensible set of principles to guide future decision-making in asylum cases.

. . . .

******************

Read the complete op-ed at the link.

If the current BIA were replaced with competent, expert, progressive, due-process oriented judges tomorrow, as should have happened months ago, this problem could be solved immediately.

I have no doubt that with real asylum experts like Karen as appellate judges at the BIA, Matter of A-B- would rapidly be turned into a blueprint for efficiently granting needed protection to persecuted women. It would also serve as a much needed tool for ending the “asylum free zones” unethically and unprofessionally established by some Immigration Judges throughout the country and starting the long overdue process for removing those unqualified Immigration Judges who are unable or unwilling to fairly grant asylum to qualified applicants and who have created an unacceptable anti-asylum, racist, misogynist culture in some parts of EOIR, in other words the “95% denial club” needs to go! Now!

Disgracefully, that culture was actually encouraged and rewarded by White Nationalist political hacks like Sessions and Barr — folks who never, ever should have had any role in asylum adjudication in America, let alone been permitted to unethically act as “judges” in cases they had “pre-decided” on a mass basis! “Fair and impartial adjudicator,” the core of American constitutional due process, became a sick joke under Sessions and Barr as the Supremes and many Article IIIs disgracefully and spinelessly looked the other way. And, Garland has done nothing to effectively address or reverse this toxic, anti-due-process, racist, misogynist “culture” despite having been told by experts that it was an emergency that could not wait!

Karen and Steve also point out how the BIA disintegrated from a tribunal that was supposed to guarantee fairness and due process for migrants, implement best judicial practices, and protect the most vulnerable from Government overreach into a tool and weapon of DHS enforcement! Yet, 100 days into the Biden Administration, BIA appellate judges who “toadied up” to the Trump regime’s White Nationalist agenda and aided “Dred Scottification” of “the other” by Stephen MIller remain, and experts who should have replaced them remain “on the outside looking in.”

If the Biden Administration and Garland are incapable of putting diverse, qualified progressive experts into a judiciary that they actually control, what are the prospects for progressive transformation of the Article IIIs? That makes this week’s disclosure that Garland mindlessly appointed 17 “Miller Lite” Immigration Judges left over from Barr’s flawed recruitment and scummy tenure instead of properly using these valuable positions to start building a long overdue progressive, expert judiciary at EOIR all the more infuriating and outrageous!

The unmitigated, entirely unnecessary, and potentially solvable due process disaster at EOIR will prevent any meaningful progressive immigraton reforms, whether by legislation or Executive action! It’s also undermines racial justice, threatens the future of American justice, and undermines our democracy every day that it festers away, unaddressed.

Garland must fix this problem starting now! Reassigning the 17 judges who should not have been hired and are still in probation, re-competing their positions under merit criteria that encourage applications from all sources and promote diversity, and cancelling the ridiculous plans for the unneeded, due process denying Richmond Adjudication Center (“Star Chamber”) should be just the start.

Star Chamber Justice — “It’s a long way to Richmond,” as country singer Travis Tritt would say!

“Unit Chief Immigration Judges” are needed like a hole in the head, probably less. They were a bogus idea cooked up by now deposed former Director McHenry to aid in his misguided union busting initiative. What is needed is less bogus judicial supervision (whoever heard of qualified judges needing “supervisors”) and the accompanying time and resource wasting gimmicks, better professional judicial management, and more competent, progressive, independent, expert immigration judges with experience representing asylum applicants and other immigrants in Immigration Courts and judges with NGO and clinical experience who actually know how to manage dockets and solve problems — skills that are in perilously short supply at EOIR.

Garland needs to replace the “gang that can’t shoot straight” @ DOJ and EOIR with some progressive experts and let them start fixing problems and knocking heads of those still stuck in the Sessions/Barr era! Some of us believe that elections should have consequences. Among those is the immediate end of “Miller Lite Justice @ Justice” and the type of promised due process reforms that got Biden and Harris elected in the first place!

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-09-21

🇺🇸⚖️🗽GARCIA HERNANDEZ, MOSKOWITZ, CHEN, & I RIP GARLAND’S CONTINUATION OF BARR’S HORRIBLE IMMIGRATION JUDGE HIRING PRACTICES 🤮👎🏻 — DOJ’s Lame, Disingenuous Defense Of Garland’s Anti-Diversity, Anti-Immigrant, Anti-Due Process, Expertise-Denying Bogus Judicial Hiring Practices @ EOIR Enrages Progressives, Scholars, Experts, Betrays Biden’s Promises, Threatens To Shatter Dem Coalition! — Report By Rebecca Beitsch @ The Hill!

Rebecca Beitsch
Staff Writer
The Hill
PHOTO: pewtrust.org

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/552373-biden-fills-immigration-court-with-trump-hires

From Rebecca’s article:

. . . .

The first 17 hires to the court system responsible for determining whether migrants get to remain in the country is filled with former prosecutors and counselors for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as well as a few picks with little immigration experience.

Almost none have made their career representing migrants in court.

The Thursday announcement from the Department of Justice (DOJ) initially perplexed immigration attorneys, advocates and even some former immigration judges who wondered why the group so closely mirrored the jurists favored by the Trump administration.

. . . .

It’s also a surprising move for a president that has otherwise sought to quickly reverse a number of Trump immigration policies while calling for a more humane response to migration.

“This is a list I would have expected out of Bill Barr or Jeff Sessions, but they’re not the attorney general anymore. Elections are supposed to have consequences,” said Paul Schmidt, now an adjunct professor at Georgetown Law School after 21 years as an immigration judge. That included time serving as the chair of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the highest administrative body dealing with immigration cases.

“No one on that list is among the top 100 asylum authorities in the country, and that’s the kind of people they should be hiring — not prosecutorial re-treads,” he added.

. . . .

DOJ pushed back against criticism that the new judges would contribute to a pattern of rulings that favor government attorneys over immigrants, saying it “takes seriously any claims of unjustified and significant anomalies in adjudicator decision-making and takes steps to evaluate disparities.”

“Note also that the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) continually evaluates its processes and procedures to ensure that immigration cases are adjudicated fairly, impartially and expeditiously and that its immigration judges uniformly interpret and administer U.S. immigration laws,” the spokesperson said.

But Schmidt said diversifying the attorneys on the bench is what will be needed to have a greater impact.

“You need to get some progressive immigration experts into the system who recognize what good asylum claims are who can establish precedent for granting cases and then move those cases through the system,” he said.

“I haven’t seen much evidence to back up their initial claim they want to be fair and just to asylum seekers. It’s just Stephen Miller Lite.”

*************************

The DOJ’s response is preposterous, further evidence Garland is the wrong person to bring “justice” back to “Justice!” No, and I mean NO, progressive immigration expert in America would call the DOJ’s judicial hiring practices under the Trump Administration fair and merit-based! These lists and the selection process were tainted by the Trump kakistocracy at DOJ. What kind of Attorney General perpetuates this utter nonsense!

Numerous detailed reports have criticized the Trump hiring plan that Garland mindlessly and insultingly furthered! Garland has access to all of these criticisms, most of which were delivered to the Biden Transition Team in one form or another. No excuses for Garland’s atrocious handling of EOIR to date!

The claim that EOIR takes claims of glaring discrepancies “seriously” is equally ridiculous and intellectually dishonest! Current TRAC Immigration data shows asylum grant rates for currently sitting Immigration Judges varying from more than 90% to 1% with a number of Immigration Judges, including several “rewarded” with appointments to the BIA under Barr, denying 98% or 99% of claims. Duh, you don’t need to be a statistician or have an Ivy League law degree to know that there is a skunk 🦨 in these woods!

These are major, unacceptable discrepancies first highlighted by my colleagues Professor Andy Schoenholtz, Professor Phil Schrag, and Professor and now Associate Dean (Temple Law) Jaya Ramji Nogales in their seminal work “Refugee Roulette” written more than a decade ago at Georgetown Law. The system is actually immeasurably worse now than it was then, as Sessions and Barr filled the Immigration Bench and packed the BIA with unqualified judges notorious for their lack of knowledge of asylum law and their anti-asylum bias. In some cases, they combined those shortcomings with allegations of rudeness and unprofessional behavior lodged by the private bar.

The NY Times figured out exactly what is wrong with the Immigration Courts — that they are not really “courts” at all by any normal measure and are operated by individuals who place immigration enforcement above due process and equal justice. Garland is certainly smart enough to have figured out what the NYT Editorial Writers had no difficulty in documenting and describing!

Neither Biden nor Garland would be in their current jobs without the efforts of progressive immigration litigators and scholars over the past four years and the energy and resources they injected into the Biden-Harris campaign when the chips were down! Progressives can’t allow the Biden Administration and Garland to continue to treat them as “chopped liver” while coddling Stephen Miller, Billy Barr, and, outrageously, even “AG for 5 minutes” “Monty Python” Wilkinson’s clearly unjustified and highly inappropriate judicial picks!

These are NOT bureaucratic jobs. “Conditional offers” aren’t “jobs,” particularly when made in the “excepted service” on the eve of or even after a hotly contested election where immigration and human rights were major issues! Immigration Judge positions are important life or death judicial positions in what is now America’s worst and most broken judiciary. In that context, Garland’s inappropriate judicial selections are totally outrageous and set a tone of continuing disrespect and disregard for some of the Democratic Party’s most loyal supporters, their expertise, and the important communities they represent!

Trial By Ordeal — Woman Being “Tried By Ordeal”
17th Century Woodcut
Public Realm
Source: Ancient Origins Website
https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160

It’s time for the Biden Administration to pay attention to the progressive immigration/human rights/due process bar! Otherwise, perhaps it’s time for progressives to turn their energies and talents to opposing an Administration that neither represents their views nor values their expertise and tireless efforts in support of American democracy and equal justice for all!

I, for one, did not go to the polls last fall to help more “Billy the Bigot” picks off tainted, exclusionary lists, developed in a culture that actively discouraged progressives and minority attorneys from applying, get jobs as Immigration Judges for which there is no way that they are the best candidates available! And, I’ll bet that neither did other members of the NDPA! Enough is enough! End the EOIR Clown Show!☠️🤡 And, if Garland can’t or won’t do that, then Biden needs a new AG before Garland irrevocably splinters the Democratic base with his gross mishandling of EOIR!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-09-21

🇺🇸⚖️🗽NY TIMES EDITORIAL MAKES THE CASE FOR ARTICLE I — “It’s hard to imagine a more glaring conflict of interest than the nation’s top law-enforcement agency running a court system in which it regularly appears as a party.” — Garland’s Abject Failure To Fix EOIR, Bring In Experts Highlighted, As Constitutional Due Process, Ethical, Human Rights, Racial Justice, Gender Equity, Diversity, & Management Farce @ EOIR Continues Under His Disgraceful Lack Of Awareness & Failure Of Courageous, Progressive Leadership! — Progressives Can’t Remain Silent, Must “Raise Hell” 👹With Biden Administration About Garland’s Lousy Performance @ EOIR, As He Continues To Stack Immigration “Judiciary” With “Miller Lite Holdovers” 🤮 To The Exclusion of Progressive Experts Who Helped Put Biden Administration In Office!

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/08/opinion/sunday/immigration-courts-trump-biden.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

Because of it’s critical importance and it’s “right on” expose of the most glaring problem in American justice today, this timely editorial is quoted in full:

Immigration Courts Aren’t Real Courts. Time to Change That.

May 8, 2021

Image

By The Editorial Board

The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom.

President Biden took office with a promise to “restore humanity and American values” to the immigration system. If he’s going to succeed, it will take more than shutting down construction on his predecessor’s border wall. The most formidable obstacle to making the U.S. immigration system more humane and functional is invisible to most Americans: the nation’s broken, overwhelmed immigration court system.

Every day, hundreds of immigration judges slog through thousands of cases, unable to keep up with a crushing backlog that has more than doubled since 2016. Many cases involve complex claims of asylum by those who fear for their safety in their home countries. Most end up in legal limbo, waiting years for even an initial hearing. Some people sit in detention centers for months or longer, despite posing no risk to the public. None have the right to a lawyer, which few could afford anyway.

“The system is failing, there is no doubt about it,” one immigration judge said in 2018. As long as the system is failing, it will be impossible to achieve any broad-based immigration reform — whether proposed by Mr. Biden or anyone else.

The problem with these courts isn’t new, but it became significantly worse under the Trump administration. When he took office in 2017, President Donald Trump inherited a backlog of about 540,000 cases, already a major crisis. The administration could have used numerous means to bring that number down. Instead, Mr. Trump’s team drove it up. By the time he left office in January, the backlog had ballooned to nearly 1.3 million pending cases.

How did that number get so high? Some of the increase was the result of ramped up enforcement of immigration laws, leading to many more arrests and detentions that required court attention. The Trump administration also reopened hundreds of thousands of low-priority cases that had been shelved under President Barack Obama. Finally, Mr. Trump starved the courts of funding and restricted how much control judges had over their own dockets, making the job nearly impossible for those judges who care about providing fair and impartial justice to immigrants.

At the same time, Mr. Trump hired hundreds of new judges, prioritizing ideology over experience, such as by tapping former Immigration and Customs Enforcement prosecutors and others who would help convert the courts into a conveyor belt of deportation. In 2018, then Attorney General Jeff Sessions imposed an annual quota of 700 cases per judge. One judge testified before a House committee last year that Mr. Trump’s system was “a widget factory management model of speed over substance.”

By some measures, the plan worked: In 2020, the immigration courts denied 72 percent of asylum claims, the highest portion ever, and far above the denial rates during the Obama and George W. Bush administrations.

If the goal was to empty the United States of all those asylum seekers, Mr. Trump clearly failed, as evidenced by the huge backlog he left Mr. Biden. But the ease with which he imposed his will on the immigration courts revealed a central structural flaw in the system: They are not actual courts, at least not in the sense that Americans are used to thinking of courts — as neutral arbiters of law, honoring due process and meting out impartial justice. Nor are immigration judges real judges. They are attorneys employed by the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which is housed in the Department of Justice. It’s hard to imagine a more glaring conflict of interest than the nation’s top law-enforcement agency running a court system in which it regularly appears as a party.

The result is that immigration courts and judges operate at the mercy of whoever is sitting in the Oval Office. How much money they get, what cases they focus on — it’s all politics. That didn’t used to be such a problem, because attorneys general rarely got involved in immigration issues. Then Mr. Trump came along and reminded everyone just how much power the head of the executive branch has when it comes to immigration.

The solution is clear: Congress needs to take immigration courts out of the Justice Department and make them independent, similar to other administrative courts that handle bankruptcy, income-tax and veterans’ cases. Immigration judges would then be freed from political influence and be able to run their dockets as they see fit, which could help reduce the backlog and improve the courts’ standing in the public eye. Reform advocates, including the Federal Bar Association, have pushed the idea of a stand-alone immigration court for years without success. The Trump administration made the case for independence that much clearer.

In the meantime, there are shorter-term fixes that could help restore a semblance of impartiality and professionalism to the immigration courts.

First, the system must be properly staffed and funded to deal with its backlog. One way to do that is by hiring more judges, and staff members to support them. Today there are about 550 immigration judges carrying an average of almost 3,000 cases each, which makes it nearly impossible to provide anything like fair and consistent justice. Earlier this week, Attorney General Merrick Garland asked Congress for a 21 percent increase in the court system’s budget. That’s a start, but it doesn’t come close to solving the problem. Even if 600 judges were able to get through 700 cases a year each — as Mr. Sessions ordered them to — it would take years to clear up the existing backlog, and that’s before taking on a single new case.

This is why another important fix is to stop a large number of those cases from being heard in the first place. The Justice Department has the power to immediately remove as many as 700,000 cases from the courts’ calendar, most of them for low-level immigration violations — people who have entered the country illegally, most from Mexico or Central America, or those who have overstayed a visa. Many of these cases are years old, or involve people who are likely to get a green card. Forcing judges to hear cases like these clutters the docket and makes it hard to focus on the small number of more serious cases, like those involving terrorism or national-security threats, or defendants facing aggravated felony charges. At the moment, barely 1 percent of all cases in the system fall into one of these categories.

A thornier problem is how to stamp out the hard-line anti-immigrant culture that spread throughout the Justice Department under Mr. Trump, Mr. Sessions and the former president’s top immigration adviser, Stephen Miller. For instance, a 2019 department newsletter sent to immigration judges included an anti-Semitic reference and a link to VDare, an anti-immigrant group that regularly publishes white nationalists.

One of Mr. Biden’s first steps in office was to reassign the head of the immigration court system, James McHenry, who played a central role in many of Mr. Trump’s initiatives. But it’s generally hard to fire career civil servants, like the many judges and other officials tapped to promote Mr. Trump’s agenda. The Biden administration can reduce their influence by reassigning them, but this is not a long-term fix. While these judges are subject to political pressures, there can be no true judicial process.

If there’s any silver lining here, it is to be found in Mr. Trump’s overreach. The egregiousness of his administration’s approach to immigration may have accelerated efforts to solve the deeper structural rot at the core of the nation’s immigration courts.

***********************

We know that they aren’t “real courts;” but, they could and should be — progressive, due process oriented, model courts to boot! It will never happen, however, with the tone-deaf way Garland has approached EOIR in his first 60 days!

As progressives, immigration, human rights, women’s rights, due process, and racial justice advocates well know, Garland’s incredibly poor, downright insulting stewardship @ DOJ has already made things worse at EOIR! Every day this “fake” court system — a massive “big middle finger” to the integrity of American justice and a shocking betrayal of those who fought to preserve justice and bring the Biden Administration into power — continues is a “bad day” for equal justice, racial justice, and gender justice in America!

It’s also an inexcusable squandered opportunity for the Biden Administration to “recreate” the broken, biased, lacking in competence “Immigration Judiciary” as an independent progressive judiciary that was promised in rhetoric, but has been mocked in action.

Can any progressive imagine how the Heritage Foundation or the Federalist Society might have reacted if Trump, McConnell, Miller, and the DOJ had treated their recommendations for creating a reactionary far-right judiciary with the callous disregard and total disrespect that Garland has shown for the blueprint set forth by progressives for rapidly reforming the Immigration Judiciary into the model progressive judiciary needed to save American justice (not to mention save the lives of many of the most vulnerable, deserving, and needy among us)?

For Pete’s sake, Garland just gave Stephen Miller, “Billy the Bigot” Barr, and “Monty Python” “deference” on his first 17 totally inappropriate “judicial picks” while telling fighters for due process and human dignity to “go pound sand.” We weren’t even given the courtesy of being informed — Kowalski and I had to “smoke it out” with the help of “DT-21.”

“Courtesy and deference” for Miller, Barr, and “Monty Python;” total disrespect for the NDPA and the humans (“persons” under the Constitution) we represent? Come on, man!

The BIA has “restrictionist judges” going all the way back to the Bush II political travesty supplemented by Miller, Sessions, and Barr. Yet, there is not a single, not one, true progressive practical scholar-immigration/human rights expert among this “Gang of 23” — a group that includes a number of “appellate judges” who distinguished themselves with their overt hostility, to immigrants’ rights, rudeness to attorneys, and denial of nearly 100% of asylum claims coming before them. These are “Garland’s Judges?”

Worse, yet another totally inappropriate “insider appointment” to the BIA by Garland— bypassing the numerous far better qualified “practical scholars” in the private sector — is rumored to be in the offing! NO! This outrageous, tone-deaf performance and disrespect for progressive human rights experts by Garland must stop!

As the editorial correctly suggests, starting to fix EOIR, even in the absence of long overdue congressional action, is not rocket science! The incompetent senior “management” @ EOIR and the entire membership of the BIA can and should be reassigned. Tomorrow!

Experienced, highly competent, scholarly, creative, courageous, progressive judges already on the EOIR bench — like Judge (and former BIA Appellate Judge and DOJ Senior Executive) Noel Brennan (NY), Judge Dana Marks (SF), and Judge Amiena Kahn (NY) — should be detailed to Falls Church HQ to start fixing EOIR and getting the BIA functioning as a real appellate court — focused on due process, high quality scholarship, best practices, and holding ICE accountable for following the law — until more permanent appointments and necessary due process reforms can be made.

In the meantime, competent, progressive, temporary leadership can bring in temporary appellate judges at the BIA with sound records of fair asylum adjudication to end “refugee roulette” and eradicate the disgraceful “asylum free zones” being improperly run by unqualified IJs in some Immigration Courts. Reform of this disgustingly broken system can’t “wait for Godot” any longer!

As Judge Jeffrey Chase cogently stated in Law360, further “permanent” judicial appointments @ EOIR should be frozen pending development of merit-based criteria and active recruitment aimed at creating a more diverse, progressive judiciary. All existing “probationary judges” selected by Barr should have their positions “re-competed” under these merit-based criteria, with avenues of public input built into the permanent selection system.

Progressives, colleagues, members of the Round Table, members of the NDPA, if you’ve had enough of Garland’s lousy, insulting, tone-deaf, indolent, due-process-disparaging performance at EOIR let your voices be heard with the Biden Administration! What is going on at EOIR every day under Garland is not acceptable! The life-threatening, demeaning, totally unnecessary EOIR Clown Show must go! Now!

EOIR Clown Show Must Go T-Shirt — “EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept — Continues to be in demand under Garland!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-09-21

⚖️HON. “SIR JEFFREY” S. CHASE SPEAKS OUT ON GARLAND’S TONE-DEAF, ANTI-PROGRESSIVE, SLAP IN THE FACE TO IMMIGRATION EXPERTS! — Garland, Who Lived His Life In Privileged “Ivory Tower” Positions Thinks Those Serving In The Trenches Who Actually Know What’s Wrong With American Justice & Live It Every Day Aren’t Important & Don’t Count! — He’ll Blow You Off Until You Yank His Chain!

17 New Immigration Judges Largely Held Prior Gov’t Roles – Law360

From an article by Alyssa Aquino @ Law360:

. . . .

However, former immigration judge and current private attorney Jeffrey Chase raised concerns over the apparent speed of the appointments. Immigration law and its administration changed vastly under former President Donald Trump, whose attorneys general used their self-referral powers to issue precedents that, in some cases, restricted the number of people who can qualify for asylum. The Justice Department has also curbed immigration judges’ discretionary powers, such as their ability to administratively close or continue cases, and instituted case completion quotas.

“If you’re looking at this whole system, shouldn’t you put your hirings on hold until you actually figure out your whole needs, how to train them and what law will apply to them?” Chase said.

*********************

Some seem to “fob off” these “Miller/Barr leftover” picks as just “in the pipeline!” I call BS!

Garland has conducted more “outreach” to “Trumpist holdovers” than he has to progressive advocates and the NDPA! Was this election really about giving Garland a chance to continue the Miller, Sessions, Barr White Nationalist, misogynist, anti-asylum, anti-due-process, anti-private-bar regime @ the EOIR Clown Courts under Dem auspices?

You have no right to a Federal job until you take the oath and actually begin work. And that goes for fake “Billy Barr” and absurd “Monty Python” Wilkinson appointments too, unless these folks were in their judicial positions prior to the November elections.

I know because I actually lived through “hiring freezes” in the Reagan and Carter Administrations. Reagan even cancelled all Federal job offers retroactively to the date of his election on Nov. 5, 1980. And, he got away with it! His action was upheld by a Federal Court even in cases of those who had moved, quit jobs, or made other arrangements in reliance on their offers of Federal employment. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1981/02/26/job-freeze-by-reagan-is-upheld/6ee18e32-b8bf-4fdd-90f1-7180c2cafd9d/?no_nav=true&tid=a_classic-iphone.

IJs are classified as DOJ attorneys in the “excepted service.” They actually have fewer rights than most of those selected under the civil service competitive system who had job offers retroactively withdrawn by Reagan.

As far as I can tell from the EOIR release, whatever the gobbledygook about “Barr,” “Monty Python,” or “Garland” “appointments,” it appears that none of these folks actually entered onto duty in their judicial jobs until April, well after Biden’s inauguration and well after the election was decided. It was even after Garland’s swearing in.

Indeed, the “delayed announcement” confirms that the Garland folks knew they were screwing over progressives and individuals caught in the EOIR web of dysfunction and disrespect and were hoping to “slip this in under the radar screen.” Usually, the DOJ can’t wait to tout their new “judicial” hires at EOIR!

Given the mountains of criticism from progressives about the composition of the Immigration Judiciary under Sessions and Barr, the clear efforts by them to redesign the IJ job so that it would be unattractive to most minority attorneys, experts, and due process activists, and the intentional lack of recruitment outreach to “underrepresented communities” of lawyers (basically minority lawyers), there is no excuse for Garland’s actions! These lists were tainted!

Moreover, the Biden Transition Team knew that progressive experts recommended “sea changes” in judicial recruitment, hiring, and training at EOIR and that even those already in EOIR judicial positions under Trump be carefully re-examined under “merit criteria” as to their suitability for judicial positions and their demonstrated commitment to due process for migrants and respect for attorneys.

Additionally, all newly appointed EOIR “judges” serve a two-year probationary period during which they basically can be terminated “at will” by the AG. Even those with limited “tenure” can be transferred out of their judicial positions and moved to other jobs, as those of us “purged” from the BIA by Ashcroft for political reasons can attest. Not only was it totally inappropriate for Garland to go ahead with these “Miller Lite” hires, but he and his team should re-compete the positions of all Barr probationary appointments under revised merit criteria designed to attract a wider, more diverse, and more qualified group of applicants.

These are NOT life-tenured appointments! At most, “probationary judges” who fail to achieve merit reappointment and were previously Federal employees might be entitled to a reassignment to another government attorney position (not necessarily an adjudicator position) at the same pay level. That’s essentially what happened to those of us “purged” from the BIA by Ashcroft in 2003. We were’t even invited to apply for or interviewed for our own jobs! The whole process was done without application of any “merit principles” whatsoever!

The process under which these 17 were selected was intentionally designed to exclude progressives, minorities, and other experts who would be committed as judges to upholding due process and the legal rights of asylum seekers and other migrants! Garland’s message is clear: Immigration expertise, experience representing individuals in Immigration Court, and commitment to enforcing due process and holding ICE accountable DON’T COUNT!

Republicans play “hardball.” Garland, like Dems before him, is a wimp!

Here are the “stats” that should stand out to NDPA members for these 17 tainted “judicial selections:”

Number of known AILA members: 0 (maybe 1)

Number of clinical professors: 0

Number of human rights experts: 0

Number of noted immigration, human rights, immigration scholars: 0

Number of NGO attorneys: 0

Number who represented an individual in Immigration Court in past year: unknown, but max of 2

Number who have been involved in advocating for positive immigration reform: 0

Number who would appear on any list of the “top 100 immigration experts in America:” 0

Number who have won awards for pro bono litigation representing migrants during last 4 years: 0

Number with recently published immigration scholarship: 0

Number with experience administering major pro bono programs: 0

Number with recent community service awards: 0

Number involved with Round Table amicus briefing efforts: 0

Number who have appeared in video training sessions for immigration advocates in past year: 0

Number who have authored or contributed to “white papers” on improving due process in Immigration Court: 0

Number who applied under “Trump-era” announcements and procedures: 17

Number of progressive judges confirmed and sitting on Article III Courts under Biden: 0

Number of progressive Immigration Judges appointed under Biden: 0

Number of regressive Immigration Judges appointed under Biden: 17

17 Immigration Judges are NOT going to make a statistical difference in eliminating or reducing a largely self-created 1.3 million cases backlog! But, they will make a huge difference in the lives of individuals and their lawyers caught up in this designed to fail system. Moreover, initial appointments set a tone.

Additionally, as already pointed out by others, Garland’s continued staffing of “Miller Lite Star Chambers” like the unnecessary and due process denying “Richmond VTC ‘Court’” — without any discussion with stakeholders and advocacy groups who have unanimously opposed it — is a total disgrace!

Folks in the NDPA, Garland is sending you a message: GO POUND SAND! I CARE MORE ABOUT “HUMORING” THOSE SELECTED BY STEPHEN MILLER, BILLY BARR, & “MONTY PYTHON” THAN I DO ABOUT YOU, YOUR EXPERTISE, AND THE HUMANS YOU REPRESENT! AND, I FULLY INTEND TO SUBJECT YOU AND YOUR CLIENTS TO THE SAME “DUE PROCESS DENYING, DEMEANING VTC STAR CHAMBERS” THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION DESIGNED, OVER YOUR OBJECTIONS, TO KEEP THE “EOIR DEPORTATION RAILROAD RUNNING!”

Heck, I’m retired. But, if I were out there in the trenches like most of the members of the NDPA, I’d take this personally, as exactly the insult and put down by Garland that it is and react accordingly. After eight years of Bushie political hacks, eight years of Obama’s indolent approach to EOIR, four years of “Gonzo” Sessions, Whitaker, “Billy the Bigot,” and “Monty Python” we deserve better!

It’s up to you to get energized, get mad, get even, and force Garland and his outrageous “Star Chamber Courts” to their knees! Because if you’re waiting for him to “wake up and get religion on EOIR,” read your letters, act on your “white papers,” respect your achievements, or treat your clients as humans, you’ll be waiting in vain!

🇺🇸🗽🗽⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-08-21

😎🗽👍⚖️FINALLY, SOME GOOD NEWS FROM THE EOIR TOWER! — Trump “Burrower” 🤮👎 Carl C. Risch Out As Deputy Director!

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

Courtside Exclusive

May 7, 2021

Hamed Aleaziz @ BuzzFeed News tweeted https://twitter.com/Haleaziz/status/1390724674825326593?s=20 this afternoon that “Trump burrower” Carl C. Risch has resigned as Deputy Director @ EOIR. This move fulfills a prediction made earlier this week by Courtside source “DT-21.” https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/05/05/🤮👎🏻shocking-betrayal-justice-garland-disses-progressive-experts-with-secret-appointments-of-17-unqualified-immigration-judges-n/

It follows an inquiry from Senate Judiciary Chair Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) and others to the Garland DOJ about the much-criticized and obviously questionable last minute appointment of the former DOS politico to a SES job at EOIR. Chairman Durbin, in turn, was no doubt spurred into action by complaints from members of the NDPA and others in the due process advocacy community. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/04/20/⚖%EF%B8%8Fas-garland-dawdles-chairman-dick-durban-d-il-homes-in-on-eoir-deputy-director-illegally-appointed-burrower-carl-c-risch-what-should-have-b/

Risch’s last-minute appointment at EOIR was particularly egregious, since he had no known Immigration Court experience. EOIR currently is in an existential crisis that threatens to topple the entire U.S. Justice System, with a highly politicized “judiciary” and an astounding, largely self-inflicted 1.3 million case backlog.

That backlog multiplied much faster than the additional Immigration Judges that Sessions and Barr used to “pack” the Immigration Courts with restrictionists and judges sympathetic to ICE enforcdement and often hostile to asylum seekers and their lawyers. As many experts have observed, the Trump era hires often had highly questionable judicial qualifications, many lacking any immigration law expertise or experience. Perhaps, that’s a reason why the backlog continued to grow exponentially even as Sessions and Barr tried gimmick after gimmick, a number of them blatantly illegal and enjoined by Federal Courts, to cut corners and “rev up” the “Trump Deportation Railroad @ EOIR.”

Obviously, throwing an unqualified political hack like Risch into this mess in a senior “management” position was just another example of the Trump Administration’s abuse of government resources and manipulation of personnel practices @ DOJ. It took some time for Judge Garland to get this one right. But, better late than never.

However encouraging the news of Risch’s departure might be, there is still much more “housecleaning” to be done by Garland at the EOIR Tower. That should start with BIA Chair David Wetmore, a Stephen Miller/Gene Hamilton crony with no positive reputation for scholarship or expertise in the immigration/human rights community and no known experience representing asylum seekers or other migrants in Immigration Court.

It’s little wonder that with “appellate judges” who have earned little respect in the legal community at large comprising the BIA, the system is a mess, turning out poor work product and elementary errors, “outed” by the Article IIIs on a regular basis.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-07-21

🇺🇸🗽Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

From Tal:

🗽⚖️🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Hernández-Galand v. Garland — In Absentia

Cheneau v. Garland — Derivative Citizenship — En Banc

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Was this guy

Really this guy

In disguise all along?

An anonymous source reports:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Maine Voices: New U.S. intelligence report suggests how Maine can address global trends

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Because of it’s critical importance and it’s “right on” expose of the most glaring problem in American justice today, this timely editorial is quoted in full:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸🗽🗽⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

Courtside Exclusive

May 7, 2021

Related posts: