Interior Enforcement – Page 11 – immigrationcourtside.com

⚖️🗽 NDPA ALERT‼️ — Attend The EOIR Stakeholder Meeting For Law School Clinics, Thursday, September 21 @ 2 PM EDT — Free Registration Here!

From EOIR:

EOIR to Host National Stakeholder Meeting for Law School Immigration Clinics

SUMMARY: The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) invites faculty, staff, and students from law school immigration clinics to attend a national stakeholder meeting focused on pro bono advocacy.

EOIR continues to build upon the guidance in EOIR Director Memorandum 22-01, Encouraging and Facilitating Pro Bono Legal Services, and welcomes the public’s input in evaluating our efforts to increase representation in immigration court proceedings. During the meeting, agency leadership will summarize feedback received during its April series of listening sessions, discuss steps EOIR has taken since those meetings, and share ideas for future initiatives as we collaborate to strengthen pro bono representation in immigration courts.

Following that discussion, agency leadership will welcome stakeholder input regarding ways to increase pro bono representation for Dedicated Dockets.

DATE: TIME: LOCATION:

Sept. 21, 2023

2 p.m. – 3 p.m. Eastern Time

Live via Webex – Meeting Registration

All media inquiries should be directed to the Communications and Legislative Affairs Division at pao.eoir@usdoj.gov.

— EOIR —

Here’s the registration link:

https://eoir.webex.com/weblink/register/rde8d6afe67dcef358a29e879af341b65

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

We all know that EOIR is struggling. Unrepresented and under-represented individuals are basically “cannon fodder” for a hopelessly backlogged system where due process, fundamental fairness, and meticulous scholarship are too often afterthoughts, at best.

Insuring that individuals facing this dysfunctional system are well-represented is key to both saving lives and holding EOIR accountable. It also supports those judges at both levels who are fighting to restore due process, fundamental fairness, decisional excellence, and best practices to EOIR.

EOIR is widely known for its lack of transparency. Every nugget of information about the Immigration Court system’s practices, policies, objectives, and operating plans is therefore precious.

Also, giving EOIR honest feedback about some of the “real life” roadblocks and unnecessary challenges (like, for example, endemic Aimless Docket Reshuffling, arbitrary expedited dockets, and courts located inside prisons and other obscure, largely inaccessible, locations) is a critical chance to push back against mindless bureaucracy and suggest effective, practical solutions that enhance, rather than impede, due process.

Unfortunately, few of those shaping EOIR practices have recent experience actually trying to represent pro bono clients in this often “user unfriendly” and unnecessarily chaotic system. (It’s routinely described by experienced practitioners as the “Wild West of American Law.”) This is YOUR chance to learn and to inject a “dose of reality” into an agency that too often operates in a parallel universe.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

09-19-23

🤯HOW LONG DID IT TAKE THE USG TO GRANT A “SLAM DUNK” 🏀 ASYLUM CASE OF A MEXICAN JOURNALIST? — 15 YEARS! — No Wonder This Dysfunctional, Unfair System Has Endless Backlogs!

Low Hanging Fruit — Harvesting the “low hanging fruit” — the many clearly grantable asylum cases — has proved remarkably elusive for EOIR — under Administrations of both parties!
IMAGE: Creative Commons 2.0

From The National Press Club:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QhiXmsGEBd6YQn8lYieaP8GUt7QiEnWJ/view?usp=sharing

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

That Mexico is one of the most dangerous countries in the world for journalists is hardly “rocket science.” 🚀 See, e.g., https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/annihilating-journalism-mexican-reporters-work-attacks-killings-rcna14196. Yet, an EOIR Judge was allowed to twice wrongfully deny this “slam dunk” case — on specious grounds such as making the absurd finding that Mr. Gutierrez was not a journalist — over six years before the BIA finally ended the farce!🤡

Even today, there is no BIA precedent to expedite the granting of these meritorious cases and to curb rogue judges from mindlessly denying everything that comes before them (according to TRAC, the IJ in this case had a “facially ludicrous” 95.6% asylum denial record). It’s also no coincidence that AILA attorneys in El Paso, where this case originated, have long complained about anti-asylum bias among the Immigration Judges. See, e.g., https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjphqPxn62BAxW4EVkFHUz3CEkQFnoECBEQAw&url=https://www.elpasotimes.com/story/news/immigration/2019/04/03/complaint-alleges-misconduct-el-paso-immigration-judges/3357416002/#:~:text=The%20complaint%20alleges%20that%20one,reason%20she%20was%20being%20persecuted.&usg=AOvVaw0FywozGcr8pn-K2ytfZkCT&opi=89978449.

So, let’s put this into a real world context. 15 years, two wrong IJ decisions, and two trips to the BIA to complete (actually it’s still not complete, because it was remanded for “background checks,” but that’s another saga), a case that should have taken a well-qualified Immigration Judge about 15 minutes to grant. So, what chance is there that without major leadership, personnel, structural, and substantive changes, EOIR could do “justice” on asylum cases put on an ”expedited docket.” Slim and none, as actual experience shows!

The necessary first step toward meaningful immigration reform is a complete overhaul of EOIR. Without that readily achievable administrative action, no attempt at legislative or regulatory reform can succeed. It’s not rocket science! 🚀 Just common sense, moral courage, and “good government.”

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

09-16-23

😢☠️ DACA: THE CRUELTY IS THE POINT — Right Wing Judges, GOP Politicos Take Aim @ America’s Future By Dumping On Dreamers!🤮

OLAFIMIHAN OSHIN & Rebecca Beitsch report in The Hill:

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4203346-federal-judge-again-declares-daca-immigration-program-unlawful/

A federal judge for the second time found the DACA program unlawful, but held back from ordering the deportation of the nearly 600,000 people who remain in the country as “Dreamers.”

The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, first crafted with a 2012 memo under the Obama administration, was likewise found unlawful by federal District Court Judge Andrew Hanen in a similar ruling in 2021.

“While sympathetic to the predicament of DACA recipients and their families, this Court has expressed its concerns about the legality of the program for some time,” Hanen wrote in the 40-page ruling.

“The solution for these deficiencies lies with the legislature, not the executive or judicial branches. Congress, for any number of reasons, has decided not to pass DACA-like legislation.”

Given earlier challenges to the DACA program’s creation through a memo, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2022 underwent formal rulemaking to solidify the basis for the program.

But Hanen found while the government followed the law in undergoing notice and comment rulemaking, the new rule essentially carried the 2012 memo into a formal rule without addressing prior issues criticized by the court.

Last year the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, before remanding the case to Hanen, found broader issues with DACA, saying the policy was inconsistent with immigration processes laid out under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Hanen pointed to that in his Wednesday ruling, noting that while the record underlying the new rule showed DACA to be beneficial to both recipients and the U.S. “DHS did nothing to change or resolve the substantive problems found by this court or the fifth circuit.The decision earned swift backlash from immigration advocates and spurred familiar calls for Congress to act.

. . . .

The decision earned swift backlash from immigration advocates and spurred familiar calls for Congress to act.

“While expected, today’s court ruling is devastating. It impacts hundreds of thousands of immigrant youth and their loved ones, who have already endured years of uncertainty stemming from politicized attacks on DACA,” Kica Matos, president of the National Immigration Law Center said in a statement.

“Congress has failed to pass a permanent legislative solution, and it is urgent that they act now. We cannot allow court rulings to continue to upend the lives of hundreds of thousands of immigrant youth whose home is here.”

The ruling comes months after a coalition of nine GOP-led states asked Hanen to end the federal program, referring to the program as “unlawful” and “unconstitutional.”

. . . .

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

Read the complete article at the link.

Once you get beyond GOP White Nationalist politicos and judges, DACA legislation is widely popular across the political spectrum. Yet, the GOP is happy to defy the common good, and, sadly, Dems are afraid to leverage and elevate DACA to a “Tier One” issue! So, a generation of younger talent that American needs for the future continues to “twist in the wind!” Stupid, cruel, wasteful!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

09-14-23

🍂FALL FOLLIES: BIA FUMBLES BASIC STANDARDS FOR FUTURE FEAR AND INTERNAL RELOCATION, SAYS 6TH CIRCUIT — Lin v. Garland

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/23a0205p-06.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca6-on-future-fear-internal-relocation-lin-v-garland

“The question before us is whether the BIA’s determinations are supported by substantial evidence. As will be explained below, the BIA’s rationale does not allow us to make that determination. So we grant Lin’s petition and remand for further proceedings. … It is difficult to imagine that a reasonable person in Lin’s position, under the circumstances demonstrated in the record, would feel safe returning home. The determination that Lin failed to show a reasonable likelihood of individualized persecution in China is contravened by the record and compels us to conclude otherwise. … [H]ere, where we are left with no indication that the BIA undertook the appropriate inquiry and significant indications that it likely did not, remand for full consideration is proper.”

[Hats off to Henry Zhang!]

—

Daniel M. Kowalski

Editor-in-Chief

Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

cell/text/Signal (512) 826-0323

@dkbib on Twitter

dan@cenizo.com

Free Daily Blog: www.bibdaily.com

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

PWS: “Another “Big Whiff” by the BIA! Sounds like assembly line denials to me!”

HON. “SIR JEFFREY” CHASE: “Whether a reasonable person returning home would feel safe – the correct standard cited by the circuit, is rarely if ever applied by the current BIA. I would really love to see the IJ training material on this standard.”

This is life or death folks! Why isn’t getting it right at the “retail level” an urgent mission for the Government?

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

09-13-23

⚖️😎☹️ AFTER RARE VICTORY FOR RESPONDENT IN MATTER OF C-G-T- (UNWILLING/UNABLE TO PROTECT, POLICE REPORT, HIDING SEXUAL ORIENTATION), BIA REVERTS TO FORM BY DENYING ADJUSTMENT TO CONDITIONALLY PAROLED CUBANS (MATTER OF CABRERA-FERNANDEZ)

Here’s the link to Matter of C-G-T-, 28 I&N Dec. 740 (BIA 2023):

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1594626/download

Here’s the link to Matter of Cabreara-Fernandez, 28 I&N Dec, 747 (BIOA 2023):

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1595041/download

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

This e-mail exchange among experts says it all about Cabrera-Fernandez:

Expert 1: Wow – they never miss a chance to hurt noncitizens, do they?

Expert 2: The cruelty is the point.

With an available interpretation that would have allowed regularization of status, what purpose is served by devising a way to keep these otherwise qualified Cubans in limbo? Why would the DHS appeal a decision like this? Why would the BIA reward them for pursuing a result that is 1) inhumane, 2) undesirable, and 3) entirely avoidable with a little creativity and common sense (see, IJ in this case)?

No wonder we have backlogs everywhere an a dysfunctional system that nobody in charge seems interested in fixing — even when fixes are available and basically “cost free?” Better leaders and more enlightened decision-makers would be helpful.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

09-12-23

🗽⚖️🇺🇸⚔️🛡 ROUND TABLE (THANKS TO WILMER CUTLER PRO BONO) JOINS OTHER NGOS IN URGING SUPREMES TO PRESERVE MEANINGFUL JUDICIAL REVIEW FOR CANCELLATION! (Wilkinson v. Garland) — Rae Ann Varona Reports for Law360:

Rae Ann Varona
Legal Reporter
Law360
PHOTO: Linkedin

Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Immigration Community helpfully forwarded the pdf’s of Rae Ann’s article and the three briefs. You can access them here:

Ex-Immigration Judges Back Trinidadian Man Before Justices – Law360

1718000-1718295-former eoir judges

1718000-1718295-domestic violence orgs

1718000-1718295-aila

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

Our Round Table, with the help of some of the greatest litigators and law firms out there, continues to provide key support for the NDPA and timely expertise to the Federal Courts and father Executive on all levels!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

09-08-23

🏴‍☠️ 🤯 ABSURDIST SCOFFLAW TEX “GOV” ABBOTT BLOWN AWAY IN ROUND I OF “BUOY BATTLE!” — Texas Federal Judge Rejects Ludicrous “Invasion Defense!”

Priscilla Alvarez reports for CNN:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/06/politics/texas-mexico-border-water-barriers-migrants/index.html

CNN —

A federal judge ordered Texas to remove floating barriers in the Rio Grande and barred the state from building new or placing additional buoys in the river, according to a Wednesday court filing, marking a victory for the Biden administration.

Judge David Alan Ezra ordered Texas to take down the barriers by September 15 at its own expense.

The border buoys have been a hot button immigration issue since they were deployed in the Rio Grande as part of Gov. Greg Abbott’s border security initiative known as Operation Lone Star. The Justice Department had sued the state of Texas in July claiming that the buoys were installed unlawfully and asking the judge to force the state to remove them.

In the lawsuit, filed in US District Court in the Western District of Texas, the Justice Department alleged that Texas and Abbott violated the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act by building a structure in US water without permission from United States Army Corps of Engineers and sought an injunction to bar Texas from building additional barriers in the river. The Republican governor, meanwhile, has argued the buoys are intended to deter migrants from crossing into the state from Mexico.

Texas swiftly appealed the judge’s order.

. . . .

Ezra also found Texas’ self-defense argument – that the barriers have been placed in the face of invasion – “unconvincing.”

. . . .

Ezra also found Texas’ self-defense argument – that the barriers have been placed in the face of invasion – “unconvincing.”

. . . .

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

Read the rest of Priscilla’s report at the link.

Who knows how this will play out in the 5th Circuit and the Supremes, given the composition of those courts. But, at least for a day, Judge Ezra has brought some common sense and the rule of law to bear on out of control grandstanding Texas “Governor” Greg Abbott.

In addition to being cruel and illegal, Abbott’s $140 million buoy boondoggle is predictably a failure from a deterrence standpoint. See, e.g., https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi-5saEvpiBAxUXpIkEHU1VBwoQFnoECBoQAQ&url=https://www.livemint.com/news/texas-floating-border-wall-fails-to-deter-migrants-11693942981798.html&usg=AOvVaw0TX6bBkO0Fv0MezJLQPJkk&opi=89978449. (Although Abbott and his White Nationalist supporters falsely claim otherwise.) But, as my friends Dan Kowalski and Judge “Sir Jeffrey” Chase often say, effective deterrence isn’t the point — the cruelty and dehumanization is!

We should also remember that the vast majority of those whom Abbott and the nativists bogusly call “invaders” seek only to turn themselves in to U.S. authorities so they can exercise their clear legal rights to apply for asylum — rights that attach regardless of status or manner of entering the U.S. (Rights that also have improperly been diminished and impeded by the Biden Administration’s ill-advised asylum regulations, currently under legal challenge).

If successful (under a legal system intentionally rigged against them), these so-called “invaders” will use their skills and work ethic to expand our economy and help Americans prosper while saving their lives and those of their families. To anybody other than Abbott and other White Nationalists, that sounds like a potential “win-win” that could and should be “leveraged” for everyone’s benefit!

Judge Ezra’s opinion in the aptly-named U.S. v. Abbott can be found here:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172749163/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172749163.50.0.pdf?ftag=YHF4eb9d17

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

09-07-23

🤯DOUBLE FAULT (NOT @ THE U.S. OPEN): BIA Screws Up Credibility (2d) & CIMT (9th)

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

CA2 on Credibility: Pomavilla-Zaruma v. Garland

https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/79e67d72-5394-48f3-a31d-354db6bb388e/1/doc/20-3230_opn.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca2-on-credibility-pomavilla-zaruma-v-garland

“Petitioner applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. An immigration judge found Petitioner not credible and denied her application, relying in part on inconsistencies between Petitioner’s statements during a border interview and later testimony regarding her fear of persecution. However, the immigration judge failed to consider various factors that may have affected the reliability of the border interview record. Petitioner claims that she was frightened during the interview because a border patrol officer hit her and yelled at her upon her arrival to the United States. Petitioner may also have been reluctant to reveal information about persecution because authorities in her home country were allegedly unwilling to help her due to her indigenous status. Moreover, the questions asked during Petitioner’s border interview generally were not designed to elicit the details of an asylum claim. In Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2004), we cautioned immigration judges to consider these factors and others before relying on a border interview to find an asylum applicant not credible. Consistent with Ramsameachire and subsequent precedent, we hold that immigration judges are required to take such precautions, provided the record indicates that the Ramsameachire factors may be implicated. Accordingly, we GRANT the petition for review in part, VACATE the BIA’s decision, and REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

[Hats off to Reuben S. Kerben!]

—

Daniel M. Kowalski

Editor-in-Chief

Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

cell/text/Signal (512) 826-0323

@dkbib on Twitter

dan@cenizo.com

Free Daily Blog: www.bibdaily.com

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

CA9 (2-1) on CIMT, J-G-P-: Flores-Vasquez v. Garland

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/08/31/20-73447.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca9-2-1-on-cimt-j-g-p–flores-vasquez-v-garland

“Jose Luis Flores-Vasquez (“Flores-Vasquez”), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal. He argues that the BIA erred in finding that his prior menacing conviction under Oregon Revised Statute § 163.190 constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”), rendering him ineligible for cancellation of removal. We agree and grant this portion of the petition. … Here, … Matter of J-G-P- does not purport to reassess longstanding BIA and Ninth Circuit precedent concerning simple assault offenses, and because it misapplied that precedent, its conclusion is unreasonable. See id. PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.”

[Hats off to Jonathan C. Gonzales!]

—

Daniel M. Kowalski

Editor-in-Chief

Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

cell/text/Signal (512) 826-0323

@dkbib on Twitter

dan@cenizo.com

Free Daily Blog: www.bibdaily.com

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

The problems continue for a “court” system lacking the necessary leadership, expertise, and due process focus!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

09-05-23

🇺🇸🗽👍 WATCH TEA’S COFFEE: Immigrant Food’s Superstar 🌟 Co-Founder/COO & Cato’s Alex Nowrasteh Take Apart The White Nationalist Restrictionist Myths About Immigrants!

Tea Ivanovic
Co-Founder and Chief Operating Officer
Immigrant Food
PHOTO: Immigrant Food

Tea writes:

Editor’s Note – August 2023

Dear Reader,

America is built on the drive and determination of immigrants. Even though immigration is one of America’s founding principles, it remains one of the most hotly contested social and political issues of modern times. This ongoing debate is fueled by a number of negative myths about immigrants that have taken root in society.

This month, we are committed to busting the common political, economic, and demographic myths about immigration. We examine how these myths have taken root in our society, how they spread, and what can be done to change the narrative on immigration.

For this month’s issue, we spoke with Alex Nowrasteh, the Vice President for Economic and Social Policy Studies at the Cato Institute. Alex is one of the leading voices when it comes to immigration policy.

Hope you gain new insights,
Téa

Watch “Tea’s Coffee” where she interviews Alex Nowratseh here:

https://immigrantfood.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=ce06e58bfebaeac8af360fd3e&id=2800d3f1d8&e=16814f5ced

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

Watch the video at the above link and find out more on the Immigrant Food website here:

https://immigrantfood.com/

Alex says there are three things we can do to combat the myths and lies being spread by the nativist/restrictionists:

Recognize the humanity of immigrants and their legal rights under our laws;
Emphasize that immigrants compliment, rather than compete with, us;
Point out that the “border chaos” is largely the result of bad laws and failed deterrence policies rather than the fault of immigrants.

By contrast, you can spot the bogus restrictionist/nativist myths a mile way because they:

Dehumanize immigrants by falsely reducing them to “statistics, numbers, apprehensions, beds, costs, graphs, and charts;”
Make the bogus claim that our economy is a “zero sum game” where every additional immigrant means “less of the pie” for you or me — a claim which is demonstrably false because people and immigration are what have allowed us historically to expand our economy so there potentially will be more for everyone (provided that those at the top don’t grab a disproportionate share for themselves);
Promote the myth of “just get in line” when there in reality is no line for most to get in because of the unduly restrictive nature of our laws and their poor administration by successive Administrations. They ignore the reality that robust migration is here to stay. The real choice is whether or not we want realistic laws and policies that recognize and harness that reality or instead continue to reward smugglers, enrich jailers, and force millions of migrants into the “extralegal” underground economy where they can not contribute fully economically or politically.

As another “myth debunker,” Time’s Haley Sweetland Edwards, said:

These political reactions fail to grapple with a hard truth: in the long run, new migration is nearly always a boon to host countries. In acting as entrepreneurs and innovators, and by providing inexpensive labor, immigrants overwhelmingly repay in long-term economic contributions what they use in short-term social services, studies show. But to maximize that future good, governments must act -rationally to establish humane policies and adequately fund an immigration system equipped to handle an influx of newcomers.

https://immigrationcourtside.com/2019/01/27/inconvenient-truth-haley-sweetland-edwards-time-tells-what-trump-miller-cotton-sessions-their-white-nationalist-gang-dont-want-you-to-know-human-migration-is-a-powerful-force-as-old/

Clown Court — “And the winner was . . . .”
PHOTO: Clown Civertan.jpg, Creative Commons License

“Governments must act rationally!” Certainly, neither Trump nor any of the GOP clowns 🤡 seeking to be him are “rational actors” on immigration, the economy, infrastructure, education, individual rights, or anything else of importance to our nation. Indeed, the ignorance, indecency, irrationality, and bias exhibited during the so-called “GOP debate” was beyond appalling, despite the media’s pathetic attempts to “normalize” idiocy. Six folks afraid to say “hypothetically” that they would vote for someone OTHER than a convicted felon who made totally baseless claims that he won the 2020 election! Gimmie a break! (I’m certainly not the only one impressed by the disturbingly low quality of the GOP “field.” See, e.g., https://www.huffpost.com/entry/larry-hogan-gop-candidates-trump-conviction-question_n_64e82302e4b0a2a9abc4bdc0).

Tea Ivanovic — an amazing immigrant entrepreneur and inspirational leader who is on Forbes’s list of “30 under 30” — is a stellar example of how immigrants of all types — from those at the border to those in boardrooms — make America better! See, e.g.,

https://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/07/22/🦃-hokie-hero-va-tech-honors-ndpa-all-star-tea-ivanovic-of-immigrant-food-industry-leader-spotlight-disruptive-food-startup-incorporates-gastronomy-a/

Food for thought from Tea and the good folks at Immigrant Food!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-26-23

☠️👎🏼 ANOTHER SUPER-SHODDY PERFORMANCE BY BIA ON CENTRAL AMERICAN ASYLUM OUTED BY 9TH CIR. — Reyes-Corado v. Garland

Four Horsemen — BIA Asylum Panel In Action. It’s hard to ignore the BIA’s violent, deadly, abuse of asylum seekers, particularly those of color. But, somehow, Merrick Garland, Lisa Monaco, Vanita Gupta, Kristen Clarke, and other DOJ officials manage to look the other way, as do Congressional Dems! Too busy fecklessly complaining about Justice Clarence Thomas to look at their own house?
Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/08/11/18-70225.pdf

SUMMARY** Immigration

The panel granted a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of Francisco Reyes-Corado’s motion to reopen removal proceedings based on changed circumstances, and remanded.

The Board denied reopening based, in part, on Reyes- Corado’s failure to include a new application for relief, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). The government acknowledged that under Aliyev v. Barr, 971 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2020), the Board erred to the extent it relied on Reyes- Corado’s failure to submit a new asylum application for relief. Here, however, unlike in Aliyev, Reyes-Corado did not include his original asylum application with his motion to reopen. Consistent with the plain text of § 1003.2(c)(1) and various persuasive authorities, the panel held that a motion to reopen that adds new circumstances to a previously considered application need not be accompanied by an application for relief.

The Board also denied reopening after concluding that Reyes-Corado did not establish materially changed country conditions to warrant an exception to the time limitation on his motion to reopen. Reyes-Corado initially sought asylum relief based on threats he received from his uncle’s family members to discourage him from avenging his father’s murder by his uncle’s family. The Board previously concluded that personal retribution, rather than a protected

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

REYES-CORADO V. GARLAND 3

ground, was the central motivation for the threats of harm. In his motion to reopen, Reyes-Corado presented evidence of persistent and intensifying threats.

As an initial matter, the panel explained that the changed circumstances Reyes-Corado presented were entirely outside of his control, and thus were properly understood as changed country conditions, not changed personal circumstances. The panel also held that these changed circumstances were material to Reyes-Corado’s claims for relief because they rebutted the agency’s previous determination that Reyes-Corado had failed to establish the requisite nexus between the harm he feared and his membership in a familial particular social group. The panel explained that the Board’s previous nexus rationale was undermined by the fact that the threats, harassment, and violence persisted despite the lack of any retribution by Reyes-Corado’s family against his uncle’s family for at least fourteen years after Reyes-Corado’s father’s murder, and where multiple additional family members were targeted, including elderly and young family members who would be unlikely to carry out any retribution. Thus, the panel held that the Board abused its discretion in concluding that Reyes-Corado’s evidence was not qualitatively different than the evidence at his original hearing.

The panel also declined to uphold the Board’s determination that Reyes-Corado failed to establish prima facie eligibility for relief because Reyes-Corado’s new evidence likely undermined the Board’s prior nexus finding, and the Board applied the improperly high “one central reason” nexus standard to Reyes-Corado’s withholding of removal claim, rather than the less demanding “a reason” standard.

4 REYES-CORADO V. GARLAND

The panel remanded for the Board to reconsider whether Reyes-Corado established prima facie eligibility for relief and to otherwise reevaluate the motion to reopen in light of the principles set forth in the opinion.

COUNSEL

David A. Schlesinger

(argued), Kai Medeiros, and Paulina

Reyes, Jacobs & Schlesinger LLP, San Diego, California, for Petitioner.

Enitan O. Otunla (argued), Trial Attorney; Bernard A. Joseph, Senior Litigation Counsel; Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice; Washington, D.C.; for Respondent.

OPINION

KOH, Circuit Judge:

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

Congrats to David A. Schlesinger & colleagues!

I’ve often discussed EOIR’s all-too-frequent use of bogus nexus determinations – basically turning normal legal rules on causation on their head – to deny protection to bona fide refugees, particularly those from Latin America and Haiti.

There is a growing body of evidence that EOIR is systematically unfair to Central American asylum applicants. But, Garland, his lieutenants, and Congressional Dems have basically looked the other way as this stunning, widespread denial of due process and equal protection under our Constitution continues to unfold in plain view on their watch! Why? Where’s the dynamic, values-based, expert, ethical leadership we should expect from a Dem Administration?

This particular example of substandard “judging” literally reeks of pre-judgement and “endemic any reason to denialism!”

Dems wring their collective hands about Justice Clarence Thomas, who is essentially unaccountable and untouchable! But, they have done little or nothing to address serious competence, bias, and ethical issues festering in a major “life or death” Federal Court System they totally control!

Lots of “talk,” not much “walk” from Dems!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-15-23

⚖️🤯 UNJUSTIFIED! — Federal Judge Charges USG $22,601 For DHS’s Scofflaw Actions & DOJ’s Mindless “Defense Of The Indefensible” In Colorado Detention Case! — Wanton Cruelty & Stubborn Stupidity Cost In More Ways Than One!

Dan Kowalski reports for LexusNexus Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/habeas-eaja-fee-victory-in-colorado-viruel-arias-v-choate

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cod.217942/gov.uscourts.cod.217942.16.0.pdf

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cod.217942/gov.uscourts.cod.217942.28.0.pdf

Michael Karlik, Colorado Politics, Aug. 2, 2023

“A federal judge has determined the government was unjustified in its fight to keep a woman locked up in an Aurora immigrant detention center while her deportation case proceeded. U.S. District Court Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney ordered the federal government last September to hold a hearing to determine whether Brenda Viruel Arias should be released from custody. Sweeney found the circumstances of Viruel Arias’ 14-month confinement required a bond hearing to avoid infringing on her constitutional right to due process. Shortly afterward, an immigration judge permitted Viruel Arias’ release after the government failed to prove she should remain behind bars. Viruel Arias’ lawyers then requested $22,601 in attorney fees from the government. Under federal law, victorious parties in civil cases against the government may receive attorney fees if, among other things, the government’s position was not “substantially justified.” On July 12, Sweeny agreed the government was not substantially justified in resisting a release hearing for Viruel Arias. In recent years, she observed, federal judges in Colorado have been sympathetic to non-citizens’ claims of unconstitutional confinement where the detention has exceeded one year. The government, as a party those cases, was aware of the judiciary’s attitude toward prolonged detention. “(T)hey do not justify why they did not follow a clear legal trend,” Sweeney wrote.”

[Hats off to Conor Gleason and Laura Lunn!]

Connor Gleason, Esquire
Senior Staff Attorney, Detention Program
Rocky Mountain Imm

Laura Lunn, Esquire
Director of Advocacy & Litigation
Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network (“RMIAN”)
PHOTO: RMIAN

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

RMIAN is “on a roll” these days. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=34101&action=edit.

Garland’s DOJ, “not so much.”

Here’s my favorite quote from Judge Sweeney’s decision: “At bottom, Respondents were not substantially justified in their pre-litigation and litigation practices because they disregarded a clear legal trend in the District and their own agency policies in the underlying action.”

Similar to the Trump Administration, the Biden Administration is wasting taxpayer money on cruel, unnecessary, expensive, illegal detention, and then squandering even more money on the arguably frivolous, and clearly mindless, defense thereof! Somebody should be asking Garland why?

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-05-23

⚖️🤯 BIA SEEKS AMICUS INPUT ON HOW THEY CAN HELP DHS “REMEDY” ITS OWN MISTAKES!

Former AG Jeff Sessions openly despised immigrants and their attorneys and encouraged “his judges” at EOIR to help out their “partners at DHS Enforcement.” That attitude lives on even under AG Merrick Garland!
This caricature of Jeff Sessions was adapted from a Creative Commons licensed photo from Gage Skidmore’s Flickr’s photostream.
DonkeyHotey
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1592111/download

Amicus Invitation No. 23-01-08

AMICUS INVITATION (NOTICE TO APPEAR) DUE August 31, 2023

AUGUST 1, 2023

The Board of Immigration Appeals welcomes interested members of the public to file amicus curiae briefs discussing the below issue(s):

ISSUE(S) PRESENTED:

Pursuant to Matter of Fernandes, 28 I&N Dec. 605 (BIA 2022):

1. Should an Immigration Judge allow DHS to remedy a non-compliant Notice to Appear?

2. To remedy a non-compliant Notice to Appear, is either (1) issuing an I-261, or (2) amending the Notice to Appear, permitted by the regulations, and would either comport with the single document requirement emphasized by the United States Supreme Court in Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021)? If not, how can a non-compliant Notice to Appear be remedied?

Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae: Members of the public who wish to appear as amicus curiae before the Board must submit a written request labeled “REQUEST TO APPEAR AS AMICUS CURIAE” pursuant to Chapter 2.10, Appendix A (Directory), and Appendix E (Cover Pages) of the Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual. The Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae must explicitly identify that it is responding to Amicus Invitation No. 23-01-08. The decision to accept or deny a Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae is within the sole discretion of the Board. Please see Chapter 2.10 of the Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual.

Filing a Brief: Please file your amicus brief in conjunction with your Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae pursuant to Chapter 2.10 of the Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual. The brief accompanying the Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae must explicitly identify that it is responding to Amicus Invitation No. 23-01-08. An amicus curiae brief is helpful to the Board if it presents relevant legal arguments that the parties have not already addressed. However, an amicus brief must be limited to a legal discussion of the issue(s) presented. The decision to accept or deny an amicus brief is within the sole discretion of the Board. The Board will not consider an amicus brief that exceeds the scope of the amicus invitation.

Request for Case Information: Additional information about the case, including the parties’ contact information, may be available. Please contact the Clerk’s Office at the below address for this information prior to filing your Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae and amicus brief.

Page Limit: The Board asks that amicus curiae briefs be limited to 25 double-spaced pages.

Deadline: Please file a Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae and amicus brief with the Clerk’s Office at the address below by August 31, 2023. Your request must be received at the Clerk’s Office within the prescribed time limit. Motions to extend the time for filing a Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae and amicus brief may not be entertained. It is not sufficient simply to mail the documents on time. We strongly urge the use of an overnight courier service to ensure the timely filing of your brief.

Service: Please mail three copies of your Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae and amicus brief to the Clerk’s Office at the address below. If the Clerk’s Office accepts your brief, it will then serve a copy on the parties and provide parties time to respond.

Joint Requests: The filing of parallel and identical or similarly worded briefs from multiple amici is disfavored. Rather, collaborating amici should submit a joint Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae and amicus brief. See generally Chapter 2.10 (Amicus Curiae) and Chapter 4.6(i) (Amicus Curiae Briefs) of the Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual.

Notice: A Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae may only be filed by an attorney, accredited representative, or an organization represented by an attorney registered to practice before the Board pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1292.1(d). A Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae filed by a person specified under 8 U.S.C. § 1367(a)(1) will not be considered.

Attribution: Where more than three attorneys or representatives sign an amicus brief or filing, the Board will name only the first three individuals in the published case. If you wish a different set of three names or have a preference on the order of the three names, please specify the three names in your Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae and amicus brief.

Clerk’s Office Contact and Filing Address:

To send by courier or overnight delivery service, or to deliver in person:

Amicus Clerk

Board of Immigration Appeals Clerk’s Office

5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Church, VA 22041

Business hours: Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

Fee: A fee is not required for the filing of a Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae and amicus brief.

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

Seems like the obvious “remedy” would be to require that DHS issue a new compliant NTA!

Respondents don’t get to “remedy” all mistakes, even inadvertent ones! Why should the USG be allowed to weasel its way out of a situation they intentionally created in a misguided effort (aided and abetted by EOIR “management”) to cut corners and generate statistics to please their political masters?

Ever since the “Ashcroft purge,” the BIA has functioned less and less as an independent quasi adjudicative body and more and more as an apologist for, enabler, or justifier of each Administration’s immigration enforcement agenda! In other words, the BIA’s role has become largely to slap a “quasi-judicial veneer” on DHS enforcement policies and priorities so that OIL can argue Chevron deference or even “Brand X” in the Article IIIs!

Of course, using EOIR as a “deterrent” and “enforcer” over the past two decades has been a spectacular failure! It has led to “Aimless Docket Reshuffling on Steroids,” absurdly insurmountable backlogs, and frequent rebukes from the Article IIIs.

Indeed, having helped create and magnify exponentially the mess at EOIR, many of the Trump and Biden Administration’s “gimmicks” appear aimed at avoiding or sidestepping the EOIR process altogether.

It’s the height of disingenuousness! At the urging of the White House, DOJ and DHS “break” the fair hearing system at EOIR. They then use their own misconduct and mismanagement as an excuse to deny asylum seekers and others access to the fair and impartial adjudication system to which they are legally entitled!

And, while the Article IIIs, even the Supremes, have “called out” EOIR on frequent, particularized errors, they have been happy to sweep the obvious “big problem” under the rug in a monumental exercise of “judicial task avoidance!”

That problem is that as currently operated, the EOIR system is a clear violation of the Constitutional principle that individuals facing removal, an often irreparable, even deadly, loss, are entitled to a reasonable decision from a fair and impartial decision-maker. See, e.g., Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970). While justice is served in some EOIR decisions, the systemic failures push in the exact opposite direction.

Without the necessary systemic safeguards in place, life and death decisions are largely an arbitrary and capricious “crap shoot” where wildly inconsistent results on the same or similar facts too often depend on the attitude of the judge, the whimsical decisions by “management” on whether to interfere in decision-making, and the location and circumstances of the hearing.

This is NOT the way to run a legitimate court system in compliance with due process and fundamental fairness!

For now, advocates should continue to vocalize their strong opposition to “how can we help our partners at DHS Enforcement” adjudication passing for justice at EOIR!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-02-23

🤯 INCREDIBLE! — 2d Cir. Schools EOIR On Adverse Credibility — Chen v. Garland

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/58f9e14a-e986-4263-9590-1f525ff8d4f9/2/doc/19-715_opn.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca2-on-credibility-chen-v-garland

“Zhi Bo Chen petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming a decision of an Immigration Judge (IJ) that denied his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture, and ordered him removed from the United States. The IJ’s decision was based, in part, on its finding that Chen was not credible. Because certain reasons for that credibility finding were erroneous, and because we cannot be confident that the IJ would have made the same determination absent those errors, Chen’s petition for review is GRANTED, the BIA’s decision is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

[Hats off to Gary Yerman!]

Gary Yerman, Esquire
Managing Partner
The Yerman Group
NY, NY

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

My favorite quote from the Circuit’s decision by Judge Raymond J. Lohier (Obama appointee): “We conclude that the IJ misidentified part of Chen’s testimony as inconsistent, improperly relied on trivial inconsistencies, and misconstrued as an omission a part of Chen’s testimony that comported with his Form I-589 asylum statement.”

But, even with all these glaring defects, the IJ’s findings were affirmed by the BIA without much, if any, critical analysis. What does this say about EOIR under AG Garland?

Credibility should be “bread and butter” for EOIR Judges and particularly the BIA. But, when the “culture” is “any reason to deny,” bad things happen!

As my Round Table colleague Hon. “Sir Jeffery” Chase commented: “You have to wonder what percentage of all BIA decisions contain significant errors.”

I think that’s a particular concern in unrepresented cases, which are much less likely to reach the Circuits. Additionally, the unduly restrictive legal standard for judicial review means that marginal BIA adverse credibility findings will often get “rubber stamp” affirmances from the Circuits.

Essentially, EOIR often denies the respondent “the benefit of the doubt” in close credibility cases and then the Courts of Appeals give the BIA “the benefit of the doubt.” So, it ends up being a “double whammy” for the respondent!

That’s why it is critical to have individuals effectively represented at the trial level! At each level thereafter, the law skews heavily in favor of the Government!

That also supports the position that “dedicated dockets” and “expedited dockets” that discourage and impede (one could argue intentionally) effective representation and full presentation of all the evidence should be held to be prima facie denials of due process!

It’s also why I argue that it’s so important that exceptionally well qualified experts with experience representing asylum seekers be appointed to these hugely important (yet widely ignored and under-appreciated) EOIR judgeships! Better judges would make the entire EOIR system fairer and more efficient, without sacrificing due process!

That’s also why appellate victories like this by Attorney Gary Yerman are so impressive and telling about the continuing dysfunction at EOIR!

Additionally, given the “loading of the system” against the respondent on credibility, the BIA has to REALLY screw up to get reversed, as they did in this case! That, in turn, raises a fundamental unresolved issue: Why is a Dem Administration running a specialized court system that all too often lacks the expertise and judgement to get “bread and butter” issues like this correct in the first instance?

It’s obvious that a BIA that goofs up cases like this is NOT providing the type of clear, expert guidance to IJs necessary to achieve due process and fundamental fairness on a continuing systemic basis! That should be of huge concern to everyone who values justice in America!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-01-23

⚖️🗽 TRIPLE HEADER! — Cornell Immigration Clinic Wins 3 @ BIA!

Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr reports:

Paul: Thanks to the excellent work of our law students, our Cornell asylum clinic received three BIA remands this spring.  A short summary of each case follows.  A longer summary of each case is attached, as well as redacted versions of the BIA’s decisions. If anyone wants redacted copies of our briefs, have them contact me directly.

Please mention on Immigration Courtside. Thanks, Steve

1: IES is a citizen of Mexico and a former gang member.  The immigration judge (IJ) denied withholding and CAT relief, holding that his conviction in California was a particularly serious crime and that our client did not meet the requirements for CAT relief. For the particularly serious crime argument, our brief argued that the IJ improperly analyzed IES’ offense, ignored credible evidence that the drugs were for personal use, and relied on boilerplate sentencing documents instead. As a result, the IJ failed to analyze IES’s motivation and intent at the time of the offense. We used case law where crimes like sexual contact with a minor (Afridi v. Gonzalez) and strangulation (Flores-Vega v. Barr) were remanded because the facts and circumstances of the offense had not been considered.

For our CAT argument, we focused on 6 IJ errors: 1) the IJ did not consider that his prolonged mental pain would cause future torture (we had psychological evaluation reports and decided to use them for this argument). This is an underutilized argument in CAT claims, so there isn’t much case law. We used the interpretation from an OLC opinion on prolonged mental harm to bolster this argument. 2) The IJ did not consider future torture from gangs and cartels despite an expert saying this risk was at 80%. 3) The IJ did not consider country conditions and did not admit 400 pages into evidence. 4) The IJ mischaracterized his attempts to flee cartels 8 times as “relocation.” 5) The IJ did not think there was police acquiescence even though the police, the local Attorney General, and the judicial police ignored IES’ complaints. 6) The IJ did not aggregate IES’ risk of torture. The BIA remanded.

2: LRG is a citizen of El Salvador who fled to the US in 1989.  While in the US he joined the MS-13 gang. He is in U.S. prison for a criminal conviction. The IJ denied withholding and CAT relief. Our client’s info was part of the November 2022 ICE data leak, but the IJ did not address that concern.

Our brief argued that our client is more likely than not to face torture if removed to El Salvador. We posited several theories under which our client is likely to be tortured: 1) by the Salvadoran government, especially if our client is incarcerated there; 2) by Salvadoran gangs, in or out of prison, with the acquiescence of the Salvadoran government; and/or 3) by Salvadoran anti-gang death squads, with the participation or acquiescence of the Salvadoran government. We argued that our client’s identifying characteristics, including his gang tattoos and criminal history, would subject him to targeting and torture by any of these groups. We also argued that the IJ insufficiently aggregated our client’s risk of torture in El Salvador and that the IJ erred by failing to consider the impact of the ICE data leak on our client.  Finally, we argued that the IJ afforded insufficient weight to the evidence offered by our client. The IJ admitted Dr. Patrick McNamara’s universal expert declaration only as background evidence, rather than for his expert opinions. The BIA remanded.

3: REC is a citizen of El Salvador who fled to the US in 2022.  REC was not a gang member, but his brother was, and was killed by the police.  REC’s family filed a lawsuit against the police for murdering REC’s brother, and the police retaliated against REC.  The IJ denied asylum, withholding, and CAT relief.

On asylum and withholding, we argued that the IJ erred by ignoring the Salvadoran government as a persecutor of REC and by failing to assess the proper particular social group that REC had proposed, based on his membership in his family. On CAT, we argued that the IJ effectively ignored part of REC’s claim by failing to analyze whether the MS gang would be more likely than not to torture him. We further argued that the IJ’s analysis about the Salvadoran government as a torturer of REC was flawed because the IJ herself found that Salvadoran officials “misused their power” when they beat him. We argued that the IJ also erred because she did not aggregate all potential sources of torture, including the government and the MS gang. The BIA remanded.

Stephen Yale-Loehr

Professor of Immigration Law Practice, Cornell Law School

Faculty Director, Immigration Law and Policy Program

Faculty Fellow, Migrations Initiative

Co-director, Asylum Appeals Clinic

Co-Author, Immigration Law & Procedure Treatise

Of Counsel, Miller Mayer

Phone: 607-379-9707

e-mail: SWY1@cornell.edu

Twitter: @syaleloehr

Check out my Green Card Stories book:

http://www.greencardstories.com.

See more of my books at amazon.com/author/stephenyaleloehr

You can access my papers on SSRN at: http://ssrn.com/author=109503

Cornell 1 Cornell 2 Cornell 3 Cornell 4 Cornell 5 Cornell 6

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

Get all the details in the six attachments above!

Thanks, Steve! And, congrats and “hats way off” (as my friend Dan Kowalski would say) to the clinic students involved!

Interesting to contrast the careful work of the clinic with the sloppy, result-oriented work of the IJs in these cases.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-29-23

⚖️ ATTENTION NDPA LITIGATORS & PROSPECTIVE LITIGATORS! — Join Our Round Table Colleague Judge Carol King & The National Institute For Trial Advocacy (“NITA”) For Training, Sept. 27-29 in NYC!

Honorable Carol King
U.S. Immigration Judge (Ret.)
Member, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

https://www.nita.org/immigration2023

Carol writes:

I know you are in touch with a lot of young lawyers in the NDPA and wanted to let you know about a wonderful trial skills training I’m involved in. I’ve been teaching for NITA in trainings focused on trial practice in Immigration Court for a few years now, along with Denise, Eliza, Jeff and others. This upcoming program in New York is for private counsel and is expensive, but totally worth it for new lawyers (and even experienced lawyers) to hone their trial skills. Judges appreciate it too! NITA also does public interest trial skills courses in cooperation with the NLGNIP which are more affordable for lawyers working for non-profits. If you know any young NDPA lawyers working for firms that can afford this program, I highly recommend it! Please pass this along to anyone you think would benefit. Here is the info:

Advocacy in Immigration Matters

.

September 27, 2023 – September 29, 2023

White & Williams LLP

New York, NY

https://www.nita.org/immigration2023

Thanks!

Carol

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

Home

Courses

Course Type

Trial Skills

Advocacy in Immigration Matters

SKU#

AIST923

White & Williams LLP Times Square Tower, #2900, New York, NY 10036

September 27, 2023 – September 29, 2023

Your Price: $1,945.00

QTY

Decrease number of items

Increase number of items

OVERVIEW

CLE & MATERIALS

SPECIAL PRICING

LOGISTICS

HELP

**Pre-Program Lecture Online scheduled for Friday, September 22, from 12:00 – 1:30 PM EST.**

WHY YOU SHOULD ATTEND

As an immigration defense lawyer, you know that practicing in immigration court is increasingly rife with changes and complexity. NITA recognizes this reality and, in response, has developed Advocacy in Immigration Matters, a specialized and timely program designed to help you rapidly upgrade your skills in representing those facing removal from the United States.

WHAT YOU WILL LEARN

This is the only trial skills advocacy course available that covers everything you will experience during an immigration trial. From pre-trial to trial, you will receive on-your-feet training and guidance that goes beyond a lecture-focused learning experience. During this three-day program, you will:

make and meet objections,

conduct direct, cross, and re-direct examinations,

accredit a proposed expert witness,

obtain the required opinion from an expert witness, and

offer a concise yet compelling closing argument.

All of this will be done in small groups of your peers, with feedback and at a pace that will help boost your performance.

The instructors—some of the most experienced immigration trial lawyers and judges in the country—will share constructive feedback and specific ideas on how to refine your skills. As you watch your peers perform, you will also absorb the “teachable moments” from their performance and instructor critique, which means each layer of learning is continually reinforced by what you hear, see, and most importantly, do.

After three days, you will be able to step into the courtroom with the confidence and practical skills you need to be a good advocate for your client.

In addition, to supplement this “learning-by-doing,” you will have access to NITA’s trial skills video lectures and watch the faculty demonstrate skills. Furthermore, NITA will offer a pre-program, one-and-a-half-hour session on case analysis that will be foundational to the rest of the program and will ensure that participants seek and present the information most relevant to the assigned particular social group.

In just three days, this Advocacy in Immigration Matters program—as with the other time-tested, premier programming that NITA is known for—will swiftly refine your trial practice, leaving you with greater skill and confidence that shows up where it matters the most: when you stand shoulder-to-shoulder with your client in the courtroom.

NITA’s LEARNING-BY-DOING METHOD

NITA’s learning-by-doing method allows you to take calculated risks without ever jeopardizing your client’s case or your own reputation. It is a safe space to learn and practice. This course will employ the tried-and-true learning-by-doing method by providing ALL participants the opportunity to apply their learned skills as if they are presenting in court. You get to participate and observe, learning not only from your mistakes and triumphs but those of your fellow participants as well.

Expert faculty will provide you with constructive feedback, and you will have the option of recording yourself on your phone, which allows you to see and hear yourself the way judges and juries do. But unlike in a trial where there are real stakes at risk, at NITA you will have the opportunity to correct your mistakes, eliminate any bad habits you may have developed, and refine your trial skills.

When you return to your office, you will feel empowered by having learned skills that will serve you the rest of your career.

WHO SHOULD ATTEND?

You should!

Although some removal defense cases may not go to trial because of prosecutorial discretion, learning and refining your trial skills will translate into better outcomes for your clients.

Honing your trial skills will improve virtually every aspect of the many things you do as a litigator from negotiating with the OPLA assistant chief counsel to convincing the immigration judge to grant your client relief.

YOUR REGISTRATION INCLUDES

One-on-one personalized feedback and coaching from NITA faculty

Case materials

One credit toward the NITA Advocate Designation.

NITA FACULTY

Learn more about each faculty member’s professional background and their NITA webcasts, podcast episodes, publications, and programs by clicking their bio link below.

WHAT ARE PEOPLE SAYING ABOUT THIS COURSE?

“I would highly recommend this course to immigration practitioners. It was especially helpful for me as someone who began practicing during COVID, but I could see that the skills would also be useful to practice for more experienced practitioners. The course was 100% worth it and I came out of it feeling more confident in my ability to do defensive work.” — NITA – NIPNLG “Advocacy in Immigration Matters” course attendee (August 2022)

“This was literally the most useful training I’ve had in the legal field, including law school, internships and many other PD opportunities I’ve tried to take advantage of. I think in the legal profession, there’s such an emphasis on being right and being prepared that we have a hard time taking risks and messing up. Even in trainings and simulations, I participated very little because I felt like there was this very high amount of minimum knowledge that I needed, didn’t have, and didn’t know how to get. I guess I figured everyone had learned this in debate or Model UN, which I never did. But somehow, the instructors created this baseline understanding that we’re there to learn, we can start from zero, and messing up is welcomed because it shows we’re taking risks. I feel much more ready to work on my cases. What’s more, in a field where burnout is so high, I feel excited to prep for trial now.” — Advocacy in Immigration Matters online course attendee (April 2022)

“In the over twenty years I had the honor to serve as an immigration judge, I frequently saw attorneys who, although bright, dedicated and familiar with their clients’ cases, had very limited understanding of evidentiary rules, proper forms of direct and cross-examination, effective storytelling, and the art of closing argument. These basic trial skills are not usually part of a law school curriculum, and once engaged in the practice of law most attorneys do not take the time to develop or hone their skills, other than by “trial and error,” which is, sadly, sometimes at the expense of their clients. The NITA program provides a unique opportunity to develop these extremely important skills. I encourage those who are seeking to represent asylum seekers in Immigration Court to consider taking advantage of this unique and valuable opportunity.” — Hon. Eliza C. Klein, United States Immigration Judge (Ret.)

Every dollar you give to The NITA Foundation helps a public service lawyer receive advocacy training that would otherwise be out of reach.

DONATE TODAY

FACULTY

Carol King

Solo

Carol M King Law Office

BIO

Michelle Mendez

Director of Legal Resources and Training

National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild Inc

BIO

Tom Swett

Attorney at Law

SWETT LIMITED

BIO

Victoria Neilson

Supervising Attorney

National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild Inc

BIO

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

This is truly an All-Star Faculty of folks who have “walked the walk,” saved many lives, and changed countless futures for the better over their distinguished and varied careers!

I have worked with NITA on developing and presenting advocacy training for VIISTA Villanova. This is a collection of “total pros” dedicated to making America’s courts function at the highest possible level.

Also, as you know from reading publications like LexisNexus, ImmigrationProf Blog, The Jeffrey Chase Blog, and Courtside, LITIGATION MATTERS! Every week, we alert our readers to successful efforts that are having a real life impact and literally changing the face of American law!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-27-23

From EOIR:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Here’s the link to Matter of C-G-T-, 28 I&N Dec. 740 (BIA 2023):

Here’s the link to Matter of Cabreara-Fernandez, 28 I&N Dec, 747 (BIOA 2023):

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Immigration Community helpfully forwarded the pdf’s of Rae Ann’s article and the three briefs. You can access them here:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Priscilla Alvarez reports for CNN:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Tea writes:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexusNexus Immigration Community:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr reports:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Carol writes:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts: