"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt and Dr. Alicia Triche, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
“This court grants a petition for review of an agency denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief only under the most extraordinary circumstances. See Gutierrez-Alm, 62 F.4th at 1194; Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2021). This is one of those rare instances. For the reasons discussed above, the agency’su adverse credibility determination is amply supported by substantial evidence. But the IJ failed to properly consider and evaluate the evidentiary weight of multiple documents Kalulu offered into the record independent of her testimony, and the BIA made clear factual errors when it reviewed those documents. Because the agency’s decision therefore “cannot be sustained upon its reasoning,” this case must be remanded for the IJ or BIA to reconsider its decision. De Leon, 51 F.4th at 1008 (internal quotation marks omitted). On remand, the agency must reexamine the three declarations and medical document discussed in section III(b) to consider whether they, when properly read alongside other nontestimonial evidence in the record, independently prove Kalulu’s claims for asylum or withholding of removal. This court takes no position on whether those documents provide such proof or whether Kalulu merits any of the relief for which she applied.”
Dissent: “The majority ignores our precedent and instead concludes that the agency would have reached the same adverse credibility determination in the absence of these unsupported findings. That approach contravenes the REAL ID Act, binding circuit precedent, and fundamental principles of administrative law. I respectfully dissent.”
Many congrats to Amalia, Judah, and their NDPA team!
As my friend Dan often says about EOIR, “you can’t make this stuff up!”🤯
Well, the panel judges all agree that the BIA is wrong! It’s just a question of HOW wrong.
Note Van Dyke is a Trump appointee, and one of the most far-right judges on the bench. Murphy is a Bush II appointee. Sanchez (concur/dissent) is a Biden appointee.
The BIA has to have worked overtime to do such a miserable job that even Van Dyke couldn’t paper it over, although he took a stab at it!
The majority decision is basically a restatement of the 4th Circuit’s pre-REAL ID precedent Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361 (4th Cir. 2004). That case materially affected practices, changed results, and saved lives during my tenure at the “Legacy”Arlington Immigration Court!
So, it’s not that requiring that testimony be evaluated along with independent, non-testimonial evidence is something “new” or “rocket science!”🚀 Heck, it’s even incorporated in the REAL ID Act. This is “Immigration 101!” Yet, theBIA came up woefully short while Garland ignores fundamental flaws in his judicial system.
It’s well worth looking at a bit more of Judge Gabriel Sanchez’s vigorous separate opinion:
Petitioner Milly Kalulu, a native of Zambia, alleges she
was persecuted because she is a lesbian in a country that
criminalizes same-sex relationships. When her relationship
with a woman was discovered by her girlfriend’s brothers,
she was beaten, whipped, injected with an unknown
substance, stabbed in the chest, doused with gasoline, and
threatened with death over several violent encounters.
Kalulu submitted documentary evidence corroborating her
claims, including a copy of her medical report, a declaration
from her aunt in California, and declarations from several
Zambians who witnessed the attacks on her. The agency,
however, dismissed this evidence based on unsupportable or
trivial grounds.
I agree with the majority that the agency failed to
consider whether Kalulu’s supporting evidence
independently proves her claims for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
(CAT). “Where potentially dispositive testimony and
documentary evidence is submitted, the BIA must give
reasoned consideration to that evidence.” Cole v. Holder,
659 F.3d 762, 772 (9th Cir. 2011); see also Antonio v.
On the basis of his robust SOTU performance, I have every confidence that President Biden can more than adequately defend himself from the “Hur report.” Sadly, the same can’t necessarily be said for all the asylum seekers and other immigrants harmed by Garland’s indifference to systemic injustice in his “courts!”
This is the real “immigration crisis” that threatens our legal system and our democracy!
Judah Larkin Partner, Lakin & Wille Oakland, CA PHOTO: Larkin & Wille
Subject: [fedcourtlitigation] Habeas Win on Post-Preap Constitutional Challenge to 236(c)
Dear All:
We wanted to share an exciting decision we received on Friday from Judge Freeman in the Northern District of California on Friday granting our client a bond hearing.
We, together with our co-counsel Jenny Zhao and Monica Ramsy from Asian Americans Advancing Justice—Asian Law Caucus, and Scott Mossman, brought a habeas challenging mandatory detention under 1226(c) for an individual who was arrested by ICE in the community, 6 years after he finished his criminal sentence. Our client is an LPR with an aggravated felony conviction (drug trafficking). We asked for the local ICE office to follow the Johnson memo and release him, but they refused. We elevated it to headquarters and they likewise refused.
As a result, we brought an as-applied constitutional challenge to his detention without a bond hearing—a claim which was expressly left open by the Supreme Court in Preap. He had been detained for about 6 weeks at the time we filed the habeas, so it is a non-prolonged detention case.
Judge Freeman applied the Mathews framework and granted our TRO motion, concluding that the Constitution requires a bond hearing in this case. The bond hearing is scheduled for this week, pursuant to the TRO order, so we are optimistic he will be free soon. We’re also hopeful that this case can be used by others as we continue to work to dismantle mandatory detention.
The TRO decision is attached and is available at: Perera v. Jennings, No. 21-CV-04136-BLF, 2021 WL 2400981 (N.D. Cal. June 11, 2021).
Judah Lakin (he/him/his/Él)
Attorney at Law | Lakin & Wille LLP
Here’s a copy of Judge Freeman’s decision, basically a “primer” on Matthews v. Eldridge due process and its blatant violation under immigration bureaucracies of Administrations of both parties.
