"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.
“Singh experienced multiple physical attacks and death threats over an eight-month period, from November of 2014 to June of 2015. No reasonable factfinder would conclude that Singh did not experience serious harm rising to the level of persecution. … For all these reasons we find that the record compels a finding that Singh suffered harm rising to the level of persecution. … [T]he BIA did not independently analyze relocation and determine that the government met its burden. Rather, the BIA expressly adopted the IJ’s reasons for finding that internal relocation was safe and reasonable. In doing so, the BIA adopted the IJ’s flawed relocation analysis, which did not afford Singh the presumption of past persecution or shift the burden to the government to prove that Singh can safely and reasonably relocate within India. … In sum, because the BIA erred in its relocation analysis, we grant Singh’s petition to review his claim for asylum and remand to the BIA for consideration in light of Singh v. Whitaker, 914 F.3d 654. … For the reasons set forth above, we GRANT Singh’s petition in part and REMAND to the BIA to consider (1) whether Singh is eligible for asylum because he suffered past persecution on account of statutorily protected grounds by the government or individuals whom the government was unable or unwilling to control; (2) if so, whether the DHS rebutted the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution; and (3) whether Singh is entitled to withholding of removal.”
“The agency entirely overlooked evidence material to the hardship determination in this case: evidence regarding Mendez’s serious back injury and its implications for his ability to support his qualifying relatives through work in El Salvador. … The BIA’s decision is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this order.”
H. Raymond Fasano, Esquire PHOTO: Super Lawyers Profile
—Daniel M. KowalskiEditor-in-ChiefBender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)
******************
What if a brain surgeon or a heart surgeon were routinely engaging in “surgical malpractice?” Wouldn’t it be a cause for grave concern?🤯
Almost every week, sometimes multiple times, the BIA mishandles the basics in potential “life or death” cases. Yet, Garland somehow shrugs it off! This not only adds to the “dehumanization” of migrants (their lives don’t count), but also badly skews the statistical profile that undergirds much of the misguided immigration (non) dialogue.
If the anti-immigrant, anti-asylum, huge “over-denial” problem at EOIR were addressed with better qualified judges and adjudicators, it would become apparent that many more, probably a majority, of those caught up in the dysfunction at EOIR and the Asylum Office are qualified to remain in the U.S. in some status. And, proper positive precedents would guide practitioners, ICE Counsel, Immigration Judges, and Asylum Officers to correct results without protracted litigation that eventually burdens the Courts of Appeals, causes avoidable remands, fuels “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” and contributes mightily to the mushrooming EOIR backlog!
As a result, these cases could be prepared, prioritized, granted, and individuals could get on with their lives and maximize their human potential to help our nation — just as generations before them have done including the ancestors of almost all Americans! How soon some of us forget!
The real, largely self-created, “immigration crisis,” is NOT insufficient “deterrence, detention, and cruelty” at the border! It’s the grotesque failure of all three branches of Government to insist on a fair, timely, well-staffed, professionally-managed, due-process-compliant adjudication, review, and resettlement system for asylum seekers and other immigrants. It’s also the ongoing attempt to “cover up” and minimize our Government’s mistreatment of asylum seekers, particularly those asserting their legal right to apply at our borders and in the interior regardless of status!
The racially-driven “targeting” of asylum seekers at the border is a ruse designed to deflect attention from the realities of human migration, what drives it, and the failure of governments across the board to come to grips with them and to fulfill their legal responsibilities to treat all persons fairly, humanely, and in accordance with correct interpretations and applications of the law!
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
Here’s additional commentary on Singh from my Round Table ⚖️⚔️ colleague “Sir Jeffrey” Chase:
The IJ was really determined to deny on this one. And I guess Vandyke had filled his quota of once in a lifetime for finding fault with the government, and thus had no choice but to dissent.
How would YOU like to face a system “determined to deny” with your life on the line? How would Garland like it?
Actually, under the generous “well-founded fear” standard applicable to asylum (Cardoza-Fonseca/Mogharrabi) and the authoritative guidance in the U.N. Handbook on adjudication, applicants like Singh who testify credibly are supposed to be given “the benefit of the doubt.” Garland has, quite improperly, like his immediate predecessors, allowed this key humanitarian legal principle to be mocked at EOIR! Instead, as cogently pointed out by “Sir Jeffrey,” here the IJ and the BIA actually went the “extra mile” to think of “any reason to deny” — even totally specious ones!
Also, half-baked, legally deficient “reasonably available internal relocation analysis”is a long-standing, chronic problem at EOIR, despite a regulation setting forth analytical factors that should be evaluated. Few, if any, such legitimate opportunities are “reasonably available” in most countries sending asylum applicants!
Moreover, once past persecution is established, the DHS has the burden of showing that there is a reasonably available internal relocation alternative, something that they almost never can prove by a preponderance of the evidence! Indeed, in my experience, the DHS almost never put in such evidence beyond rote citations to generalized language in DOS Country Reports!
The “judicial competency/bias” problems plaguing EOIR are large and well documented. Yet, Garland pretends like they don’t exist!
Has Alfred E. Neumann been “reborn” as Judge Merrick Garland? “Not my friends or relatives whose lives as being destroyed by my ‘Kangaroo Courts.’ Just ‘the others’ and their immigration lawyers, so who cares, why worry about professionalism, ethics, and due process in Immigration Court?” PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
(Reuters) – A conservative judge appointed by former President Donald Trump on Monday accused his colleagues on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals of playing “dirty” in a “trainwreck” of rulings to prevent immigrants from being deported.
U.S. Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke’s criticism came in a dissent to a 2-1 decision holding a Mexican native’s California conviction for dissuading a witness from reporting a crime was not a deportable offense under federal immigration law.
VanDyke, who has become known for a string of dissents since joining the liberal-leaning court in 2020, noted he had not been shy in criticizing the San Francisco-based court’s “abysmal and indefensible immigration precedents.”
He said the 9th Circuit for more than a decade has been “doing everything in our power (and much not) to upset” the Board of Immigration Appeals’ “reasonable” interpretation of what constitutes an offense related to obstruction of justice.
The BIA in this case had concluded Fernando Cordero-Garcia committed such an offense after he was convicted in California of sexual battery without restraint, sexual exploitation by a psychotherapist and dissuading a witness from reporting a crime.
“My colleagues in the majority should be embarrassed,” VanDyke wrote. “Perhaps not for their wrong decision today–to err is human, after all, even for those in robes. But they should be troubled by our court’s jaw-dropping, always-increasing, epic collection of immigration gaffes.”Cordero-Garcia’s lawyer, Michael Mehr, declined to comment.
Cordero-Garcia, who entered the country in 1965 as a lawful permanent resident, was a psychologist for the County of Santa Barbara Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health Services department who prosecutors said sexually assaulted patients, the ruling said.
Two appointees of Democratic presidents — U.S. District Judge Barry Moskowitz, a visiting judge on the court, and U.S. Circuit Judge Andrew Hurwitz — ruled for Cordero-Garcia in overturning the BIA’s decision on the obstruction offense.
Moskowitz, writing for the majority, said he was not writing on a “clean slate,” as the 9th Circuit in 2020 ruled an “obstruction of justice” offense must be connected to ongoing or pending criminal proceedings.
The California law Cordero-Garcia was convicted under, by contrast, does not require any connection to an ongoing or pending proceeding or investigation, making it “not an appropriate comparator” to obstruction under federal law.
VanDyke, though, said the 9th Circuit’s approach had created a “lopsided circuit-split,” with the majority acknowledging its ruling ran counter to decisions by the 1st and 4th U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals.
The case is Cordero-Garcia v. Garland, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 19-72779.
For Cordero-Garcia: Michael Mehr of Mehr & Soto
For the United States: Rebecca Hoffberg Phillips of the U.S. Department of Justice
While VanDyke has been eager to rip into his colleagues for critically reviewing BIA rulings, rather than just “rubber stamp deferring,” he is no stranger to controversy. He received the coveted “not qualified to serve” rating from the ABA and has been characterized as an “unqualified hack” by Joe Patrice over at abovethelaw.com.https://abovethelaw.com/2021/12/ninth-circuit-judge-has-had-it-with-trump-judges-insulting-dissents/.
Interestingly, a chunk of the dissent is dedicated to showing that Mr. Cordero-Garcia is a louse. However, that doesn’t seem to have much to do with the legal application of the “categorical test” to his crime in the immigration context. For all its difficulties, Congress was well aware that courts had historically applied the “categorical test” as opposed to the “sounds like a bad guy” approach when they enacted the statutory language in question.
Curiously, VanDyke castigates his majority colleagues for “result oriented” decision making. But it seems highly unlikely that either District Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz, who wrote the opinion, or Circuit Judge Andrew Hurwitz would have chosen Mr. Cordero-Garcia’s situation as one to “throw out a lifeline.”
What’s more likely is that they fairly applied controlling Circuit precedent notwithstanding the highly unsympathetic individual involved. By contrast, critics have characterized VanDyke as an ideologue — driven by a far-right agenda — whose main focus on the bench has been “writing vitriolic Town Hall editorials to publish in F.4th.” Id.
From a due process standpoint, one of the most severe problems undermining our entire justice system today is the disturbingly poor performance of the BIA which often functions as a “rubber stamp” on incorrect anti-immigrant decisions by Immigration Judges, many of them appointed during the Trump Administration with questionable credentials, at best. That’s when the BIA isn’t busy serving as a “shill” for DHS Enforcement — often bending the law or going out of their way to sustain ICE appeals from correct decisions below that grant relief or benefit individuals. BIA precedents favorable to asylum seekers and other migrants are few and far between — despite an obvious lack of immigration and human rights expertise among many Trump appointees to the immigration bench.
The problem is compounded when reviewing Circuit Courts ignore the glaring Constitutional conflict of having a “court” that is “owned” by an enforcement agency (and was blatantly “weaponized” against migrants by Sessions and Barr) and the poor quality decision making, lack of scholarship, and overt bias that plagues EOIR. “Rubber stamp deference” to BIA decisions that do not deserve it is a systemic problem for the Article IIIs, actively encouraged by the Supremes judge-created Chevron and Brand X doctrines of undue deference. From this perspective, VanDyke and many (not all) of his Trump colleagues are a big part of the problem — not the solution!
Michael K. Mehr ESQ! Senior Partner Mehr & Soto LLP Santa Cruz, CA PHOTO: Website
Many congrats to Michael Mehr for vigorously and successfully litigating this complex issue in the 9th Circuit. It’s telling to compare the “quiet competence” of dedicated, expert advocates like Mehr with the “bombastic grandstanding” of VanDyke and others in the xenophobic right. Mehr and others in the NDPA have honed their their advocacy and scholarship skills by decades of giving a “voice” to those who otherwise are seldom “heard” by the powers that be.
Undoubtedly, given the circuit split, this eventually will end up at the Supremes. There, VanDyke’s fellow Trump appointees could well agree with him. But, that might be more reflective of problems with the composition of today’s Supremes than with the law. Stay tuned!
“Petitioner Mario Rajib Flores Molina (“Flores Molina”) participated in demonstrations against the ruling regime in his native Nicaragua, where he witnessed the murder of his friend and fellow protester by police and paramilitary members. Thereafter, he was publicly marked as a terrorist, threatened with torture and death by government operatives, and forced to flee his home. Flores Molina, however, was tracked down at his hideaway by armed paramilitary members, and was forced to flee for his life a second time. Flores Molina still was not safe. He was discovered, yet again, assaulted, and threatened with death by a government-aligned group. Flores Molina ultimately fled a third time— from Nicaragua altogether—out of fear for his safety. He eventually presented himself to authorities at the United States border and sought asylum and other relief. When Flores Molina sought asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) determined that his past experiences in Nicaragua did not rise to the level of persecution. They also determined that Flores Molina did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. The IJ and BIA denied all forms of relief and ordered Flores Molina’s removal to Nicaragua. Flores Molina petitions for review of the BIA’s denial of his appeal of the IJ’s decision, as well as of the BIA’s subsequent denial of his motion to reopen proceedings. Because the record compels a finding that Flores Molina’s past experiences constitute persecution and because the BIA erred in its analysis of the other issues, we grant the first petition and remand for further proceedings. Accordingly, we dismiss the second petition as moot.
[Hats off to Mary-Christine Sungaila (argued) and Joshua R. Ostrer, Buchalter APC, Irvine, California; Paula M. Mitchell, Attorney; Tina Kuang (argued) and Natalie Kalbakian (argued), Certified Law Students, Loyola Law School!]
*******************************
EOIR’s deadly, incorrect approach to sending refugees back to face persecution is legally incorrect, factually erroneous, and morally bankrupt. But, it does have one huge fan. Recently appointed Trump Ninth Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke:
In the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), Congress codified the highly deferential substantial evidence test and established what should be our court’s guiding star in the review of immigration decisions: that “administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” INA § 242(b)(4)(B) (codified as 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (emphasis added)). Congress later amended the INA by passing the REAL ID Act, further reining in our role and discretion as a reviewing court and stripping federal courts of jurisdiction to hear certain immigration claims. See Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683, 1698 (2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). Over time, however, this court’s decisions have chipped away at these statutory standards—broadening the scope and standard of our review far beyond the limited and deferential posture that Congress unmistakably set out in the INA. See id.
To properly apply our deferential standard of review, we are supposed to scour the record to answer a single question: could any reasonable adjudicator have agreed with the agency’s result, or does the record as a whole compel a different conclusion? See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992) (explaining that substantial evidence review requires that we review “the record considered as a whole” and reverse the agency only if no reasonable factfinder could agree with its conclusion); see also Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1995) (describing Elias-Zacarias as “the touchstone” and “definitive statement of ‘substantial evidence’ in the context of . . . factual determinations in asylum cases”). On its face, this is an exceptionally deferential standard of review. But there’s more.
“Scour the record” to defeat asylum claims that should have been granted below, huh?That clearly defective, biased, one-sided approach is “due process and fundamental fairness” for a “person” under our Constitution? Or maybe asylum seekers of color aren’t “persons” to VanDyke and his righty cronies? That’s how VanDyke would like the Constitution applied if his life were at stake?
He’d like to use legal mumbo-jumbo to allow refugees to have their lives ended or threatened by non-expert decision makers making it up as the go along to deny meritorious claims. Under his “standard of review,” judicial review would be no review at all. Just scour the record for any obscure reason to deny asylum or, failing that, just make one up. Doesn’t matter as long as the individual loses and gets removed! That’s pretty much what too many EOIR judges and BIA “panels” (which can be a single judge) are already doing. Why add another layer of intellectual dishonesty, moral corruption, and absence of judicial ethics to the mess?
Mr. Flores-Molina is not buy any means the only one subjected to Judge VanDyke’s loony right-wing legal nonsense.You can “meet” the judge right here:
“The Rude Trump Judge Who’s Writing the Most Bonkers Opinions in America.”
One might legitimately ask why already vulnerable asylum seekers and their courageous lawyers are being subjected to such judicial abuse at all levels of our system. Why doesn’t Garland just appoint “real, expert, fair EOIR Judges” who will do the right thing at the “retail level” without having to enter the “appellate circus” 🤡 that Trump and the GOP have created?
“[T]he BIA upheld an adverse credibility determination that the IJ reached in part based on an inconsistency in Reyes’s story that simply was not an inconsistency. Nor can we say that absent the adverse credibility finding, Reyes’s CAT claim would necessarily fail. We therefore must vacate the BIA’s ruling affirming the IJ’s denial of that claim. … Reyes’s petition for review is granted, the ruling of the BIA is vacated, and we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Here’s a key sentence from the preamble to the L.A. Declaration on Migration and Protection:
We are committed to protecting the safety, dignity, human rights, and fundamental freedoms of all migrants, refugees, asylum seekers, and displaced and stateless persons regardless of their migratory status.
So I’d like to know how the following fit within our solemn commitment to “protecting the safety, dignity, human rights, and fundamental freedoms of all migrants, refugees, asylum seekers?”
Falsely finding that systematic assaults, death threats, being driven from your home, and being tracked down after fleeing, carried out by a Nicaraguan Government so repressive that it wasn’t even invited to the L.A. Conference, do not constitute persecution; and
Inventing a bogus inconsistency in an asylum seeker’s testimony and using it to wrongfully deny asylum.
Clearly they don’t! And, this kind of official misconduct goes on somewhere at EOIR on both levels every day! Just ask any experienced asylum practitioner! So, why hasn’t Garland replaced the EOIR judges who are not qualified to be deciding asylum claims with readily available expert talent?
Asylum seekers face systematically unfair treatment by “judges” who serve at Garland’s pleasure. Many of those judges, particularly at the BIA, were appointed or “elevated” by Garland’s openly xenophobic, virulently anti-asylum predecessors during the Trump regime. Yet, inexplicably, they continue to inflict bad decisions and sloppy, legally defective, morally vapid work on the most vulnerable? Why?
What if we had an expert, due-process-oriented Immigration Court that uniformly interpreted asylum law correctly and actually granted much-needed and well-deserved protection? What if asylum seekers didn’t have to enter the “Circuit Court crap shoot” — or deal with bad “no review is judicial review” judges like Judge VanDyke — to get life-saving justice? What if the rule of law and human rights were honored and advanced in Immigration Court rather than being mocked and disparaged? What if Immigration Courts modeled good judicial behavior instead of operating as a shockingly dysfunctional parody of due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices?
Wouldn’t it be better for everyone?
Perhaps there is some modest movement in the right direction. I’ve received reports from at least two Immigration Courts that unqualified Trump-era appointees have been removed over over the past week. That’s a start! But, it will take lots more “removals or reassignments” and a complete “redo” of the mal-functioning BIA to get due process, expertise, fundamental fairness, and best (as opposed to worst) judicial practices back on track at EOIR!
From the dissent by U.S. District Judge Edward R.Korman, EDNY, sitting by designation:
Goulart is not a sympathetic character. I can understand the desire to remove convicted burglars from this country. Indeed, Judge VanDyke questions why I have bothered to “champion” the cause of a convicted burglar. The answer should be obvious. The judicial oath, which was adopted in the Judiciary Act of 1789, requires us to “administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich.” See 1 Stat. 73, 76 (codified at 28 U.S.C. § 453). We take such an oath, which derives from biblical teachings, see Deuteronomy 1:17, so as not to be blinded by our like or dislike of the parties. We are not called to decide whether Goulart is a good person, but rather whether a person who has been banished from the United States without legal justification should be permitted to seek to return. The Supreme Court has held that the precise statute under which Goulart was deported violates the Constitution. Principles of law and equity require that he be permitted to move for reconsideration in this case. I respectfully dissent.
***********************
Wow! Three opinions on a three-judge panel! Been there, done that! Reminds me of my long gone days on the “Schmidt BIA” when we all took our jobs seriously, even if it often didn’t result in “fake unanimity” (the watchword of today’s dysfunctional BIA).
For those who like to apply “ideological analysis” to Article III decisions, this one doesn’t “fit the mold:”
Judge Richard A. Paez (“majority” opinion) is a Clinton appointee.
Judge Lawrence VanDyke (concurring opinion) is a Trump appointee.
Judge Edward R. Korman (dissenting opinion) is a Reagan appointee.
That being said, the majority’s rationale that a deported respondent should have been a “legal clairvoyant,” predicting the eventual Supreme Court decision finding the statute under which he was convicted unconstitutional, is a piece of absurdist legal sophistry. Wonder what the result might have been if the panel majority didn’t look at him as an “alien bank robber,” not deserving of fair treatment or legal rights? Reminds me of what my former “boss” the late “Iron Mike” Inman used to yell at me during heated arguments at the “Legacy INS OGC:” “What did they teach you at that law school!”
