"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
Judge Garland is looking for 100 new Immigration Judges to eliminate the 1.3 million backlog by the end of the century. No expertise necessary! PHOTO: Thomas Hawk Creative CommonsAline Barros Immigration Reporter VOA News PHOTO: Twitter
U.S. immigration courts, already swamped with a backlog of 1.3 million cases, are ill-prepared to handle a crush of new asylum claims filed by a rising number of people crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, especially children traveling alone, current and former immigration judges told VOA.
. . . .
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
“The backlog has grown,” said Jeffrey Chase, a former immigration judge and senior legal adviser at the Board of Immigration Appeals. He added there are two ways to handle the situation.
“The response to this usually is: Hire more judges. And I think the response should be: Let’s be smarter about who we put into court and how we prioritize the cases and how we handle the cases,” Chase told VOA.
. . . .
Hon. Dana Leigh Marks U.S. Immigration Judge San Francisco Immigration Court Past President, National Association of Immigration Judges
Dana Marks, a sitting immigration judge in San Francisco who spoke with VOA in her capacity as president of the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), said the increase in immigration court cases has been gradual and “that’s why I think it stayed under the radar.”
. . . .
U.S. immigration courts are not like the federal courts that most people are familiar with. For one thing, they are housed within the executive branch — specifically, the U.S. Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).
In addition, immigration cases play out differently than regular court cases where litigants often feel pressure to avoid trial.
“One of the problems with the immigration system, as it currently is — we don’t have plea agreements or stipulations that handle a lot of these cases like you do in a criminal court setting where the parties meet and come up with a mutual compromise and a settlement,” Marks explained. “So every case goes to trial.”
A recent TRAC report concluded that even if the administration of President Joe Biden halted immigration enforcement entirely, “it would still take more than Biden’s entire first term in office — assuming pre-pandemic case completion rates — for the cases now in the active backlog to be completed.”
. . . .
“Our organization has long advocated that the immigration court system be taken out of the Department of Justice, and restructured, like the Article 1 [federal] tax courts,” Marks said.
Aaron Hall, an immigration lawyer in Denver, Colorado, said the immigration court system is currently subject to the whims of whichever party controls the executive branch. But he added that making the courts independent is not enough.
“We still have 1.3 million people in the system,” he said. “There’s no way to both respect due process and push all these cases through in any kind of timely manner. The resolution needs to be immigration reform.
“Having an independent immigration court system is better than having [the courts] in the Department of Justice, but what really needs to change is our [immigration] law,” Hall added.
While the Biden White House has criticized Trump’s handling of immigration cases, the new administration has yet to announce concrete measures to reform the immigration court system or take a position on calls to make it independent from the Justice Department.
***********************
Read the complete article at the link.
Those of us who have served in the Immigration Courts are used to a struggling system unnecessarily in crisis because of a combination of inept bureaucratic management (duh, you can’t treat a court system like an agency, particularly one somewhat resembling the “Legacy INS”) and counterproductive, often ignorant, sometimes malicious, political interference from “Downtown.”
But, the prospect for improvements are bleak, with nobody currently at the “Main DOJ” or at “EOIR Headquarters” who is qualified to lead the way toward rebuilding EOIR so that “teamwork, innovation, and best practices would create a functioning court system that would guarantee fairness and due process for all.” Doesn’t sound like “rocket science” to me.
Let’s be clear about one thing.Not every asylum case needs to go to “full hearing” in a properly staffed Immigration Court system with expert judges trained in asylum law, positive precedents setting forth generous reasonable criteria for granting asylum, and a qualified BIA willing to hold accountable those unqualified Immigration Judges who have established and maintained illegal and disgraceful “Asylum Free Zones” in Immigration Courts throughout America!
Almost 100% of the “asylum precedents” issued by the AG and BIA in the last four years, and the vast bulk of those issued after 2001, tell Immigration Judges how to, and encourage them to, deny asylum, often based on specious reasoning or in conflict with earlier, more generous court and administrative precedents, not to mention the letter and spirit of the U.N. Convention and sometimes the language of the statute and the regulations.
And, due process for asylum seekers and other migrants is mocked in Immigration Court on a daily basis, even as their courageous, often pro bono counsel, are systemically abused! Is this what Judge Garland REALLY stands for? If not, why is he letting it happen?
With competent counsel representing asylum seekers and documenting their cases, and thoughtful well-trained ICE Assistant Chief Counsel with senses of justice, many positive asylum cases can be well-documented, “pre-tried” by the parties, completed, and granted in Immigration Court in a one-hour time slot or less. Indeed, before Sessions and Barr intentionally, senselessly, and maliciously destroyed what was left of justice for asylum seekers in Immigration Court, so called “A-R-C-G- domestic violence cases,” Kasinga FGM cases, family-based asylum cases, Ethiopian and Eritrean political persecution cases, evangelical Christian cases, and LGBTQ+ cases were all staples of my “short docket” — usually conducted every other Friday, at the Arlington Immigration Court. In those days, the parties worked together to get clear grants of relief that were “buried in the backlog” advanced for short hearings, with my active encouragement.
Another largely unexplored alternative is to give Immigration Judges authority to return certainly prima facile grantable asylum cases to a revived and functioning Asylum Office for completion. There are lots of ways that a different group of qualified, well-trained, practical Immigration Judges, and a BIA with Appellate Judges drawn from the ranks of “practical scholars” who are experts in asylum and due process working with (not “under”) professional judicial administrators, could get this system functioning and force those judges who are members of the “Asylum Denial Society” to shape up or ship out. That would keep Immigration Courts from building future unmanageable backlogs by focusing docket time on those cases with real issues needing full hearings. And, nobody’s due process rights would be trampled in the process by mindless “haste makes waste deny everything” enforcement gimmicks such as those the Trump regime constantly tried to impose.
Real court systems are about justice, not “deterrence” or “sending messages,” or even “carrying out Administration policies,” although there shouldn’t be much of a conflict with the latter if the Biden Administration actually lived up to its promises to asylum seekers and other migrants (something it hasn’t shown any inclination to honor, to date). The Immigration Courts, much like Article III Courts, need better judges, not necessarily more of them! Unlike the Article IIIs, which are a long term project, Judge Garland could engineer a solution for the Immigration Courts that would show drastic improvements before the end of this year and get better every year thereafter!
But, with the current gang at DOJ and Falls Church, (remarkably still riddled with Trump holdover bureaucrats and anti-asylum “appellate judges” churning out negative precedents) it’s “mission impossible.” Not a professional judicial administrator or qualified appellate judge among them!
There are folks who could institute the bold, yet obvious, steps necessary to clean up the backlog in relatively short order without stomping on individual rights; come up with merit-based judicial hiring criteria; issue precedents that would advance, not retard, due process for asylum seekers; institutionalize best (rather than worst) practices; “kick tail” until some working basic modern technology (like e-filing) is in place; learn from the private bar’s in-court experiences; put some professional judicial training in place; and return docket control and administration to local courts, where even a minimally competent judicial administrator (in other words, NOT an agency bureaucrat or DOJ politico) would know it belongs.
Now is the time to toss the deadwood and get this system back on track — before the next wave of asylum cases hit the mind-boggling dysfunction in today’s Immigration Courts. How does anyone think that throwing 100 additional Immigration Judges into this disaster zone (the Administration’s budget proposal) will solve the systemic mess and the institutionalized failure to provide anything resembling justice?
Unfortunately, the folks who could do the job are either sitting judges in the Immigration Courts or in the private/NGO sector. And, despite warnings and pleas from those of us who actually understand the system, what’s wrong with it, and how it might be fixed, Judge Garland appears uninterested in engaging in the dialogue or making the obvious personnel moves necessary to build a functioning, due-process-oriented, expert court system. So right now, the chances of avoiding further disaster look pretty grim.
Wonder what the Judge’s“emergency plans” are for when the tsunami finally hits 10th & PA, NW, in D.C.? Like most past AGs not named Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions, Garland might trivialize the importance of immigration and EOIR in his own mind. Maybe that’s because so few immigration cases came before the D.C. Circuit, and the ones that did involved regulations, statutes, and policy issues, usually not “individual removal cases” where human lives were at stake in an immediate context.
Perhaps it’s because EOIR is “across the river” in Falls Church, out of sight, out of mind. Maybe it’s because the unending damage that a dysfunctional and unfair EOIR inflicts on men, women, children, and their lawyers, happens across the U.S., out the Judge’s presence or consciousness. Occasionally, the Post and other national media pick it up. But the human trauma, cruelty, unfairness, and real life stories of EOIR’s disreputable conduct go largely untold and unnoticed. Even the victims and their loved ones are often too deep in the throes of these officially-sanctioned and unnecessarily-harsh injustices to worry about complaining or seeking redress.
I can, however, predict to Judge Garland that if he continues on his current tone-deaf, inept course, both his tenure as Attorney General and his legacy will forever be identified with lousy, inhumane, dysfunctional immigration policies and his inexcusable failure to fix EOIR, or even make a good faith attempt at it!
President Biden’s top advisers promise “long-needed systemic reforms” to address a backlog of more than 1 million asylum cases in the immigration court system, which often keeps people applying for asylum waiting years to resolve their cases. That could mean some big changes to how asylum cases are processed at the southern border.
The plan the Biden administration is considering to speed up the process would take some asylum cases from the southern border out of the hands of the overloaded immigration courts under the Department of Justice and instead handle them under the purview of the Department of Homeland Security, where asylum officers already process tens of thousands of cases a year, two people familiar with the discussions who were not authorized to speak about administration plans told NPR exclusively.
Those familiar with the discussions say one outcome could be discouraging unauthorized migration. That’s because those who can argue for a certain fear of persecution are able to gain temporary residence and often a work permit as they wait out their cases.
. . . .
Advocates say they welcome a more efficient system, provided changes are not used as a way to expedite removals as the Trump administration did.
Eleanor Acer of Human Rights First says there are a host of reasons to allow asylum officers to conduct the first set of interviews and reduce the numbers, but she says it’s important that applicants have a chance to appeal to the court before being removed.
“The massive backlog must be dealt with,” she said. “But the answer to that problem is not to deprive asylum seekers of due process and a fair hearing, or to weaponize the asylum process to try to deter other people from seeking U.S. protection.”
The Biden administration has already ended two of the Trump administration’s programs, the Prompt Asylum Case Review and the Humanitarian Asylum Review Program, that were designed to quickly return Mexican and Central American asylum seekers suspected of having invalid claims.
Department of Homeland Security officials declined to discuss plans to shift border cases to the asylum division.
But an administration official said last week they are now working on a number of policies and regulations to create “a better functioning asylum system.”
That includes establishing refugee processing in the region and strengthening other countries’ asylum systems.
Biden also resurrected the Central American Minors program that reunited children with parents who are in the United States legally.
The Biden administration is now seeking to “pick up the pieces” after the Trump administration, with a different set of policies that abide by U.S. law but also international obligations, Meissner said.
“We need to have access to asylum,” Meissner said, “but it needs to be done in a way that can be prompt and fair, not in a way that leads to waits of years and years and court backlogs.
*****************
Read the complete article at the link.
Why it could work:
Granting relief at the lowest level of the system is cost effective;
It’s easier to hire, train, and assign Asylum Officers than Immigration Judges;
Immigration Court time should be reserved for those cases where there is a real issue as to whether relief can be granted.
Why it probably won’t work:
Leadership is critical. Right now, there are only a few experts in government with the knowledge, proven leadership ability, organizational skills, and courage to lead this program.
Two obvious names that come to mind are Judge A. Ashley Tabaddor, currently USCIS Chief Counsel, and Judge Dana Leigh Marks, one of the “founding mothers” of U.S. asylum law and pioneer of the well-founded fear standard. Both are past Presidents of the NAIJ. Neither has yet been tapped for this assignment.
By contrast, there are a number of experts in the private/NGO sector who could lead this effort. Obvious choices would be Judge Paul Grussendorf, former Immigration Judge, Asylum Officer, UN Representative, and professor; Professor Karen Musalo, Director, Center for Refugee & Gender Studies, UC Hastings Law; Eleanor Acer, Senior Director, Refugee Protection, Human Rights First (quoted in this article); Professor Michele Pistone, Creator and Founder of the VIISTA asylum training program at Villanova Law; Professor Phil Schrag, Co-Director of the CALS Asylum Clinic at Georgetown Law and author of Baby Jails and the upcoming release The End of Asylum; Michelle Mendez, Director, Defending Vulnerable Populations at CLINIC; or Judge Ilyce Shugall of our Round Table. But, nobody of that caliber has been tapped either.
Without creative, dynamic, expert leadership, and a different approach to personnel, the program will be yet another bureaucratic failure. In case nobody has noticed, after four years of never ending abuse, gross mismanagement, and intentional misdirection by the Trump kakistocracy, the USCIS Asylum & Refugee program is also in shambles — demoralized, disorganized, leaderless, incredibly backlogged. An obvious untapped source is retired Asylum Officers and Adjudicators who could be brought back on a limited-term basis, intensively trained by experts from a “Better EOIR,” and who often are in a position to travel frequently and on short notice.
It’s not about deterrence. Already, this article speaks of “possible deterrent effect.” WRONG!The purpose of an asylum adjudication system is to provide fair, timely, generous adjudications of asylum eligibility in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Refugee Act of 1980, the U.N. Convention and Protocol on which it is based, and the due process clause of our Constitution. We have never had such a system, which inevitably would be more orderly and efficient, but also result in many more grants.
The main reason why we don’t currently have a functioning asylum system, and never have had the system that asylum seekers need and deserve, is that the system is at the mercy of a bogus Executive-controlled “court” system that time and time again has been compromised by politicos seeking who use it as an enforcement tool rather than an independent court of justice.
In 2014, the last year that I taught Refugee Law & Policy at Georgetown Law I “graded” the U.S. Asylum system at “B-.” Not as good as it should be, but not as bad as it could be.
Now I’d give it an “F.” Completely dysfunctional, highly arbitrary, and a tool of institutionalized racism and White Nationalism.
The system is ineffective as a deterrent. There is no known basis to believe that quick and often arbitrary and wrongful “rejections” are an effective deterrent. That’s particularly true because rejections are seldom explained in a reasonable, understandable manner. So, to the extent that there is a “message” it’s that you got the wrong officer or the wrong judge on the wrong day or that the U.S. legal system is inherently unfair and should be avoided by hiring a smuggler to get you to the interior of the U.S. where, as a practical matter, you have a better chance of obtaining “de facto refuge.”
The only “efficiency and leverage” that comes from the Asylum Officer system is in quickly identifying and consistently granting a substantial number of applications. That, and only that, does actually relieve the Immigration Court system of unnecessary cases. Otherwise, “non-grants” still have to go to the Immigration Courts for de novo review. I probably granted the majority of asylum cases “referred” from the Asylum Office. That leaves plenty of room to believe that a better trained and operated system with some positive guidance and effective supervision by better Immigration Judges and a truly expert BIA would achieve substantially higher grant rates and higher efficiency at the Asylum Office, thereby keeping many cases out of court and speeding the process for asylees to obtain permanent residence and eventually U.S. citizenship!
Some assumptions appear invalid. This article also repeats the unproven assumption that a fair, just, and efficient asylum system would result in rejection of the majority of cases. I doubt that.
Prior to the Trump disaster, approximately 75-80% of asylum applicants at the Southern Border passed “credible fear.” That the majority of them never achieved asylum was due less to the lack of merit in their claims than to factors such as: 1) lack of a system to match asylum seekers with qualified counsel; 2) wrong-headed anti-asylum precedents from the BIA that were specifically directed against asylum seekers from Latin America — basically institutionalized racism in the guise of “enforcement;” 3) poor selection, training, and motivation of Immigration Judges some of whom simply did not treat asylum seekers fairly, nor were they given any incentive to do so.
I granted asylum or other protection to many refugees from the Northern Triangle. I probably could have granted twice that number had the BIA precedents actually fairly and reasonably interpreted asylum law to specifically cover gender-based claims and claims arising from persecution by gangs basically operating “in lieu of government authorities” in most of the Northern Triangle.
Additionally, an honest interpretation of the CAT by the BIA would have allowed life-saving protection to be extended to many others who lacked nexus but had a high probability of torture with Government acquiescence upon return. I believe that a return to the original Acosta-Kasinga line of asylum analysis and adoption of proper CAT interpretationsalong the lines set forth by the (exiled) dissenting judges in Matter of J-E- would result in grants of some type of protection (asylum, withholding, or CAT) in the majority of Southern Border cases coming from the Northern Triangle that passed credible fear or reasonable fear.
Asylum, along with refugee status, is a key form of legal immigration to the U.S. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It’s NOT a “loophole.” It’s the law! Studies by groups of experts such as CMS have shown the huge benefits that refugees confer on the U.S. I have no reason to believe that asylum seekers as a group are any different.
As long as we keep treating the reality of human migration and the strengths and humanity of asylum seekers as a negative rather than a positive, we will continue to fail, as we have for decades, to fully comply with either our own laws or international conventions.
A broken, dysfunctional, unfair EOIR will continue to drag American justice down. There must be de novo review of denials by EOIR and far, far more competent review and direction in the review of credible fear denials by EOIR. A better BIA could actually set binding precedents on “credible fear” and “reasonable fear.”
Currently, EOIR is incapable of producing either consistently fair results (particularly for asylum seekers) or the inspired legal scholarship and leadership for the asylum system to be functional and held accountable. It’s going to require all new leadership, an all new BIA, elimination of all of the Trump-eraprecedents that impede fairness for asylum seekers, new merit-based selection criteria for Immigration Judges, professional administration from judicial experts, and an immediate slashing of the largely self-created “backlog” of 1.3 million cases by closing and removing from the docket every case more than a year old that doesn’t relate to a priority (most are folks who would be covered by Biden’s legalization program anyway; many are eligible for relief that USCIS could grant) to get EOIR in a position to provide the necessary legal guidance and system accountability for the Asylum Office. The absurdist notion that we could or would want to remove every one of the 10-11 million undocumented residents (many performing essential services that propped us up through the pandemic) is one of the “big lies” that has prevented rational reforms of our immigration system.
In plain terms, EOIR needs an immediate “rebuild” with a new progressive, humanitarian judiciary of experts. There is no early indication that Judge Garland either understands that “mission-critical” need or has a plan for achieving it.
As we say in the business the “devil is in the details.” Right now, I can see neither the details nor theleadership in place or “in the pipeline” to solve the debilitating problems in our asylum system that actually are undermining the entire U.S. justice system.
Biden could fix it. But, I wouldn’t count on it. That means that the only real fix in the offing will be for the NDPA to force the Administration to “get it right” through aggressive, never-ending litigation as well as continuing to seek better legislators. Highly inefficient. Yet, sometimes it’s the only way to get the attention of those in power.
If nothing else, we’ll continue to make an important historic record of the cruelty and stupidity with which the current asylum system is being administered. It doesn’t have to be this way. We can always choose to follow our “better angels.” It just takes the courage and the good judgement to get the right folks in the right jobs to make it happen.
Anybody remember the last time we interpreted the law or facts in favor of a human? https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
“The question in this case is whether the categorical approach requires a petitioner seeking cancellation of removal to demonstrate both that the state offense he was convicted of is broader than the federal offense and that there is a realistic probability that the state actually prosecutes people for the conduct that makes the state offense broader than the federal offense. We conclude that it does not. … Because the BIA’s decision relied on a misinterpretation of the realistic probability inquiry, we grant the petition for review, vacate, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Lastly, the government argues that we should defer to the decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) in Matter of Zamora-Molina, 25 I. & N. Dec. 606, 611 (B.I.A. 2011), in which the BIA adopted the same interpretation as the Department of State. Even assuming, without deciding, that Chevron deference applies when one agency (the Department of State) seeks to rely on the interpretation of another agency (the Department of Justice), we agree with the district court and with the Ninth Circuit that Chevron deference does not apply here because “the intent of Congress is clear.” Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842 (1984); see also id. at 842–43 (“If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.”); Tovar, 882 F.3d at 900 (declining to apply Chevron deference to Zamora-Molina because “traditional tools of statutory construction” and “the irrationality of the result sought by the government” combine to “demonstrate beyond any question that Congress had a clear intent on the question at issue”). As discussed above, the text, structure, and
33
legislative history of the CSPA conclusively show the “unambiguously expressed intent of Congress” to protect beneficiaries like Diaz. Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843.7
3) Ignoring Previous Circuit Ruling On Related Case — 10th Cir.
After we determined that conditions in China had materially worsened for Christians, Mr. Ni moved again for reopening. Despite our opinion in his wife’s case, the Board of Immigration Appeals concluded
2
again that Mr. Ni had failed to show a material change in country conditions.
This conclusion is unsupportable. Mr. Ni’s evidence of worsening
conditions in China largely mirrored his wife’s evidence, which had led us
to grant her petition for review. Mr. Ni’s evidence was even stronger than
his wife’s because China had recently adopted a regulatory crackdown on
practicing Christians. We thus grant Mr. Ni’s petition for review.
“To support his case for reopening, Mr. Lucaj submitted an affidavit complaining in particular about two events that occurred after his removal proceeding in 2006: The Socialist party took power in 2013, and then in 2019 the Socialists’ corruption and connections with organized crime deterred the opposition party from even participating in the 2019 elections. Mr. Lucaj provided, among other things, the State Department’s 2018 Human Rights Report on Albania, the Freedom House “Freedom in the World 2018” Report on Albania, and articles from 2018 and 2019 about corruption in Albania and the Socialist Party’s success in recent elections. We do not know whether those submissions show materially worsening conditions for Democratic Party members in Albania, however, because the BIA refused to compare those reports to available evidence of conditions from 2006, claiming that Mr. Lucaj had not “explained how the proffered . . . country condition documentation show[s] qualitatively different conditions from 2006.” Plainly, though, he did so by pointing out the two cited, post-2006 events as evidence of changed conditions. The BIA’s failure to assess whether those changes were sufficient was arbitrary and capricious. … Therefore, we reverse the decision by the BIA and remand Mr. Lucaj’s case so that the BIA can review available evidence to examine whether conditions for members of the Democratic Party in Albania have deteriorated since 2006 and, if so, whether Mr. Lucaj has established a prima facie case for relief.”
America and humanity deserve better from a supposed “expert tribunal” which actually functions more like a “denial factory” without much, if any, “quality control.” No wonder these guys are running an out of control, ever-expanding 1.3 million case backlog!
Denying continuances, not closing cases that belong at USCIS, rushed briefing, IJ’s “certifying” BIA remands to the Director (who should have no judicial role), dismissing applications for failure to fill in irrelevant blanks, raising fees, and a host of other nonsensical proposals that EOIR has had shot down by the Article III Courts recently won’t reduce the backlogs. They actually will make it worse, as have all the other “gimmicks” tried by EOIR to eradicate due process and dehumanize migrants over the past four years!
Who ever heard of lower court judges providing “quality control” for appellate judges, working through a bureaucrat who (at the time the proposal was supposedly “finalized”) had never presided over a case in Immigration Court? And, let’s remember, these are haphazardly selected trial judges, a decidedly non-diverse, non-representative group, whose own qualifications, expertise, judicial temperament, and training have been widely criticized by experts in the field.Few of today’s Immigration Judges and BIA Judges would be “household names” among immigration, human rights, and constitutional law experts and scholars!
The current mess is largely the result of Aimless Docket Reshuffling imposed on the Immigration Courts by unqualified politicos at the DOJ and their equally unqualified toadies at EOIR HQ. Also, DHS has more often than not ignored the realities of good docket management and the prudent exercise of prosecutorial discretion. It is not the fault of the vulnerable migrants and their lawyers victimized by this absurdly politicized, biased, and mal-administered system!
Restoration of justice at EOIR will require radical due process oriented changes starting with new, professional leadership from “practical scholars” in immigration and human rights as well as replacing BIA Judges with better qualified jurists selected from the ranks of those “practical scholars.” Quality control, expertise, competence, common sense, and human understanding are all lacking at today’s EOIR!
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate has confirmed Merrick Garland to be the next U.S. attorney general with a strong bipartisan vote, placing the widely-respected, veteran judge in the post as President Joe Biden has vowed to restore the Justice Department’s reputation for independence.
. . . .
The department’s priorities and messaging are expected to shift drastically in the Biden administration, with a focus more on civil rights issues, criminal justice overhauls and policing policies in the wake of nationwide protests over the death of Black Americans at the hands of law enforcement.
That expected shift prompted some Republicans to oppose Garland’s nomination, including Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton, who said he believed the judge would be too soft on criminals and immigrants and “empower left wing radicals embedded inside the department.”
At his confirmation hearing, Garland emphasized his commitment to combating racial discrimination in policing, telling senators that said America doesn’t “yet have equal justice.” He also said he’d prioritize confronting the rise in extremist violence and domestic terror threats.
At one point in the hearing, he held back tears when speaking about his grandparents, who fled Russia for the U.S. amid antisemitism and persecution.
“The country took us in, and protected us, and I feel an obligation to the country to pay back, and this is the highest, best use of my own set of skills to pay back,” Garland said. “So I very much want to be the kind of attorney general that you’re saying I could become, and I’ll do my best to become that kind of attorney general.”
******************
You can read the full article at the link.
Yeah, how ‘bout all those imaginary “left wing rads” embedded at the DOJ that Cotton has fabricated in the same way he fabricates threats to the U.S. from people of color.
Judge Garland’sreal problem will be returning respect for civil rights, voting rights, immigrants’ rights, women’s rights, First Amendment rights, non-right-wing-Christian religious rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and Due Process to a Department that basically abandoned the Constitution and the rule of law to carry out a scofflaw, racially charged far-right agenda under Trump!
The Wrong Answer to the Right Question: How to Address the Failure of Protection for Gender-Based Claims?
By Professor Karen Musalo, Bank of America Professor of International Law, Director of the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, UC Hastings
In 1996 I was honored to litigate the first case at the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), Matter of Kasinga,[1] that opened the door to protection for women fleeing gender-based harms. To qualify for recognition as a refugee under U.S. law, an individual must establish “persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution” on account of one of five grounds – “race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.”[2] This definition in the 1980 Refugee Act essentially adopts the standard set forth in the 1951 UN Refugee Convention[3] and its 1967 U.N. Refugee Protocol,[4] which the U.S. ratified in 1968.
The woman seeking asylum in the Kasinga case fled female genital cutting and forced marriage. In a ground-breaking decision, the BIA ruled that cutting was persecution, and it was “on account of” her membership in a gender-defined social group. In so ruling, the BIA was following the guidance that UNHCR has issued over a number of years, noting that the absence of gender as a protected ground should not impede protection for women fleeing persecution, because the particular social group ground encompasses gender-defined groups.[5]
The Kasinga decision was a breakthrough for women, and a highwater mark in U.S. adjudicators following international guidance. It also raised expectations that U.S. law would continue to evolve and extend protection to women fleeing the many forms of gender-based violence to which they are subject. However, that has not been the case, and there have been retreats from protection across administrations, although undoubtedly we witnessed the most dramatic attempts to end protection in gender claims during the Trump administration, which issued extremely limiting Attorney General decisions, such as Matter of A-B- I,[6] and Matter of A-B- II –[7] as well as regulations[8] – currently enjoined[9]—that explicitly rule out gender-based claims.
The Biden administration has committed itself to reviewing the issue of protection for those fleeing gender-based violence.[10] As we consider how to remedy the issue, some argue for a legislative amendment to the refugee definition, adding gender as a sixth ground to the statute’s five protected grounds of race, religion, nationality, political opinion and membership in a particular social group. This is the wrong solution. It would not only repeat the errors of the past (amending the refugee definition in 1996, discussed below), but it would also fail to adequately protect survivors of gender-based violence. At the same time, it would lead to the quite foreseeable consequence of leaving many deserving asylum seekers outside the ambit of refugee protection. It is also likely to signal to other Convention State parties that unless they also add a sixth ground, they could deny protection to women and girls without running afoul of the treaty’s obligations.
In order to prescribe a remedy, one first has to diagnose the illness; in order to understand why the sixth ground solution is wrong, we need to examine what occurred after Kasinga that limited protection in subsequent claims involving women fleeing gender-based persecution. . . . .
**********************
Read the rest of Karen’s outstanding analysis at the link.
Here’s a question from last summer’s “Jeopardy style” final exam in Immigration Law & Policy @ Georgetown Law:
A: Judge Schmidt’s favorite case.
Q: What is Matter of Kasinga?
Happy to say that everyone got that one right! Of course, I wrote the decision in Matter of Kasinga!
Karen’s bottom line: “We should be working to bring the U.S. into compliance with UNHCR’s social group interpretation, rather than surrendering to its flawed interpretation, by adding a sixth ground.”
The key is better Federal Judges, from the Immigration Courts all the way up to the Supremes: Judges who are “practical scholars” in human rights and applied due process; judges who have represented asylum seekers, particularly women, and understand their plight.
That’s a nice gesture. But, as I always say, actions are what really counts. So here are actions that Judge Garland can take immediately as Attorney General to finally fulfill the promise of Matter of Kasinga:
Vacate the atrocious, misogynist, perversion of asylum law (not to mention facts of record) by Sessions in Matter of A-B-;
Appoint some female “practical scholars in human rights” to appellate judgeships on the BIA.
That’s how to really honor Women’s History Month!
To understand the human impact of Sessions’s grotesque misconstruction of asylum law and the relevant facts in Matter of A-B-, check out this video short featuring Karen and others along with Ms. A-B-: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRQpXRWlQL0
I generally agree with Karen’s concerns about specific gender-based legislation potentially having an unintended negative effect. That is certainly the fate of past unsuccessful attempts to include gender-based asylum in the regulations.
They essentially were “hijacked” by DOJ litigators and enforcement-oriented policy officials looking for ways to facially appease women’s rights groups, while actually proposing to restrict eligibility and make it easier for OIL and the SG’s Office to defend denials of asylum. They also sought to create hyper-technical requirements that would have effectively made it impossible for any unrepresented individual to properly set forth a “cognizable particular social group.”
These, in and of themselves, are reasons for removing the Immigration Courts from the DOJ and creating an independent Article I structure. The “ultimate insult to injury” was when EOIR enthusiastically participated in Stephen Miller’s currently-enjoined attempt to completely write gender-based asylum out of the law. Absurdly, that came at a time when gender-based persecution has become endemic throughout the world!
Not surprisingly, the DOJ, a prosecutorial agency at heart, is most often interested in “litigation strategies” to make it easier for the Government to successfully defend the burgeoning immigration litigation in Federal Court, rather than guaranteeing justice for asylum seekers and other migrants. Quite ironically, what would really reduce the volume of civil immigration litigation is more practical, expert decision making from better qualified Immigration Judges at the “retail level” of the system.
Gimmicks to “game” the Federal Court system against asylum seekers and other migrants by skirting due process and fundamental fairness have actually contributed to, rather than reduced, the amount of civil immigration litigation the Circuits. It has also generated many avoidable “Circuit conflicts” that require attention on Supremes’ limited docket. The failure of the DOJ, the Immigration Courts, and the Federal Courts to recognize and protect the due process rights of asylum seekers and other migrants has directly carried over into the failure of our justice system to achieve equal justice under law for racial minorities.
“Institutionalized racism” is inextricably linked to “Dred Scottification” of migrants of color in the Immigration Courts! The Biden Administration can’t solve the former without addressing the latter!
Bad judging and skewed policies on the “retail level” create multiple problems that adversely affect the entire Federal Justice system. I guarantee that they will not be solved by more restrictionist gimmicks and and unduly narrow and tone-deaf interpretations by judges and policy officials who lack the necessary expertise in immigration and human rights laws and the real-life understanding and perspective of the human consequences of the choices that judges make on a daily basis.
But, I also think that in addition to better judges, it is important to revise the statutory language to make it more explicitly inclusive and clarify that gender-based asylum, family based asylum, and other protected groups are examples, but not limits, of those covered by “particular social group.” Also, the statute should reverse the BIA’s stilted restrictionist interpretations (all too often incorrectly given “deference” by Circuit Courts shirking their duty) of “nexus” as a vehicle to deny asylum rather than an expansive concept that can and should be used to extend life-saving protections where necessary.
Otherwise, as Trump, Sessions, Barr, and Miller demonstrated, needed protection becomes largely a matter of who is appointing the judges at any particular point in time. Protection must and should be more durable — for all refugees including, but not limited, to those seeking gender-based protection!
Better Federal Judges are the beginning, but by no means the end, of what is needed to make due process, fundamental fairness, and genuine refugee protections the hallmarks of American law. They are also required to turn institutionalized racism into equal justice for all persons in America, regardless of race, religion, gender, or other defining personal characteristics.
🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever! Asylum Laws Must Protect, Not Reject!🧑🏽⚖️🛡
The Biden administration has signaled that it would like to narrow arrests and deportations to those persons convicted of national security threats and other serious felonies. That would keep many of those, like the fast-food worker in Indianapolis, from immigrant court.
But there’s a bigger challenge facing the Biden administration.
Can it wipe away rules that have fed into a mindset that seemed to take root nationally among some court and immigration enforcement officials?
The rules were meant to erase an immigrant presence in the U.S. And they came to life far away from the nation’s borders in the daily grind of the immigration courts. For well over two years, I sat in Chicago’s immigration court watching, reporting and wondering how his could be happening.
Day by day I watched as the crowds huddled anxiously in the Chicago court’s major waiting room grew. Judges’ caseloads, as listed on the waiting room walls, eventually doubled for some to as many as 100 a day.
Why?
When Trump took office there were 542,411 deportation cases in the nation’s immigration courts. When he left, the number was 1.29 million. The backlog grew as arrests grew, as more were detained, as bonds went up, and new rules raised new hurdles for immigrants in the courts. The average wait for a case in Chicago’s court was 945 days in 2016, and that grew to 1,014 in 2021, 14% higher than the national average.
The long wait perplexed a judge one day as she scanned her computer looking to schedule a new hearing. The best she could find, she told an Iraqi woman in her 80s, was a date four years down the road. The long delay was not lost on the woman’s lawyer’s face. The woman’s husband was not in court because he was facing brain surgery.
A series of canceled hearings left a middle-age Palestinian’s life dangling in the court for seven years. The long delay left him anxious and panicked about the fate of his family back home, where they faced the threat of violence that had already taken several relatives’ lives. He won asylum but several months later, and before he could bring his family to the U.S., his teenage son was killed, a targeted victim of the violence that had haunted him and his relatives.
I took note after the Trump administration said in August 2019 it would push older cases back in 10 courts across the U.S., including Chicago, so that cases involving newly arrived immigrant families could move more rapidly through the courts. It was a clear warning that the U.S. would deal quickly with immigrants arriving at its borders.
. . . .
**********
Read the complete op-ed at the link.
The solutions are not rocket science. As many of us have suggested they include:
New leadership at EOIR firmly committed to judicial independence, due process, best practices and competent judicial Administration;
New judges at the BIA — “practical experts” in asylum and immigration laws committed to due process, fair application of the law, and humane treatment of individuals;
Slash the docket immediately to manageable levels by removing aged cases that would fit the legalization proposals in the Biden Bill or where relief could be granted by USCIS;
Get recent arrivals represented and decide their cases on a fair, reasonable, timely, predictable schedule (e.g., end “Aimless Docket Reshuffling”);
Establish and implement merit-based criteria for recruitment and retention of judges.
It won’t happen without new personnel and different attitudes. There’s plenty of talent out here to rebuild a high-quality, expert, due-process oriented immigration judiciary. Judge Garland and his team just have to move out those who have created and furthered dysfunction and replace them with better-qualified pros who can get the job done for American justice and the millions of individuals whose lives, hopes, and futures are tied up in the EOIR mess !
Article I is the ultimate solution! But, Judge Garland can start making long overdue changes the day he is sworn in as AG (probably later this week). The only question: Will he?
A Better EOIR For A Better America!🇺🇸It’s not rocket science!🚀
Determining Political Opinion: Problems and Solutions
Regarding political opinion, the refugee law scholar Atle Grahl-Madsen famously explained that refugee protection “is designed to suit the situation of common [people], not only that of philosophers…The instinctive or spontaneous reaction to usurpation or oppression is [as] equally valid” as the “educated, cultivated, reflected opinion.”1 A recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit provides an opportunity to reflect on this premise.
In Zelaya-Moreno v. Wilkinson, a young man was targeted for recruitment by MS-13. On two occasions, Zelaya directly announced to the gang’s members his reason for refusing to join: because gangs were bad for his hometown and country. Both times, the gang members responded by beating him, fracturing his arm the second time. They also threatened to kill him if he continued to refuse to join. The questions raised are whether Zelaya’s instinctive, simply-worded response expressed a political opinion, and if so, did that opinion form part of the reason for the beatings and threat?
The Immigration Judge recognized Zelaya’s statement to the gang to be a political opinion for asylum purposes. However, the IJ wasn’t persuaded from the record that Zelaya’s opinion was why the gang beat him. As expressed by the IJ, the beatings were caused by “Zelaya’s refusal to join the gang, irrespective of the reasons.” It doesn’t seem that the IJ considered whether the gang members imputed a political opinion to the act of refusal per se.
On appeal, the BIA took a far more extreme position, stating that because gangs are not political organizations and their activities are not political in nature, “expressing an opinion against their group is not expressing a political opinion.” This happens to be a position that EOIR and DHS (in defiance of much circuit case law and expert opinion to the contrary) later sought to codify in regulations that fortunately remain enjoined at present.
The Second Circuit in Zelaya-Moreno rejected the Board’s narrow view of political opinion. In fact, the court only last year, in its decision in Hernandez-Chacon v. Barr, recognized the act of resisting rape by members of the very same gang in El Salvador as the expression of a feminist, anti-patriarchy political opinion. Significantly, the victim in that case hadn’t stated any opinion to the gang members; it was only years later in front of the immigration judge that she gave her reason for resisting as “because I have every right to.”
As it has done in other decisions, the Second Circuit emphasized the need for a “complex and contextual factual inquiry” in political opinion determinations. It conducted a survey of cases in which political opinion was found, and of others in which it wasn’t. Unfortunately, the majority upheld the decision that Zelaya had not expressed a political opinion to the MS-13 members, stating that “[s]o far as the record shows, his objection to them is not rooted in any sort of disagreement with the policies they seek to impose nor any ideology they espouse.”
“So far as the record shows” is critical. I haven’t seen the record in this case, but I believe it might serve to demonstrate that while Grahl-Madsen correctly assigned equal validity to the opinions of the commoner and the intellectual, in practice, claims brought by members of the former group often require assistance from the latter in persuading adjudicators of the political nature of their words or actions.
For example, in Hernandez-Chacon, context for the petitioner’s resistance was provided by the affidavit of a lawyer and human rights expert who was able to articulate the patriarchal gender bias in Salvadoran society from which a political opinion could be gleaned from the asylum-seeker’s act of resistance alone. In another decision cited by the court, Alvarez-Lagos v. Barr, the Fourth Circuit was able to rely on the explanation of two experts on Central American gangs that the petitioner’s refusal to comply with extortion demands would be viewed by the gang as “political opposition” and “a form of political disobedience.”
In Zelaya-Moreno, the dissenting judge (in an opinion worth reading) was able to draw a political inference from the facts alone. It seemed that the two judges in the majority required more. But in finding the statements or actions of an applicant alone to be insufficient, is our present system of refugee protection genuinely designed to suit the situation of common people as well as philosophers?
In the view of the dissenting judge, yes. In that judge’s words, Zelaya “sought refuge here after standing up to MS members, refusing their demands that he join them, and informing them that he did not support them and considered them a blight on his native El Salvador. Our asylum laws protect individuals like Zelaya-Moreno who face persecution for such politically courageous stands.”
But in the view of the majority, Zelaya had expressed nothing “more than the generalized statement ‘gangs are bad.’ Thus, we cannot conclude that Zelaya holds a political opinion within the meaning of the statute, and therefore that the BIA erred in concluding that he was not eligible for asylum on this ground.” Would additional documentation providing the complex, contextual analysis the court mentioned earlier in its decision have delivered the two judges in the majority to the place already reached by their dissenting colleague?
The United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees is a good reference source on such issues. In its Guidance Note on Refugee Claims Relating to Victims of Organized Crimes, UNHCR stated at para. 45 that in its view, “political opinion needs to be understood in a broad sense to encompass “any opinion on any matter in which the machinery of State, government, society, or policy may be engaged.” It continued at para. 47 that powerful gangs such as MS-13 may exercise de facto power in certain areas, and their activities and those of certain State agents may be closely intertwined. At para. 50, UNHCR stated that “rejecting a recruitment attempt may convey anti-gang sentiments as clearly as an opinion expressed in a more traditional political manner by, for instance, vocalizing criticism of gangs in public meetings or campaigns.” And at para. 51, UNHCR added that “[p]olitical opinion can also be imputed to the applicant by the gang without the applicant taking any action or making a particular statement him/herself. A refusal to give in to the demands of a gang is viewed by gangs as an act of betrayal, and gangs typically impute anti-gang sentiment to the victim whether or not s/he voices actual gang opposition.”
Had this document been included in the record, would it have been enough to persuade the majority that the BIA had erred in rejecting Zelaya’s claim that he was targeted on account of his political opinion? If so, how many pro se asylum applicants would understand the need to supplement their claims to provide this context, or know what type of document would be sufficient, or how to find it?
The Seventh Circuit had foreseen this problem 15 years ago. In a 2006 decision, Banks v. Gonzales, the court opined that Immigration Court needs its own country experts, who would operate much as vocational experts do in disability hearings before the Social Security Administration’s judges. In my opinion, an alternative approach would be for EOIR to follow the example of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, which maintains National Documentation Packages that are referenced in all cases by adjudicators of refugee claims.
During my time in government, I oversaw the creation of country condition pages on EOIR’s Virtual Law Library, which were built, and continue to be updated, by EOIR’s Law Library staff. However, EOIR did not see fit to make its contents part of the records of hearing in asylum cases. It is for this reason that UNHCR’s Eligibility Guidelines For Assessing International Protection Needs of Asylum Seekers in El Salvador, which contains much of the same language as the Guidance Note quoted above, and which expresses the specific conclusion that “persons perceived by a gang as contravening its rules or resisting its authority may be in need of international refugee protection on the grounds of their (imputed) political opinion,”2 is found on EOIR’s own website on the country page for “El Salvador,” yet wasn’t even considered in Zelaya-Moreno.
Considering the growing number of pro se applicants, the lack of legal resources available to those held in remote detention facilities, and the short time frame to prepare for hearings in certain categories of cases, I can’t see why the EOIR country pages should not be made part of the hearing record here as in Canada. It’s possible that such a policy would have led to a different result in Zelaya.
Furthermore, the BIA hears plenty of cases involving expert opinions supporting the conclusion that those resisting gangs such as MS-13 were harmed on account of their political opinion. Issuing precedent opinions recognizing the context that politicizes statements and actions such as Zelaya’s would result in much greater efficiency, consistency, and fairness in Immigration Court and Asylum Office adjudications.
Realistically, I harbor no illusions that the recent change in administration will bring about such enlightened changes to asylum adjudication anytime soon. But we must still continue to argue for such change. As the dissenting opinion in Zelaya stated in its conclusion: “[w]hile it may be too late for Zelaya-Moreno, the BIA and the Department of Justice can right this wrong for future asylum seekers. I urge them to reconsider their approach to anti-gang political opinion cases to ensure those who stand up to fearsome dangers are welcomed into this country rather than forced back to face torture and death.” As noted above, it wouldn’t take much effort on EOIR’s part to accomplish this.
Notes:
Atle Grahl-Madsen, The Status of Refugees in International Law, 228, 251 (1966) (quoted in Deborah E. Anker, The Law of Asylum in the United States (2020 Ed.) § 5:17, fn. 3.
UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines For Assessing International Protection Needs of Asylum Seekers in El Salvador at 29-30.
Copyright 2021 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
Reprinted with permission.
************************
Truly wonderful, Jeffrey! One of your “best ever,” in my view! (And, they are all great, so that’s saying something.)
Imagine what could be achieved at the BIA with real judges, experts in asylum law, thoughtful, practical analysis, intellectual leadership, and inspiration to a fairer future, rather than the current Clown Show 🤡🦹🏿♂️ inventing bogus ways to ”get to no!”
As Jeffrey demonstrates, we could choose to protect rather than to reject. There has always been a tendency to do the latter at the DOJ; but, under White Nationalist nativist Jeff Sessions and his successors it has gone “hog wild” — rejection has been falsely portrayed as a “duty” rather than an extremely poor choice and an abdication of moral and legal responsibility!
Today’s BIA is basically incapable of problem solving. Time and again their strained, stilted anti-immigrant, anti-due-process, pro-worst-practices interpretations not only spell doom for those coming before them, but also promote inefficiency and backlogs in an already overwhelmed system. They also send messages of disdain and disrespect for the rights and humanity of people of color that redounds throughout our struggling U.S. Legal System.
I’ll keep saying it:Whatever positive message Judge Garland and his team at DOJ intend to send about racial justice will be fatally undermined as long as “Dred Scottification” and disdain for the due process rights of migrants is the “order of the day” at the one Federal Court System the DOJ runs: The U.S. Immigration Court! As long as EOIR is a “bad joke” the rest of Judge Garland’s reforms will fall flat!
The right judges 🧑🏽⚖️ at the BIA could turn this thing around! Remains to be seen if it will happen. But, it’s not rocket science. It just requires putting the right folks in charge, in place, and giving them the support and independence to engage in “creative problem solving.”
Judge Garland should be confirmed next week. And the confirmation hearings for Lisa Monaco (DAG) and Vanita Gupta (AAG) have been scheduled.
Some additional points:
The dissenter in the Second Circuit’s decision in Zelaya-Moreno v. Wilkinson is Judge Rosemary Pooler. Judge Pooler has had a long and distinguished career. Perhaps she would like to cap it off by becoming Chair of the BIA and leading by example;
Shows the importance of experts, which is probably why the BIA has gone out of its way to demean them and encourage IJs to ignore their evidence;
Jeffrey’s analysis supports my “Better BIA for a Better America” 🇺🇸program;
As Justice Sotomayor says: “It is not justice.” That’s my view on today’s EOIR!
BIA Asylum Panel In Action Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons“Oh Boy! Three material mistakes in one asylum case! Do you think our superiors in the enforcement bureaucracy will give us extra credit on our ‘move ‘em out without due process quotas?’ Being a Deportation Judge sure is fun!” https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
Arita-Deras v. Wilkinson, 4th Cir., 03-05-21, Published
PANEL:GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges
OPINION BY: Judge Barbara Milano Keenan
KEY QUOTE:
Maria Del Refugio Arita-Deras, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of a final order of removal entered by the Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board).1 The Board affirmed an immigration judge’s (IJ) conclusion that Arita-Deras was not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Board: (1) agreed with the IJ that Arita-Deras failed to support her claims with sufficient corroborating evidence; (2) found that Arita-Deras failed to prove that she suffered from past persecution because she had not been harmed physically; and (3) concluded that Arita-Deras failed to establish a nexus between the alleged persecution and a protected ground.
Upon our review, we conclude that the Board improperly discounted Arita-Deras’ corroborating evidence, applied an incorrect legal standard for determining past persecution, and erred in its nexus determination. Accordingly, we grant Arita-Deras’ petition and remand her case to the Board for further proceedings.
***************************
After eight years of bouncing around the system at various levels THIS “NotQuite Good Enough For Government Work” error-fest is what we get from EOIR! As I keep saying, no wonder they are running a 1.3 million case backlog, clogging the Circuit Courts with incredibly shoddy work, and in many cases sending vulnerable refugees back to death or torture under incorrect fact findings and blatantly wrong legal interpretations!
Again, nothing profound about this claim; just basic legal and analytical errors that often flow from the “think of any reason to deny” culture. EOIR just keeps repeating the same basic mistakes again and again even after being “outed” by the Circuits!
This case illustrates why the unrealistically high asylum denial numbers generated by the biased EOIR system and parroted by DHS should never be trusted. This respondent, appearing initially without a lawyer, was actually coerced by an Immigration Judge into accepting a “final order” of removal with a totally incorrect, inane, mis-statement of the law. “Haste makes waste,” shoddy, corner cutting procedures, judges deficient in asylum legal knowledge, and a stunning lack of commitment to due process and fundamental fairness are a burden to our justice system in addition to being a threat to the lives of individual asylum seekers.
Only when she got a lawyer prior to removal was this respondent able to get her case reopened for a full asylum hearing. Even then, the IJ and the BIA both totally screwed up the analysis and entered incorrect orders. Only because this respondent was fortunate enough to be assisted by one of the premier pro bono groups in America, the CAIR Coalition, was she able to get some semblance of justice on appeal to the Circuit Court!
I’m very proud to say that a member of the “CAIR Team,” Adina Appelbaum, program Director, Immigration Impact Lab, is my former Georgetown ILP student, former Arlington Intern, and a “charter member” of the NDPA! If my memory serves me correctly, she is also a star alum of the CALS Asylum Clinic @ Georgetown Law. No wonder Adina made the Forbes “30 Under 30” list of young Americans leaders! She and others like her in the NDPA are ready to go in and start cleaning up and improving EOIR right now! Judge Garland take note!
Adina Appelbaum Director, Immigration Impact Lab CAIR Coalition PHOTO: “30 Under 30” from Forbes
Despite CAIR’s outstanding efforts, Ms. Arita-Deras still is nowhere near getting the relief to which she should be entitled under a proper application of the law by expert judges committed to due process. Instead, after eight years, she plunges back into EOIR’s 1.3 million case “never never land” where she might once again end up with Immigration Judges at both the trial and appellate level who are not qualified to be hearing asylum cases because they don’t know the law and they are “programmed to deny” to meet their “deportation quotas” in support of ICE Enforcement.
Focus on it folks! This is America; yet individuals on trial for their lives face a prosecutor and a “judge” who are on the same side! And, they are often forced to do it without a lawyer and without even understanding the complex proceedings going on around them! How is this justice? It isn’t! So why is it allowed to continue?
Also, let’s not forget that under the recently departed regime, EOIR falsely claimed that having an attorney didn’t make a difference in success rates for respondents. That’s poppycock! Actually, as the Vera Institute recently documented the success rate for represented respondents is an astounding 10X that of unrepresented individuals. In any functional system, that differential would be more than sufficient to establish a “prima facie” denial of due process any time an asylum seeker (particularly one in detention) is forced to proceed without representation.
Yet, this miscarriage of justice occurs every day in Immigration Courts throughout America! Worse yet, EOIR and DHS have purposely “rigged” the system in various ways to impede and discourage effective representation.
To date, while flagging EOIR for numerous life-threatening errors, the Article IIIs have failed to come to grips with the obvious: The current EOIR system provides neither due process nor fundamental fairness to the individuals coming before these “courts” (that aren’t “courts” at all)!
Acting AG Wilkinson has piled up an impressive string of legal defeats in immigration matters in just a short time on the job. It’s going to be up to Judge Garland to finally make it right. It’s urgent for both our nation and the individuals whose rights are being stomped upon by a broken system on a daily basis!
PANEL: Before: Richard A. Paez and Johnnie B. Rawlinson,
Circuit Judges, and George H. Wu,** District Judge. Opinion by Judge Paez;
Concurrence by Judge Rawlinson
* The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
** The Honorable George H. Wu, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
SUMMARY BY COURT STAFF:
Immigration
Granting Abdi Ali Asis Aden’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ dismissal of his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal from Somalia, and remanding, the panel held that the Board erred in concluding that Aden did not qualify for an exception to the firm resettlement bar, and that the evidence compelled the conclusion that he suffered past persecution in Somalia on account of a protected ground.
Aden asserted that he suffered persecution in Somalia by members of Al-Shabaab, a militant terrorist organization affiliated with Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, after his brother refused their orders to shut down his theater showing American and Hindi movies and sports, which Al-Shabaab viewed as “Satanic” movies. The Board concluded that Aden was ineligible for asylum because he was firmly resettled in South Africa, and that he failed to establish that he suffered past persecution in Somalia on account of a protected ground.
The Board noted that Aden presented “ample evidence” of persecution in South Africa, but nonetheless determined that he failed to qualify for the restricted-residence exception to the firm resettlement bar because the persecution he faced was at the hands of private individuals, rather than the South
*** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
ADEN V. WILKINSON 3
African government. The panel concluded that the Board erred in doing do, holding that the restricted-residence exception applies when the country’s authorities are unable or unwilling to protect the applicant from persecution by nongovernment actors.
The panel held that the evidence compelled the conclusion that Aden suffered past persecution in Somalia, where in addition to physically beating Aden, members of Al-Shabaab kept tabs on him by contacting his brother and warned they would kill Aden and his brother if they continued to disobey Al-Shabaab’s command to close their theater. The panel wrote that the chain of events revealed that Al-Shabaab intended to coerce Aden to submit to its new political and religious order, and used offensive strategies— beatings, destruction of property, and death threats—to achieve this goal. Further, the panel explained that continuing political and social turmoil caused by Al- Shabaab provided context for the harm and death threats that Aden experienced, which together with the past harm, compelled the conclusion that he suffered past persecution in Somalia.
The panel held that substantial evidence did not support the Board’s determination that Aden failed to establish that he was targeted on account of a protected ground because Al Shabaab was motived by their own political and religious beliefs, rather than Aden’s. The panel explained that Al- Shabaab’s accusation that the brothers were featuring Islamically forbidden, “Satanic” films provided direct evidence of their political and religious motive, and that even if the brothers did not feature the films out of their own political or religious convictions, Al-Shabaab at the very least imputed those beliefs to them. The panel wrote that the only logical explanation for Al-Shabaab’s treatment of Aden
4 ADEN V. WILKINSON
and his brother was that their actions were subversive to Al- Shabaab’s political and religious doctrine.
The panel remanded for the Board to consider, under the appropriate framework, whether Aden was firmly resettled in South Africa, and to give the government an opportunity to rebut the presumption of future persecution triggered by Aden’s showing of past persecution on account of a protected ground.
Concurring, Judge Rawlinson agreed that the case should be remanded for reconsideration of the firm resettlement issue. Judge Rawlinson noted that despite the fact that the IJ never addressed the issue of whether persecution by private actors may prevent application of the firm resettlement bar, the Board concluded that the firm resettlement bar applied to Aden because he did not introduce any evidence that the South African government imposed any restrictions on his residency such that the restricted-residence exception applied. Judge Rawlinson wrote that the Board’s conclusion was not supported by substantial evidence in the record, as reflected in the IJ’s factual findings. Judge Rawlinson also agreed that the Board erred in concluding that Aden failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground because, based on binding precedent, an applicant such as Aden, who disagrees with Al Shabaab’s view of the proper interpretation of Islam, can establish persecution on account of a protected ground by showing that others in his group persecuted him because they found him insufficiently loyal or authentic to the religious ideal they espouse.
ADEN V. WILKINSON 5
COUNSEL
Emery El Habiby, El Habiby Law Firm, Sun City, Arizona, for Petitioner.
Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director; Lynda A. Do, Attorney; Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Respondent.
*********************
This case has been pending six years! Should have been granted by the IJ. No wonder EOIR is running a 1.3 million backlog! Attempts to turn “easy grants” into bogus denials is killing this system, not to mention the asylum seekers suffering the “triple whammy” of EOIR’S lack of expertise, lousy training, and a “denial culture.”
My good friend, colleague, and former NAIJ President Judge Dana Leigh Marks, who actually is an asylum expert, once told The NY Timesthat asylum cases are like the death penalty in traffic court. But, I suspect that many folks appearing in traffic court get significantly MORE due process than those on trial for their lives in our broken, biased, and dysfunctional Immigration Courts.
Judge Garland needs to fix this! Sooner, rather than later!
Elizabeth Gibson Attorney, NY Legal Assistance Group Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
COVID-19 & Closures
Note: Policies are rapidly changing, so please verify information with the government and colleagues.
EOIR Status Overview & EOIR Court Status Map/List: Hearings in non-detained cases at courts without an announced date are postponed through, and including, March 19, 2021 (The timing of postponement notices has been inconsistent and it is unclear when the next announcement will be. EOIR announced 3/19 on Wed. 2/10, 2/19 on Mon. 1/25, 2/5 on Mon. 1/11, and 1/22 on Mon. 12/28). There is no announced date for reopening NYC non-detained at this time.
Reuters: U.S. President Joe Biden on Wednesday revoked a proclamation from his predecessor that blocked many green card applicants from entering the United States.
Politico: ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero was quick to welcome Mayorkas’ announcement, but cautioned that “the devil is in the details and Secretary Mayorkas has to shed all the caveats and qualifications around his announcement and follow through with everything that’s necessary to right the wrong.” See also Lawyers have found the parents of 105 separated migrant children in past month.
NYT: The two leaders, who previously talked about ways to stem migration in a call on Jan. 22, just days after Mr. Biden took office, are expected to discuss addressing the root causes of persecution and poverty that force Central American families to flee to the United States.
WaPo: Government officials say the camp is needed because facilities for migrant children have had to cut capacity by nearly half because of the coronavirus pandemic. At the same time, the number of unaccompanied children crossing the border has been inching up, with January reporting the highest total — more than 5,700 apprehensions — for that month in recent years.
Politico: U.S. District Judge Drew Tipton granted a preliminary injunction that blocks the moratorium the Biden administration announced on its first day.
WaPo: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers have tapped a private database containing hundreds of millions of phone, water, electricity and other utility records while pursuing immigration violations, according to public documents uncovered by Georgetown Law researchers and shared with The Washington Post.
InTheseTimes: According to the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) — the Justice Department agency that oversees these immigration adjudication centers — nearly 300,000 asylum cases have been heard via videoconference in the past two years.
NPR: Nana Gyamfi, Executive Director of the Black Alliance for Just Immigration, tells NPR’s Scott Simon about challenges Black immigrants to the U.S. face.
NBC: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on Monday filed a lawsuit against Libre by Nexus, claiming the company is preying on immigrants through a bond scam that traps participants into paying expensive fees.
Examiner: Protocols for caring for families and children, border wall infrastructure, decriminalizing illegal immigration, immigration courts, employment-based immigration, and private detention facilities were not addressed in either the House or Senate versions of the bill.
USCIS has launched a temporary pilot program to facilitate attorney or representative participation in an asylum interview from a remote location via video or telephone. The pilot program is available only at the Arlington, Boston, Miami, Newark, and Newark/Manhattan Branch asylum offices. AILA Doc. No. 21030131
Law360: A fractured Second Circuit panel tossed an El Salvadoran asylum seeker’s appeal, finding that his opposition to gangs was not a political opinion and that he could avoid future beatings, a view the dissenting judge called an “uncharitable” interpretation of the case.
BIA ruled that an applicant for special rule cancellation of removal under INA §240A(b)(2) based on spousal abuse must demonstrate both that the abuser was their lawful spouse and was either a U.S. citizen or LPR at the time of the abuse. Matter of L-L-P-, 28 I&N Dec. 241 (BIA 2021) AILA Doc. No. 21022432
Law360: A pair of thorny immigration cases “baffled” and “confused” the inquisitive justices of the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday as they wrestled with when testimony of asylum applicants must be presumed to be credible.
A district court grants nationwide preliminary injunction to prohibit enforcement and implementation of the 100-day pause on removals as outlined in the 1/20/21 DHS memo. (State of Texas v. USA, et al., 2/23/21) AILA Doc. No. 21012634
On 2/24/21, President Biden issued Proclamation 10149 revoking Proclamation 10014, section 1 of Proclamation 10052, and section 1 of Proclamation 10131, which suspended immigrant visas due to the 2019 novel Coronavirus outbreak. (86 FR 11847, 3/1/21) AILA Doc. No. 21022490
DOS updates its announcement and FAQs on the phased resumption of visa services following the rescission of Presidential Proclamation 10014, which suspended the entry of certain immigrant visa applicants into the United States. AILA Doc. No. 20071435
Documented: Judge Alison Nathan’s Nov. 30 ruling at U.S. District Court in Manhattan was the first to draw a constitutional line on how long an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainee waits for an initial hearing before a judge.
Law360: A Florida federal judge ruled Friday that a Mexican citizen can join a class action challenging U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement detainee conditions at three South Florida facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic, saying the agency cannot escape jurisdiction by transferring him to a facility across the country.
AIC: The Council and partners filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit to compel the government to release documentation of three raids on a humanitarian aid station in the deadly desert in Southern Arizona.
The Department of Health and Human Services published a notice stating that it is no longer pursuing changes to the forms for sponsors of unaccompanied children on which it had requested public comment on 1/5/21 at 86 FR 308, and therefore withdraws its request for comment. (86 FR 11537, 2/25/21) AILA Doc. No. 21022531
DHS: Secretary Mayorkas announced that Michelle Brané will serve as the Task Force’s Executive Director. Most recently, she served as the senior director of the Migrant Rights and Justice program at the Women’s Refugee Commission.
RESOURCES
· Correction: The ERO ombudsman email that was circulating last week had a typo and should be: EROOmbudsman@ice.dhs.gov.
Check out “Top News #7.” It’s an article by Arvind Dilawar in In These Times about “EOIR’s Black Sites,” 🏴☠️ euphemistically known as “Immigration Adjudication Centers” where imposters masquerading as “judges” “process” cases by TV on the deportation assembly line, often without regard to the law, the facts, and the humanity of their victims and the lawyers representing them.
Here’s an excerpt:
Lisa Koop, associate director of legal services for the National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC), stood with her client in immigration court in September 2019. The client (name withheld for privacy) had escaped violence in Central America and fled to the United States with her young daughter. Here, they were taken into custody by immigration authorities, which landed them in this courtroom, waiting to hear whether they would be granted asylum.
They were initially scheduled with a traditional, in-person immigration judge. But that judge retired and the case was transferred to an “immigration adjudication center.” This new judge video conferenced in. Koop says the judge did not allow an opening statement, was not familiar with relevant precedent and did not ask Koop to address any particularities of the case in the closing argument. The judge ruled that, while the case was “very sad,” it did not meet the criteria for asylum, then wished Koop’s client “good luck” following deportation.
This outrageous mockery of due process, fundamental fairness, and real judicial proceedings is ongoing, in the Department of “Justice” — yes, folks, the Chief Prosecutor of the U.S. maintains his own “wholly owned” “court system”in a nation where justice supposedly is unbiased and impartial — more than five weeks into the Biden Administration.
Last week, we heard a refreshingly emotional expression of personal gratitude and recognition of the essential role of refugee protections from Judge Merrick Garland.
What we haven’t heard to date is a recognition that what will soon be “his” DOJ treats refugees (in this case vulnerable asylum seekers) with disdain and disrespect “revved up” by four years of White Nationalist abuses heaped on them by Judge Garland’s corrupt predecessors as AGs for Trump. We also have yet to hear what Judge Garland plans to do about the deadly and disreputable “EOIR Clown Show” 🤡🦹🏿♂️ which will soon be operating under his auspices and which, whether he realizes it or not, will form the the major part of his legacy to American Justice.
Judge Garland should call up folks like Lisa Koop at NIJC, Claudia Valenzuela at American Immigration Council, andtheir colleagues to get a “real life dose” of what it means to be or represent an asylum seeker in today’s dysfunctional and disreputable Immigration “Courts” that actually are 21st Century Star Chambers.
“Justice” Star Chamber Style
Better yet, he should replace the current EOIR Senior Executives and BIA Appellate Immigration Judges with Koop, Valenzuela, and others like them — “practical experts” in due process, equal justice, immigration, and human rights — who would restore and advance judicial integrity and fairness to a system that has abandoned and trampled upon those fundamental values!
G. Reaper Approaches ICE Gulag With “Imbedded Captive Star Chamber” Run By EOIR, For Their “Partner” Reaper Image: Hernan Fednan, Creative Commons License
As stated at the end of Dilawar’s article:“Asylum-seekers are wrongfully denied asylum, and justice is not served.” Duh!
🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever! End the EOIR Clown Show!🤡🦹🏿♂️🎪☠️
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”BIA Asylum Panel In Action Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons“Justice” Star Chamber Style
PANEL: Howard, Chief Judge, and Kayatta, Circuit Judge.**Judge Torruella heard oral argument in this matter and participated in the semble, but he did not participate in the issuance of the panel’s opinion in this case. The remaining two panelists therefore issued the opinion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
ATTORNEYS: Nancy J. Kelly, with whom John Willshire Carrera and Harvard Immigration & Refugee Clinic of Harvard Law School at Greater Boston Legal Services were on brief, for petitioner.
Stratton C. Strand, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, with whom Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Douglas E. Ginsburg, Assistant Director, and Derek C. Julius, Senior Litigation Counsel, were on brief, for respondent.
OPINION BY: Chief Judge Howard
KEY QUOTE:
Petitioner Olga Araceli Molina- Diaz is a Honduran native and citizen who twice entered the United States without authorization. The government ordered her removed to Honduras, and an immigration judge (“IJ”) denied her subsequent application for withholding of removal (“Application”). Molina appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which affirmed the IJ’s order and denied Molina’s motion to reopen and remand. Molina now petitions this court to review the BIA’s decision. Because we agree that the IJ and BIA made legal errors, we grant the petition, vacate the removal order, and remand for further proceedings.
*************************
Folks, we’re not talking about obtuse principles of international law, complex statutory interpretation, or “cutting edge” legal concepts. No, this is about credibility, corroboration, following your own precedents (even when they might produce a result favorable to the respondent), and adjudicating a CAT claim.
These are the “bread and butter” of basic asylum and withholding adjudication that is the staple of most Immigration Court dockets. Not rocket science! Yet, once they got below the “caption line,” the BIA, a supposedly “expert tribunal,” got pretty much everything else wrong. With human life at stake, no less!
This isn’t just an “outlier.” It reveals deep systemic problems in a dysfunctional system that has been programmed to cut corners and deny relief. After 21 years as an EOIR Judge at every level, I know an “autopilot denial” when I see one.
This is clearly the product of a judge and a BIA panel that approached the case with a “we deny almost all Hondurans, it’s just a question of how” attitude. Because “the bottom line got to no,” obviously nobody paid much, if any, attention to what was above it. I suspect that if the staff attorney had drafted this as a grant or a remand, the BIA panel would have given it a more thorough and searching review.
Following your own precedents isn’t a matter that requires profound knowledge or amazing analytical skills. It just requires some level of basic expertise and an open mind — things that appear to be sorely lacking throughout today’s broken EOIR.
The flawed EOIR approach to claims for asylum and withholding, particularly those involving the Northern Triangle and women, is very costly, not only to the humans involved, but also to our justice system. This respondent reentered the U.S. in 2009, and her merits hearing before the IJ took place in 2012. A careful, proper analysis could well have resulted in a grant at that time.
Instead, this “plethora of errors,” created by EOIR’s corner cutting and obsession with denying claims, bounced around the system for nearly a decade before being “outed” by the Circuit Court — obviously the only judges involved who took the time to actually analyze the case in accordance with the law, the facts, and the arguments made by counsel. So, after nearly a decade, at three different levels of review, we’re basically back to “square one” with this case.
The case will be returned to the BIA who inevitably will return it to to the IJ for a new hearing that actually complies with the law and due process. Given the total dysfunction in the EOIR system, it’s could easily be around for another decade.
Getting it right at the first level is critically important in a high volume, yet life determining, system like the Immigration Courts!That’s why it’s so absolutely essential that Judge Garland replace the current BIA and many of the current trial judges with “practical experts;” judges selected on a merit-basis because of their understanding of immigration and human rights laws, demonstrated analytical skills, and who by experience and reputation are overwhelmingly committed to due process, fundamental fairness, treating respondents and their lawyers with respect and dignity, and getting the right result the first time around. “The best and the brightest,” if you will!
As this case that began well before Trump shows, the deterioration at EOIR has been underway across Administrations over the past two decades. It greatly accelerated and became more acute under Trump. That’s particularly true because “Trump AGs” drastically expanded the Immigration Courts and the BIA (while exponentially increasing the backlog), and now have appointed the majority of judges in the system — after just four years!
Compare that with the Obama Administration’s practice of taking an mind-boggling average of two years to fill IJ vacancies! And, then filling them almost all with “government insiders and former prosecutors” rather than some of the many renowned “practical scholars,” experienced clinicians, and notable litigators in the private/academic/NGO immigration/human rights sectors. They actually left behind unfilled judicial vacancies for Sessions to “pounce on.” Says all you really need to know about the “priority” of immigrant justice in the Obama Administration. The “good enough for government work” attitude that has replaced “guaranteeing fairness and due process for all” as the “EOIR Vision” needs to go, now!
🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever! Achieving it in the Immigration Courts will be the “litmus test” of whether Judge Garland succeeds or fails in his new role as Attorney General! You can’t improve justice for all in America while running a “court system” that denies justice, often ignores the law, mocks due process, eschews best practices and common sense, and routinely disrespects the humanity of those appearing before it! All while running up a stunning 1.3 million case backlog! As Justice Sotomayor would say: “This is not justice!”
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”“Screwed the respondent again, this is exhilarating! Don’t they ever get tired of losing?” https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
An applicant for special rule cancellation of removal under section 240A(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2) (2018), based on spousal abuse must demonstrate both that the abuser was his or her lawful spouse and possessed either United States citizenship or lawful permanent resident status at the time of the abuse.
To state the obvious, if Congress intended the meaning the BIA came up with, they would have just said “was at the time of the abuse.”
Here are a few of the comments from the Courtside mailbox:
“I hope it is not naive to think that the DV community might get a new AG to certify this.Beyond the strategic evil of granting remand and slipshod reasoning, it demonstrates a shocking ignorance of domestic violence and abuse. There is no way this would survive review at the circuit level.”
“Interesting that even though the Administration has set a more “immigrant friendly” tone, the BIA continues to crank out restrictive, anti-immigrant precedents, inevitably choosing the interpretation least favorable to the respondent in all precedents! I sure wish they would be ousted!”
“It’s the same Board Members. I don’t remember the decisions becoming better under Obama, other than A-R-C-G-. And the present Board is far worse in its makeup than under Obama.”
And, perhaps my favorite, short, accurate, and to the point: “F**k!”
It’s what happens when you create a “judiciary” far removed from the human problems and real-life in-court experiences of the community whose lives they crush under their uninformed and tone-deaf “jurisprudence.”
Starting sometime in March, Judge Garland, now one of the most highly respected Federal Judges in America, will find himself in a new position — as the “named defendant” in some the worst so-called jurisprudence in modern American legal history in the now most-litigated area in Federal civil law! This is “intentionally skewed jurisprudence” embodying White Nationalism, inhumanity, and xenophobia.
Is that really the way he wants to be remembered by future generations? If not, what’s his plan for bringing due process, fundamental fairness, diversity, compassion, quality control, efficiency, and “practical scholarship” to our embarrassingly and disgracefully dysfunctional Immigration “Courts?”
For the Republicans, justice is not something that “rolls down like waters,” it’s something that comes down like a hammer.
This was a failure that Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) aimed to make clear when he asked Garland whether he was familiar with a biblical reference to justice that advises to “act justly and to love mercy.” Much of Booker’s questioning centered around racism within the criminal justice system — the disproportionate arrests of minorities, lousy legal representation for the poor, sentencing imbalances and the issue that caused Kennedy such befuddlement, implicit bias.
Garland acknowledged these issues, the flaws in the system, the need to change. And then he told in public, the story he’d told Booker in private about why he wanted to leave a lifetime appointment on the federal bench to do this job. It’s the most reasonable question, but one that so often is never asked: Why do you want to do this?
Garland acknowledged these issues, the flaws in the system, the need to change. And then he told in public, the story he’d told Booker in private about why he wanted to leave a lifetime appointment on the federal bench to do this job. It’s the most reasonable question, but one that so often is never asked: Why do you want to do this?
“I come from a family where my grandparents fled antisemitism and persecution,” Garland said. And then he stopped. He sat in silence for more than a few beats. And when he resumed, his voice cracked. “The country took us in and protected us. And I feel an obligation to the country, to pay back.”
“This is the highest, best use of my one set of skills,” Garland said. “And so I want very much to be the kind of attorney general you’re saying I could be.”
And that would be one focused on protecting the rights of the greatest and the least — and even the worst. Punishment is part of the job. But it’s not the definition of justice.
*******************
Read Robin’s complete article at the link. She can write! So delighted the Post got her off the “fashion beat” where her talents were being squandered, and got her onto more serious stuff!
Judge Garland’s awareness and humility are refreshing. But, unless he takes immediate action to redo EOIR and the rest of the DOJ’s immigration kakistocracy, it won’t mean much.
Judge, it could have been YOUR family forced to suffer kidnapping, extortion, murder threats, family separation, and other overtly cruel and inhuman treatment in squalid camps in Mexico, waiting for “hearings” that would never come before “judges” known for denying almost 100% of claims regardless of merit! YOUR family’s plea for refugee could have been rejected by some nativist bureaucrat or “hand-selected by the prosecutor” “Deportation Judge” for specious, biased reasons!
YOUR family was welcomed! But what if the only thought had been how to “best deter” “you and others like you” from coming?
Maybe because you and yours are White and hail from Eastern Europe, the “rule of law” has a different meaning and impact than it would if you were Brown, Black, or some other “non-White” skin color and had the misfortune to be from a “shithole” country where we have no concern for what happens to humanity? Or, worse yet, what if your family’s claim had been based on your Grandmother’s gender status? You would really be out of luck under today’s overtly misogynist approach to refugee law flowing out of EOIR!
Then, where would you and your nice family be today? Would you even be? THOSE are the questions you should be asking yourself!
Unfortunately, it’s easy to see that folks like Cotton, Hawley, Cruz, and Kennedy will be deeply offended if you attack their White Nationalist privilege, views, and agendas in any meaningful way.
And, if you actually make progress in holding the Capitol insurrectionists accountable, you’ll have to deal with the unapologetic, disingenuous, anti-democracy, insurrectionist actions of folks like Hawley and Cruz. That won’t be too “bipartisanly popular” with a GOP gang that just overwhelmingly worked and voted to ignore the evidence and “acquit” the “Chief Insurrectionist.”Who, by the way, was a main purveyor of the institutionalized racism that infects EOIR and the rest of the DOJ. It’s no real secret that “America’s anti-democracy party” aids, abets, encourages, and exonerates White Supremacists and domestic terrorists.
In the GOP world, “mercy” and “due process” are reserved for White guys like Trump, Flynn, Stone, White Supremacists, and “Q-Anoners.” Folks of color and migrants exist largely below the floor level of the GOP’s definition of “person” or “human.” For them, justice is a “hammer” to beat them into submission and punish them for asserting their rights.
So, restoring the rule of law at the DOJ is going to be a tough job —you need to clean house and get the right folks (mostly from outside Government) in to help you. And, you must examine carefully the roles of many career civil servants who chose to be part of the problems outlined by Chairman Durbin in his opening remarks.
You’re also going to have to “tune out” the criticism, harassment, and unhelpful “input” you’re likely to get from GOP legislators in both Houses who are firmly committed to the former regime’s White Nationalist agenda of “Dred Scottification,” disenfranchisement, nativism, and preventing equal justice for persons of color, of any status!
Think about all the reasons why you and your family are grateful for the treatment you received from our country. Then, think of the ways you could make those things a reality for all persons seeking refuge or just treatment, regardless of skin color, creed, or status. That’s the way you can “give back” at today’s DOJ! That’s the way you can be remembered as the “father of the diverse, representative, independent, due-process exemplifying21st Century Immigration Judiciary!” 🧑🏽⚖️👩⚖️👨🏻⚖️
It’s not “rocket science.” Actually, just carrying out our current legal and moral obligations. It’s well within our capabilities, particularly with the right people in charge. Why wasn’t a plan to get this done “front and center” in Judge Garland’s testimony today?
🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever! Human misery doesn‘t stop for “study.” Not all damage and harm is reversible! What if it were YOU and YOUR family?
Judge Merrick B. Garland Official White House Photo Public Realm
. . . .
The President nominates the Attorney General to be the lawyer — not for any individual, but for the people of the United States. July 2020 marked the 150th anniversary of the founding of the Department of Justice, making this a fitting time to remember the mission of the Attorney General and the Department.
It is a fitting time to reaffirm that the role of the Attorney General is to serve the Rule of Law and to ensure equal justice under the law. And it is a fitting time to recognize the more than 115,000 career employees of the Department and its law enforcement agencies, and their commitment to serve the cause of justice and protect the safety of our communities.
If I am confirmed, serving as Attorney General will be the culmination of a career I have dedicated to ensuring that the laws of our country are fairly and faithfully enforced, and that the rights of all Americans are protected.
. . . .
That mission remains urgent because we do not yet have equal justice. Communities of color and other minorities still face discrimination in housing, education, employment, and the criminal justice system; and bear the brunt of the harm caused by pandemic, pollution, and
climate change.
150 years after the Department’s founding, battling extremist attacks on our democratic institutions also remains central to its mission.
At the opening of the hearing, he told Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin (D-IL):
Garland also distanced himself from the Trump administration’s child separation immigration policy, calling it ‘shameful’ and committing to aiding a Senate investigation into the matter.
‘I think that the policy was shameful. I can’t imagine anything worse than tearing parents from their children, and we will provide all of the cooperation that we possibility can,’ Garland told Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin.
Yet, the harsh reality is that the DOJ is still actively engaged in furthering the operation of “Baby Jails” and “Family Gulags.” Indeed, disgracefully, the DOJ’s EOIR actually operates “judicial star chambers” euphemistically called “Detained Immigration Courts” in DHS Gulags throughout America.
There, bonds are unconstitutionally denied, the right to legal representation is aggressively hindered and discouraged, some individuals have their asylum claims wrongfully denied, while others are pressured under duress into giving up their legal rights.
As all of this is ongoing, EOIR’s so-called “judges” assert that they “lack power” to examine the life-threatening, dangerous, unconstitutionally substandard conditions and abusive custody present throughout the “New American Gulag” operated by DHS that they serve.(How do “judges” work for the AG under the Due Process Clause of our Constitution?)
What kind of “courts” are these? What does Judge Garland intend to do to stop official child abusers and illegal and unethical “civil detention?”
Judge Garland’s tone is an obvious improvement over the past two turkeys 🦃to hold the job! But, words are words; actions are what counts! Unfortunately, I couldn’t discern any “plan of action” here!
Without being unduly picky:
You should have said “This President nominates;” obviously, the last one did view the AG as his personal lawyer and the DOJ as just another of the many law firms on his retainer — one working pro bono at the people’s expense against the people’s interests — how perverted is that;
In a way it’s nice and expected to acknowledge the many hard-working civil servants in the DOJ; but, the reality is that far too many of them were part of the problem — failing to stand up for “the people’s” (actually, as you know, immigrants regardless of status are “persons” under our Constitution — real, live, breathing, feeling “people” if you will) individual rights and ignoring their oaths of office to carry out the White Nationalist, anti-democracy agenda of the past regime; like it or not, Judge, if you are going to turn your elevated thoughts into policy and practice, you are going to have to deal with the folks who “went along to get along” over the past four years; like it or not, you’re going to need a broom 🧹 and a plunger 🪠 to get this dirty job done;
Of course equal justice for all should be the goal (it’s not a new idea, except in GOP Administrations — if you remember it was actually Janet Reno’s motto) and obviously we’re not close to being there; “communities of color” faced more than “discrimination” — over the past four years, it was an active and concerted policy of “Dred Scottification” — willful dehumanization of the other and trashing their Constitutional rights: to vote, to due process, to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” on many occasions — mostly with the participation, encouragement, and often unethicalactions of the DOJ, sometimes endorsed and enabled by Federal Courts, all the way up to the Supremes; it’s going to take some real bold, and undoubtedly unpleasant, actions at the DOJ to make the rhetoric a reality, not to mention standing up to some of the lousy Federal Judicial appointments from the last four years;
How are you going to do any of this without acknowledging that immigration is where it starts; as you deliver your remarks today, some EOIR “judges,” soon to be “your judges,” will be actively applying racist, misogynist, anti-due process, “worst practices” “precedents” to dehumanize, disparage, and wrongfully deny and remove the very “people in the United States,” among our most vulnerable and often deserving, whose rights you claim to be dedicated to protecting and enhancing; how are you going to do that without a definitive plan for immediately reforming EOIR, OIL, the SG’s Office, OLC, OLP, the Civil Division, the Civil Rights Division, the Criminal Division and a host of other “components” who participated, and continue to participate, in these legal travesties and mockeries of due process, humanity, and the rule of law on a daily basis;
I understand your commitment to addressing domestic terrorism; but, you can’t do that without addressing its most obvious manifestation in the DOJ: EOIR; you can draw a straight line from the White Nationalist, racist agenda of Stephen Miller to the lies, misogyny, racism, and disrespect for immigrants, particularly those of color, “institutionalized and weaponized” @ EOIR, to the empowered political thugs who thought they were entitled to forcibly attack democracy and its representatives (many among the GOP who were actively complicit) at our Capitol!
How do you intend to deal constructively, professionally, and constitutionally with the stunning, yet largely self-created, 1.3 million plus case Immigration Court backlog that threatens to topple our entire justice system; what’s your plan for ending “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” @ EOIR, returning control to local judges while keeping politicos and bureaucrats @ EOIR & DOJ from further destructive meddling;
How are you gonna credibly fight “domestic terrorism” with these folks as “your judges?”
BIA Asylum Panel In Action Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
I, of course, appreciate your lofty thoughts and wish you all the best. You remind us all of something sadly lost over the past four years and something still glaringly missing from the GOP and its supporters: Values matter! But, values require implementation — action!
I won’t be convinced that you will actually be able to accomplish your goals and carry out your values until I witness your bold action to “deconstruct” the EOIR that Stephen Miller, Gene Hamilton, “Gonzo” Sessions, and “Billy the Bigot” Barr built and replace it with a real court system with real progressive, due-process/equal justice-committed expert judges and professional judicial administrators as an essential step to the creation of a long-overdue and urgently needed Article I U.S. Immigration Court.
I look forward to seeing your EOIR Reform Plan in action, very soon! Good luck!
