"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.
The Round Table of Former Immigration Judges Statement on EOIR’s Prior Restraint on NAIJ Speech
As former Immigration Judges and BIA Board Members we strongly protest the unconstitutional prior restraint imposed by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) which effectively silences the officers of the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) and prohibits them from providing information or engaging in advocacy involving the complex workings of our nation’s Immigration Court system. We call for immediate reversal of this misguided policy.
In late February 2024 EOIR advised NAIJ officers that they could not speak publicly without obtaining advance permission through the agency’s “”SET” (Speaking Engagement Team) process, a requirement which was never imposed before. This is a cumbersome, multistep process which requires Immigration Judges to seek permission from their supervisors, the SET unit, and sometimes even EOIR’s Ethics team and the Office of Policy. It provides no time frames for decisions nor any opportunity for review of adverse determinations. It is a process which is wildly incompatible with the practical realities involved in responding to media or congressional inquiries which often involve extremely short deadlines, sometimes mere hours or days. Mandating union officers use this process is a thinly disguised gag order.
This step is a dramatic departure from a precedent of more than 50 years, since NAIJ was established in 1973 and was never previously mandated to seek prior approval for appearances or speech. It ignores the uncontroverted fact that NAIJ officials scrupulously provide disclaimers indicating that they are not speaking on behalf of EOIR [or its parent, the Department of Justice (DOJ)] or articulating any position except that held by NAIJ members. It unfairly penalizes NAIJ officers who risk personal discipline for insubordination should they fail to comply but are then hampered in the duties owed to their union members when they remain silent.
NAIJ has played a pivotal role fostering the independence and increased professionalism of the Immigration Courts. It brought home to Congress the crucial function that IJs serve in the deportation and removal process, not as prosecutors but rather as neutral arbiters. This resulted in a change in job title from Special Inquiry Officer to Immigration Judge in 1996, with a concomitant enhanced special pay rate intended to broaden and improve the candidate pool for new judges. NAIJ was a crucial player in efforts to protect the independence of the Immigration
Courts in 2002 by leading the successful effort to keep the court independent from the newly created Department of Homeland Security despite strong opposition to that end by the administration and DOJ. At that time, NAIJ argued presciently that the establishment of an Article I Court was the only enduring way to safeguard the sanctity of these courts which hear “death penalty cases in a traffic court setting.” While NAIJ did not succeed in achieving that lofty goal then, legislation to do just that is currently pending in Congress, largely due to NAIJ’s tireless advocacy and coalition building. NAIJ’s voice in the media often stands alone explaining the practical implications of the complex workings of our immigration removal laws since DOJ eschews comments despite the American standard in jurisprudence which emphasizes transparency in its tribunals. NAIJ is the only spokesperson for IJs in the field, who have the first-hand view of court operations. Without NAIJ speech, no views from these benches in the trenches will be heard.
Perhaps worst of all, this policy deprives the American public of the views of an important, informed group which can shed light on the realities of the implementation of immigration laws and policy at a time when public scrutiny is at an all-time high and accurate factual information scarce. Under this new policy, NAIJ officers cannot even speak at educational or professional seminars or other public events without DOJ approval and instruction as to precisely what they can or cannot say.
Government employees do not surrender their First Amendment rights when they take office. To the contrary, their duty to educate the public is heightened and their voice enhanced by their informed opinions and expertise.
We urge EOIR to restore NAIJ’s important voice and revoke this new policy. ###
The Round Table of Former Immigration Judges is composed of 56 former Immigration Judges and Appellate Immigration Judges of the Board of Immigration Appeals. We were appointed and served under both Republican and Democratic administrations. Members of our group have served in training and management roles at EOIR. Several of our members were officers and leaders in NAIJ and were instrumental in guiding NAIJ to accomplish the achievements described above. Combined we have decades of experience and unique expertise in the immigration court system and the field of immigration law.
For media inquiries, please contact Hon. Dana Leigh Marks (ret.) at danamarks@pobox.com or (415) 577-9831
3/25/24
Hon. Dana Leigh Marks U.S. Immigration Judge (Retired) San Francisco Immigration Court Past President, National Association of Immigration Judges, Member Round Table of Former Immigration JudgesKnightess of the Round Table
************************
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
MINI-ESSAY: NAIJ IS AN ESSENTIAL FORCE FOR JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE
By Judge (Ret.) Jeffrey S. Chase
March 25, 2024
In Matter of A-R-C-G-, the BIA at footnote 16 recognized that AILA, UNHCR, and CGRS in their amicus briefs had all argued that gender alone should be sufficient to constitute a valid PSG in the matter. However, the Board chickened out, stating that because they were recognizing the narrower group stipulated to by DHS, “we need not reach this issue.”
I think the real proof of the validity of gender per se as a PSG is found in what happened after Sessions issued Matter of A-B-. With A-R-C-G- vacated, IJs all around the country began issuing detailed written decisions recognizing gender plus nationality, and explaining why such group met all of the legal requirements. This was done by IJs with very different grant rates, across different circuits, and included at least one ACIJ. And remember, this was done under an AG that clearly didn’t want IJs to reach that conclusion.
Which allows me to segue into our next issue: a major reason that IJs felt empowered to issue those decisions that were clearly not to the AG’s liking was due to the decades of effort by the NAIJ on behalf of judicial independence. Our public statement, prepared by our esteemed colleague Judge Dana Marks with input from others in our group, criticizing EOIR’s recent gag order on NAIJ officers, who for the first time will now be required to request agency permission to speak publicly, is a powerful reminder of the essential role played by NAIJ in protecting judicial independence, promoting due process and fundamental fairness, and, ultimately, saving lives of those seeking justice from our nation.
***********************
Thanks to Dana, “Sir Jeffrey,” and all our other wonderful Round Table colleagues for speaking out so forcefully in favor of due process for all and judicial independence!
Honorable Joan Churchill Retired U.S. Immigration Judge Member, Round Table of Former Immigration JudgesJudge (Ret.) Steven Morley Of Counsel,Landau, Hess, Simon, Choi & Doebley Philadelphia, PA Member, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges PHOTO: Linkedin
Ex-judges: Immigration courts should be independent
Two retired immigration judges urged Congress to create an independent immigration court system, removing the courts from under the U.S. Justice Department, where they currently reside.
Panelists on a recent ABA webinar argued that immigration judges are not truly independent as long as they answer to the U.S. attorney general.
The former judges made their call at a panel discussion March 17 — “Adjudicatory Independence: Are Immigration Judges a Warning or a Model?” — organized by the American Bar Association Judicial Division. They and other panelists argued that immigration judges are not truly independent as long as they answer to the U.S. attorney general, who can overturn their decisions, fire them and create new immigration policies that they must follow.
Steven Morley, a retired immigration judge in Philadelphia, talked about a case he handled in 2018, called the Matter of Castro-Tum, which he considered a red flag for judicial independence.
The case involved an unaccompanied minor who illegally entered the United States, was detained by authorities, then released to relatives in the United States pending a hearing to force him to leave the county. Hearing notices were sent to the relatives’ address, but the boy did not appear. Finally, after four postponements, Morley administratively closed — or indefinitely suspended — the case, ruling that the Department of Homeland Security could not show it had a reliable address to notify the boy of his hearing.
At that point, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions referred the case to himself and overturned the judge’s decision. Sessions ruled that immigration judges do not have the authority to administratively close cases as Morley did. The new policy made it harder for immigration judges across the country to indefinitely suspend cases. This caused an uproar among immigration judges and advocates.
Three years later, in 2021, Merrick Garland — a new attorney general in a new administration — overturned Sessions’ action.
Such actions undermine the independence of immigration judges, Morley said. “The flaws in the system allow this to happen, and we should always be concerned for the integrity of the court system.”
Morley said attorneys general under President Donald Trump referred immigration cases to themselves to overturn judges’ decisions 17 times in four years, a large number compared to previous administrations. “This is no way to run immigration policy, to have ping-ponging back and forth of policy, from one attorney general to another attorney general.”
Joan Churchill, a retired immigration judge in Northern Virginia, outside Washington, D.C., also emphasized the importance of maintaining due process in immigration courts, particularly hearing notices to defendants. “Adequate notice of the hearing is on everybody’s list as a requirement of due process,” she said.
Churchill noted that the U.S. Supreme Court, in a decision a few years ago, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, found that notices in immigration court often were not constitutionally adequate. “Justice Gorsuch said any notices that did not include the time and place of the hearing — which many of them did not; they just said time and place to be determined — those were not adequate notice of the hearing and therefore the cases were defective.”
In 2010, the ABA House of Delegates adopted a policy supporting the creation of an independent Article I system of immigration courts. More than 150 organizations support this position, including the National Association of Immigration Judges and the American Immigration Lawyers Association, Churchill said.
Thanks, Joan and Steve for forwarding this report and for doing such an outstanding job of highlighting the compelling, urgent need for this long-overdue reform.
Check out this Federal Bar Association interview with Hon. Mimi Tsankov, President of the National Association of Immigration Judges. She explains on how she was drawn to a career in immigration law. Earlier this year, Judge Tsankov testified before Congress about the immigration court system backlog, necessary reforms, and related topics.
Here is an ABA panel discussion led by Tsankov on judicial independence.
<div class=”player-unavailable”><h1 class=”message”>An error occurred.</h1><div class=”submessage”><a href=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyh-1IFpYSM” target=”_blank”>Try watching this video on www.youtube.com</a>, or enable JavaScript if it is disabled in your browser.</div></div>
********************
Judge Mimi Tsankov is “living proof” that there are leaders currently at EOIR with good ideas and a dynamic vision who could lead a due process/best practices reform effort. The question is why Garland and his lieutenants haven’t paid attention to them!
Attorney General Merrick B. Garland — “Is he open to Article I? It would be nice to think so, but still plenty of reason to be skeptical about his intent for EOIR!’ Official White House Photo Public Realm
While it’s always good to be optimistic, to date, “as independent as possible” has meant “as independent as four years of White Nationalist weaponization and meddling from Trump, Miller, Sessions, Barr, Whitaker, Hamilton, McHenry, et al, left them.” That’s NOT independent at all! Quite the OPPOSITE. In many ways there is less judicial independence and more political interference at EOIR now than there was when it was located within the “Legacy INS” before EOIR was created in 1983.
I personally will believe it to the extent that it’s reflected in actions. That means things like vacating restrictive anti-immigrant precedents, restoring asylum for gender-based violence, re-instituting and encouraging Administrative Closing, slashing the backlog by working with parties to remove the vast majority of “non-priority” cases that could be handled in alternative ways, installing e-filing, eliminating bogus “performance work plans,” repudiating “production quotas,” replacing Trump’s BIA with better-qualified judges, revising judicial recruiting and hiring practices to attract more diverse expert candidates from the private/NGO sector, considering stakeholders’ views and recommendations on important policies BEFORE announcing them, establishing a transparent complaint and tenure review process involving the private bar, re-establishing a robust asylum system at the border, upgrading judicial training and using “outside DOJ” experts to conduct it, eliminating the unnecessary “Office of POlicy” from the bloated bureaucracy, hiring experts in judicial management for administrative positions, encouraging written over oral decisions on cases likely to be appealed, expanding the number of judicial law clerks assigned to judges, eliminating agency bureaucracy and redirecting resources to improving local courts and furthering independence, re-recognizing the NAIJ and listening to their suggestions, working cooperatively with the pro bono bar to increase representation, rethinking the overuse of televideo and the presence of “courts” in detention center settings (e.g., prisons in the “New American Gulag”), selecting and retaining only judges who will treat all parties, counsel, and court personnel with respect and professionalism, actively working to overcome the “culture of denial, White Nationalism, and misogyny” that has permeated EOIR over the past four years and still exists, ending docket meddling from Falls Church and DOJ and returning control to local judges, eliminating “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” by politicos and their enablers, reducing the use of single-judge orders at the BIA, selecting expert Appellate Judges for the BIA who will issue some positive as opposed to only negative precedents, refusing to open and closing “courts” located in obscure, out of the way prison locations selected by DHS in large part because of the absence of pro bono lawyers, returning full authority to grant continuances to local judges, no longer referring to DHS (but not respondents’ counsel) as “our partners,” ending the use of derogatory termsand false claims by DOJ officials to Immigration Judges about private lawyers, stopping the intentional manipulation of statistics bv DOJ and EOIR management to further political agendas, ending the “muzzle” on Immigration Judges and encouraging them to participate in public professional activities, promoting best practices rather than institutionalizing worst practices, and again making “through teamwork and and innovation, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all” the absolute touchstone at EOIR, for starters.
To date, NONE of the things on the foregoing list has been accomplished or proposed byGarland and his team. Indeed, a number of his actions, like engaging in “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” by establishing a “Dedicated Docket” for new asylum cases without consulting the stakeholders in advance, and appointing 17 new judges selected by Barr under defective and flawed procedures that discouraged diversity and “disfavored” private sector candidates, are in direct contravention of due process and best practices and serve to discourage, rather than nurture, judicial independence.
Moreover, as I have previously said, I see no evidence that Garland has hired or reached out to any of the types of progressive experts who could actually implement these reforms necessary to achieve judicial independence and promote due process. You can’t get the job done for judicial independence and due process without a radical personnel shakeup at EOIR! The current group at both DOJ and EOIR just doesn’t cut it, as ever a casual observer could tell Garland.
So, until I see some ACTUAL progress, beyond mushy rhetoric, color me skeptical about Garland’s plans for EOIR.
Honorable Mimi Tsankov U.S. Immigration Judge Chair, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee Co-Chair Gender Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Subcommittee National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”)
Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Palais des Nations
1211 Geneva 10
Switzerland
Dear Honorable García-Sayán,
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Questionnaire on Gender Equality in the Judiciary.
I am writing in my capacity as Chair of the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee of the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ). I am currently seated at the New York Federal Plaza Immigration Court. Hon. Brea Burgie and I co-chair the NAIJ Gender Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Subcommittee.
Organizational Background
By way of introduction, NAIJ is a non-partisan, non-profit, voluntary association of United States Immigration Judges. Since 1979, the NAIJ has been the recognized representative of Immigration Judges for collective bargaining purposes. Our mission is to promote the independence of Immigration Judges and enhance the professionalism, dignity, and efficiency of the Immigration Courts, which are the trial-level tribunals where removal proceedings initiated by the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) are conducted. We work to improve our court system through: educating the public, legal community and media; providing testimony at congressional oversight hearings; and advocating for the integrity and independence of the Immigration Courts and Immigration Court reform. We also seek to improve the Court system and protect the interests of our members, collectively and individually, through dynamic liaison activities with management, formal and informal grievances, and collective bargaining. In addition, we represent Immigration Judges in disciplinary proceedings, seeking to protect judges against unwarranted discipline and to assure that when discipline must be imposed it is imposed in a manner that is fair and serves the public interest.
1
The focus of the NAIJ Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee is to identify underrepresented groups of association members and remove or reduce unconscious biases with respect to such underrepresented groups. We facilitate the ongoing and continuing effort to foster a culture and atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding for our judges.
Need for Judicial Independence
Our courts are in need of reform due to unprecedented challenges facing the Immigration Courts and Immigration Judges. This is particularly important, because achieving judicial independence is essential to ensuring a diversity of opinions and reducing bias in adjudications. Immigration Courts have faced structural deficiencies, crushing caseloads and unacceptable backlogs for many years. Many of the “solutions” that have been set forth to address these challenges have in fact exacerbated the problems and undermined the integrity of the Courts, encroached on the independent decision-making authority of the Immigration Judges, and further enlarged the backlogs.
The Immigration Court suffers from an inherent structural defect as it resides in a law enforcement, Executive branch agency – the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). The inherent conflict present in pairing the law enforcement mission of the DOJ with the mission of a court of law that mandates independence from all other external pressures, including those of law enforcement priorities, has seriously compromised the very integrity of the Immigration Court system. Immigration Judges make life-changing decisions on whether or not non-citizens are allowed to remain in the United States. Presently, approximately 538 Immigration Judges in the United States are responsible for adjudicating almost 1,300,000 cases. The work is hard. The law is complicated; the labyrinth of rules and regulations require expertise in an arcane field of law. Many of the individuals brought into proceedings do not have attorneys to represent them despite the fact that the DHS is always represented by attorneys because they have no right to appointed counsel. In contrast to our judicial role, we are considered by the DOJ to be government attorneys, fulfilling routine adjudicatory roles in a law enforcement agency. With each new administration, we are harshly reminded of that subordinate role and subjected to the vagaries of the prevailing political winds.
The problems compromising the integrity and proper administration of a court underscore the need to remove the Immigration Court from the political sphere of a law enforcement agency and assure its judicial independence. Since the 1981 Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy, the idea of creating an Article I court, similar to the U.S. Tax Court, has been advanced. Such a structure solves a myriad of problems which now plague our Court: removing a politically accountable Cabinet level policy maker from the helm; separating the decision makers from the parties who appear before them; protecting judges from the cronyism of a too close association with DHS; assuring a transparent funding stream instead of items buried in the budget of a larger agency with competing needs; and eliminating top-heavy agency bureaucracy.
In the last 35 years, a strong consensus has formed supporting this structural change. For years experts debated the wisdom of far-reaching restructuring of the Immigration Court system. Now most Immigration Judges and attorneys agree the long-term solution to the problem is to restructure the Immigration Court system. Examples of those in support include the American Bar Association, the Federal Bar Association, the National Association of Women Judges, and
2
the American Immigration Lawyers Association. These are the recognized legal experts and representatives of the public who appear before us. Their voices deserve to be heeded. To that end, the Federal Bar Association has prepared proposed legislation setting forth the blueprint for the creation of an “Article 1” or independent Immigration Court. This proposal would remove the Immigration Court from the purview of the DOJ to form an independent Court. The legislation would establish a “United States Immigration Court” with responsibility for functions of an adjudicative nature that are currently being performed by the judges and appellate Board members in the Executive Office for Immigration Review.
Questionnaire Response
As of May 19, 2021, there are 538 Immigration Judges (including supervisory Immigration Judges). Of those 313 (or 58.2%) are male and 225 (or 41.8%) are female. Of the 40 Immigration Judges who serve in supervisory/leadership roles, 17 (or 43%) are female. There are 23 Appellate Immigration Judges. In line with international trends where there is more parity for judges overall, but less for high-ranking judicial officers, seven of the Appellate Immigration Judges (or 30%) are female. Currently, EOIR has a female acting agency Director, but the agency has never had a permanent female head. Therefore, while EOIR is approaching gender equality for Immigation Judges overall, there is still a deficit in female leadership at the highest levels.
During the period 2008 – 2013, the agency identified as a clearly articulated strategic objective the hiring of candidates reflecting gender diversity. We are not aware of an updated strategy for addressing this objective. It is our view that when an agency is helmed by largely homogeneous leaders, there is a lack of varied perspectives which inhibits innovation and insights, workers’ morale suffers, the organization becomes less able to attract and retain top talent, fewer diverse career officials are promoted to management positions, and the problem becomes self-perpetuating. This condition also provides fertile ground for implicit bias to take hold and flourish, infiltrating future recruitment, as well as implicating the decisions we render in the individual cases which come before us.
The Biden administration has made diversifying the federal workforce, including at DOJ, a top priority. We are hopeful that more work will be done in the months ahead to support greater gender parity in judicial roles throughout the agency and the Immigration Court. More flexible workplace options are needed, including expanded telework and flexible working hours, which have proven to be workable and effective during the pandemic. As numerous studies have shown, women bear an overwhelming majority of caretaking responsibilities: for children, elderly parents, and family members who need additional care. Ensuring continuation of the flexible policies the Department of Justice adopted during the pandemic would ensure that more women could take roles as Immigration Judges, or stay in that role long-term, and keep a healthy work-life balance.
In regard to promoting female leadership at the highest levels of EOIR, the agency needs to examine the work culture that is rigid rather than flexible in addressing the unexpected needs of employees, and expects individuals to work long hours and be available to work evenings and weekends. This culture excludes many women who may otherwise bring valuable contributions to top-level agency positions.
3
We appreciate your time, and attention to this issue. Sincerely,
Mimi Tsankov
Hon. Mimi Tsankov
Chair, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee
Co-Chair Gender Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Subcommittee
4
*****************************
FULL DISCLOSURE: I am a retired member of the NAIJ.
Many thanks to my friend Judge Mimi Tsankov (who also serves with me on the ABA’s National Conference on the Administrative Law Judiciary) for bringing this to my attention.
As Judge Tsankov points out, there has been some progress toward “gender equity” in terms of overall profile. However, in my view, this has been more than offset by 1) the “single sourcing” of judicial appointments to basically discourage and exclude progressive experts, advocates from the private sector, and those with backgrounds in advancing human rights and immigrants’ rights; and 2) constant political interference from the DOJ (under both parties) to promote their political agendas, usually anti-due-process, anti-immigrant, anti-asylum-seeker, and pro-enforcement, with definite overriding racialand nationalist overtones.
Indeed, the sad situation of the NAIJ itself — bogusly “decertified” by “Billy the Bigot” Barr as “punishment” for exercising First Amendment rights, exposing waste and bias, and “daring to speaktruth to power” speaks for itself. To date, despite the Biden Administration’s claim to be supportive of the rights of Government employees, Garland has allowed the NAIJ (not to mention asylum seekers and other migrants) to continue to “twist in the wind.”
It’s also worth noting that the NAIJ is the only entity providing meaningful due process and anti-bias training to Immigration Judges. Indeed, it is the only entity providing any type of useful professional training and continuing judicial education at EOIR!
Grundoon From Walt Kelly’s “Pogo” SOURCE: Pininterest
Grundoon: A diapered baby groundhog (or “woodchunk” in swamp-speak). An infant toddler, Grundoon speaks only gibberish, represented by strings of random consonants like “Bzfgt”, “ktpv”, “mnpx”, “gpss”, “twzkd”, or “znp”. Eventually, Grundoon learns to say two things: “Bye” and “Bye-bye”. He also has a baby sister, whose full name is Li’l Honey Bunny Ducky Downy Sweetie Chicken Pie Li’l Everlovin’ Jelly Bean. [From the Walt Kelly comic strip “Pogo.”]
In a recent blog post, I discussed the difficulty in establishing asylum based on a political opinion expressed against MS-13. In the specific case discussed, the Board of Immigration Appeals reversed the Immigration Judge’s finding that the asylum-seeker had expressed a political opinion to MS-13 members.1 In reversing the Immigration Judge, the BIA specifically stated as to MS-13 that “the gangs are criminal organizations, and not political or governmental organizations and gang activities are not political in nature.” The BIA has repeatedly expressed this same view (using this or similar boilerplate language) in its decisions denying asylum. In the particular case discussed in my blog post, a split panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals could not find enough evidence of record to compel the majority to overturn the BIA’s conclusion.
The BIA is of course a part of the U.S. Department of Justice; its judges are appointed by and employed by the Attorney General. Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was one of the Department officials to make the following point to a class of new Immigration Judges in March 2019:
Immigration judges appointed by the Attorney General and supervised by the Executive Office for Immigration Review are not only judges. First, you are not only judges because you are also employees of the United States Department of Justice. It is a great honor to serve in this Department. In the courtyard just outside the entrance to this Great Hall, high up on the interior wall of the Main Justice building, there is a depiction of the scales of justice and an inscription that reads, “Privilegium Obligatio.” It means that when you accept a privilege, you incur an obligation. In this Department, our duty is in our name. We are the only cabinet agency with a name that articulates a moral value.
Justice is not measured by statistics. Our employees learn from day one that their duty is to gather the facts, seek the truth, apply the law, and respect the policies and principles of the Department of Justice.
The second reason that you are not only judges is that in addition to your adjudicative function – finding facts and applying laws – you are a member of the executive branch. You follow lawful instructions from the Attorney General, and you share a duty to enforce the law.2
The clear message being conveyed is “Don’t get any big ideas of judicial independence and neutrality; you work for ‘Team Justice,’ and you will behave accordingly.” Am I alone in thinking that the motto cited by Rosenstein, “when you accept a privilege, you incur an obligation,” here comes across as a boss reminding new employees where their loyalties lie rather than as a commitment to truth and justice?
As wrong as this message is when conveyed to judges who are supposed to enjoy the independence and neutrality to rule against the Department of Justice and the Attorney General when the facts and law compel such an outcome, let’s examine this view for the consistency of its application as to all DOJ employees. Presumably, the Board’s official stance that MS-13 is not a political organization and that its activities are criminal and not political in nature enjoys the Department’s seal of approval. In fact, other Department of Justice attorneys, working for the Office of Immigration Litigation, defend that view when the BIA”s decisions are reviewed on appeal by the Circuit Courts. I’m not aware of any Attorney General action to certify a BIA decision expressing this view in order to correct the Board’s position on this issue, or even to remand to the Board for further consideration of its position in light of other conflicting views within the Department.
Regarding such conflicting views, I was recently made aware of a criminal indictment drafted by the U.S. Attorneys’ Office in the Eastern District of New York.3 The indictment was filed in December, 2020, while the Trump Administration was still in office. The opening paragraph of the indictment states that MS-13 is a transnational criminal organization engaged in terrorist activity, and that its members use violence “in order to obtain concessions from the government of El Salvador, achieve political goals and retaliate for government actions against MS-13’s members and leaders.” (emphasis added).
The indictment contains a specific section titled “Political Influence in El Salvador.” The indictment states that a unit of MS-13, the Ranfla Nacional, “gained political influence as a result of the violence and intimidation MS-13 exerted on the government and population of El Salvador.” It continued that the organization exercised leverage on the Salvadoran government through its control on the level of violence. The indictment states that in 2012, MS-13 exercised its leverage to negotiate a truce with the ruling FMLN party and its rival 18th Street “to reduce homicides in El Salvador in return for improved prison conditions, benefits and money.” According to the indictment, MS-13 also negotiated a similar agreement with the rival ARENA party, promising to deliver votes in return for benefits. The indictment states that over time, “the Ranfla Nacional continued to negotiate with political parties in El Salvador and use its control of the level of violence to influence the actions of the government in El Salvador.”
The indictment also contains a section explaining the purpose of the Ranfla Nacional. The second specific goal listed is: “Influencing the actions of governments in El Salvador and elsewhere to implement policies favorable to MS-13.”
The attorneys who made the above claims in an indictment filed in Federal District Court are also employees of the U.S. Department of Justice. They are also members of the executive branch, following lawful instructions from the Attorney General, and sharing a duty to enforce the law. In the Second Circuit case I recently discussed, other Department of Justice attorneys in their brief to the court defended the Board’s decision by depicting MS-13 as “an institution that is entirely non-governmental – that is…a group of criminals who, in fact, reject the rules set out by the government.” Noticeably absent from the same brief was any mention that this “rejection of the rules set out by government” includes strategies to pressure said government into undertaking specific actions, as well as its entering into negotiations and ultimately agreements with political parties, the terms of which include MS-13’s delivering votes in return for the parties’ commitment to enacting beneficial policies.
So how can it be that attorneys in one office of the Department of Justice argue that MS-13 as an organization is engaged in exerting political influence to achieve its political goals, and at the same time, another group of attorneys within the same Department of Justice can sign orders sending victims of the same MS-13 to their death by employing a boilerplate sentence that MS-13 is not a political organization and its activities are not political in nature? And that the decisions of that latter group are then defended by a third group of Department attorneys on appeal who make no mention of the conflicting arguments? Let’s remember that, according to Rosenstein, these attorneys were taught from day one that their duties as Department of Justice employees include gathering the facts and seeking the truth.
In 1997, a very different BIA wrote the following in a decision that, although still binding as precedent, seems long forgotten:
immigration enforcement obligations do not consist only of initiating and conducting prompt proceedings that lead to removals at any cost. Rather, as has been said, the government wins when justice is done. In that regard, the handbook for trial attorneys states that “[t]he respondent should be aided in obtaining any procedural rights or benefits required by the statute, regulation and controlling court decision, of the requirements of fairness.” Handbook for Trial Attorneys § 1.3 (1964). See generally Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas Co. v. FERC, 962 F.2d 45, 48 (D.C. Cir. 1992)(finding astonishing that counsel for a federal administrative agency denied that the A.B.A. Code of Professional Responsibility holds government lawyers to a higher standard and has obligations that “might sometimes trump the desire to pound an opponent into submission”); Reid v. INS, 949 F.2d 287 (9th Cir. 1991)(noting that government counsel has an interest only in the law being observed, not in victory or defeat).4
This matter deserves the immediate attention of Attorney General Merrick Garland. The ability of asylum seekers to receive a fair review of their claims based on accurate information is a matter of life and death. At this early stage of the Biden Administration, it is critical that the Department send a clear message that the “obligation” mentioned in its motto is to serve an ideal of justice that is independent of the particular politics of those temporally in charge.
Copyright 2021 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
Matter of S-M-J-, 21 I&N Dec. 722, 727 (BIA 1997).
APRIL 29, 2021
Reprinted by permission.
*************
As most outside the nativist world know, the BIA’s position that Northern Triangle gangs aren’t political in nature and action is absurd! For Pete’s sake, these guys negotiate “peace treaties” with governments, control large swaths of territory, manipulate “public death rates” for political gain, aid or punish political candidates and police, collect taxes, control jobs, and have economic policies. Sure sounds like a quasi-governmental, clearly political entity to me. Somewhere, there is a dissent of mine in an old published CAT case saying approximately that.
At least at one point, gangs in El Salvador controlled more jobs than did the Salvadoran Government! No competent, unbiased group of adjudicators (not to mention supposed “experts”) could have reached the BIA’s ridiculous, clearly politicized conclusions!
Sadly, to date, Judge Garland has followed in the footsteps of his dilatory Dem predecessors by destroying lives, promoting injustice, and blowing the Dems’ best chance to build a progressive, due process oriented, human rights advancing judiciary that also would help resolve America’s failure to come to grips with the 1951 U.N. Refugee Convention and its key role in our legal immigration system as well as being a prerequisite to achieving racial justice in America.
Supposedly, these are the goals of the Biden Administration. Unfortunately, Garland, Monaco, and Gupta haven’t gotten the message, although it has been “delivered” time after time by numerous experts and advocates!
A few historical notes:
I was on the en banc BIA that decided Matter of S-M-J-, cited by Jeffrey. It was written by Judge Michael J. Heilman, a fellow Wisconsinite who once had worked for me at the “Legacy INS” General Counsel, following service as a State Department consular officer. That case “originated” on a three-member panel of Heilman, the late Judge Lauri Steven Filppu, and me. It reflects the “government wins when justice is done” message that I had incorporated into INS attorney training years earlier, as well as fealty to UN Handbook standards encouraged by the Supremes in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, and the “best practices” that bygone BIA was consciously and aggressively advancing.
Former DAG Rod Rosenstein was once a respected career prosecutor who served Administrations of both parties. Then, he “sold out” to the Trump Administration and its neo-fascists. Although that probably should have ended his legal career, he’s currently enjoying life in “big law” while those victims harmed and wronged by the illegal and unethical policies (or, in some cases their survivors) he furthered continue to suffer.
Radical progressive due process reforms @ EOIR, starting with wholesale personnel changes and revocation of restrictionist, racist, misogynist policies and practices is long overdue. Nearly two months into his tenure Judge Garland has yet to demonstrate awareness of the need for immediate, decisive action. Meanwhile the bodies continue to pile up and the “adverse decisions” from the Article IIIs bearing his name and tarnishing his reputation continue to roll in!
Actually, Judge, each wrong decision from the BIA represents a human life ruined, often irrevocably. Is that the type of “impact” on American justice that you intend to leave as your “legacy?”
EOIR HQ, Falls Church, VA (a/k/a “The Tower of Babel”) By Pieter Bruegel The Elder Public Domain
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”“Justice” Star Chamber StyleBIA Asylum Panel In Action Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons“She struggled madly in the torturing Ray” Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Hit the link and see for yourself the type of bureaucratic doublespeak and nonsensical gobbledygook your tax dollars are funding while EOIR continues to fail miserably at its one true mission: guaranteeing due process and fundamental fairness to asylum seekers and other migrants. In that, they have failed by any reasonable measure.
Just ask any lawyer who has had the misfortune to appear in behalf of an individual client before this misdirected mess! Indeed, some ICE lawyers are probably none-too-happy about the sometimes life-threatening, often incoherent, and health-endangering “Clown Show”🤡 they regularly face in the EOIR “court” system!
Stuff like this is an “In your face” to Judge Garland and the Biden Administration. They are the actions of out of control bureaucrats who believe they are above accountability!
Can you imagine the Director of the Administrative Office for U.S. Courts writing a five-page “policy memorandum” to Chief Justice Roberts and the rest of the Article III Judiciary reminding them of what “independence” and “impartiality” mean and directing them to contact their “supervisors” if they had questions about their judging?
The EOIR Clown Show🤡🦹🏿♂️ has got to go! There are plenty of well-qualified experts out there who could get this parody of a court system fixed! None of them happen to work at EOIR Headquarters right now! And, while independent judges might need a local chief judge to “lead by example” (reference, President Biden) and direct the administrative functions of the clerk of court, they most certainly do not need “supervisory judges” or a bloated, yet highly inept, bureaucracy to fairly and impartially judge the cases coming before them.
Kangaroos https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”
City Bar Report Highlights Threats to Independence of Immigration Court System — Calls for Creation of Independent Article I Court
October 21, 2020
The New York City Bar Association has released a report on recent immigration policy changes “to highlight its concerns about their impact on the independence of the immigration court system as well as the due process rights of those who pass through the immigration system.”
The “Report on the Independence of the Immigration Courts” responds to an “inherent conflict of interest” in housing a judicial adjudicatory body such as the Executive Office for Immigration Review within the Department of Justice, “a federal agency primarily charged with law enforcement,” which the City Bar says has been exacerbated by various actions that DOJ has taken that “prioritize the administration’s political agenda over fairness in the immigration court system.”
According to the report, the DOJ “has taken several steps to reorganize immigration courts and the [Board of Immigration Appeals] in a way that aligns them more closely with the [current] administration’s goals of enforcing harsher and more restrictive immigration policies.” These steps include hiring practices that place judges “with records of much higher than average asylum denial rates” on the BIA; implementation of restrictive performance metrics for immigration judges, made in the name of efficiency but that in actuality “ignores the underlying reasons for the backlog;” a practice of reassigning cases “on a large scale in a manner that undermines judicial independence;” and a campaign to stifle immigration judges who speak up, including “efforts to decertify the union of IJs in a manner that further undermines the independence of the immigration courts.”
The report describes how Attorneys General in recent years have made use of “a previously rarely-used procedural tool, self-certification…to rewrite immigration court policies through changes in substantive case law, rather than following more traditional pathways of issuing regulations and legislative recommendations, both of which, notably, are more lengthy and transparent processes.” Moreover, the report details the ways in which “basic procedural mechanisms and immigration court scheduling functions are being limited or curtailed in a manner that promotes political objectives over due process,” by pushing judges to rush decisions or by restricting access to the courts and to appellate review with administrative barriers.
As detailed in the report, these legal and structural changes in the immigration judicial system have “turn[ed] its corridors into a maze. Without transparency and accountability, due process is inevitably eroded. The lack of transparency also impedes meaningful attempts at reform.” New policies have restricted public access to information, forced asylum seekers to mount their applications from outside the U.S., and prevented meaningful oversight from independent observers. All of these measures, according to the report, “tip the scales towards more and faster deportations, at the expense of due process.”
The report concludes that “moving the immigration court system out of the DOJ and making it into an independent Article I court would safeguard immigration law from being rewritten by each administration, and would thus ensure due process for the immigrants appearing before the courts.” This step is now more crucial than ever, as “the many steps that the current administration has taken to politicize the court…have frayed the bare threads of justice that existed before to the point of a complete rupture, leaving not even the appearance of justice or due process of law.”
Many thanks to my friend and NDPA stalwart Elizabeth Gibson of the NY Legal Assistance Group for distributing this.
“[N]ot even the appearance of justice or due process of law.” Yup! “Courtside” has been saying it for a long time!
There is a dual problem here. The failure of the Immigration Courts is a national disgrace. But, an even bigger disgrace is the failure of the GOPSenate and the Article III Judiciary to end this farce that kills people and is destroying the integrity of the entire U.S. Justice system while promoting racism and unequal justice.
Vote ‘Em out, vote ‘Em out. We need to get a start on saving democracy and getting better judges for a better America — from the Immigration Courts to the Supremes!
Hon. A. Ashley Tabaddor President, National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”)Dan Kowalski Online Editor of the LexisNexis Immigration Law Community (ILC)
The video at this link kindly furnished by the always amazing Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Immigration Community:
How totally screwed up, unconstitutional, and unethical is this current system under the Department of Justice (“DOJ”)?
As “punishment” for consistently speaking out for Constitutional Due Process and for the rights of EOIR employees to do their jobs safely, professionally, and free from political interference and pressure, the DOJ is seeking, on patently frivolous grounds previously rejected by the Federal Labor Relations Authority, to “decertify” the NAIJ to prevent Judge Tabaddor and other NAIJ officers from “speaking truth to power” and “blowing the whistle” on the mockery of justice unfolding daily in Immigration Courts across the country. We can’t let them get away with this outrageous and unlawful behavior.
Join the New Due Process Army (“NDPA”) today, and fight to make Due Process under law a realityfor all persons in the United States!
Due Process Forever! Captive Courts, Never! We Need Article I!
The head of the Federal Judges Association is taking the extraordinary step of calling an emergency meeting to address the intervention in politically sensitive cases by President Trump and Attorney General William P. Barr.
U.S. District Judge Cynthia M. Rufe, the Philadelphia-based judge who heads the voluntary association of around 1,100 life-term federal judges, told USA Today that the issue “could not wait.” The association, founded in 1982, ordinarily concerns itself with matters of judicial compensation and legislation affecting the federal judiciary.
Republicans defend Barr as Klobuchar looks forward to testimony
Lawmakers and White House counselor Kellyanne Conway commented Feb. 16 on President Trump’s tweets and the conduct of Attorney General William P. Barr. (The Washington Post)
On Sunday, more than 1,100 former Justice Department employees released a public letter calling on Barr to resign over the Stone case.
A search of news articles since the group’s creation revealed nothing like a meeting to deal with the conduct of a president or attorney general.
Rufe, appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, could not be reached for comment late Monday.
The action follows a week of turmoil that included the president tweeting his outrage over the length of sentence recommended by career federal prosecutors for his friend Roger Stone and the decision by Barr to withdraw that recommendation.
In between, Trump singled out the judge in the Stone case, Amy Berman Jackson of the U.S. District Court in Washington, for personal attacks, accusing her of bias and spreading a falsehood about her record.
“There are plenty of issues that we are concerned about,” Rufe said to USA Today. “We’ll talk all this through.”
Trump began disparaging federal judges who have ruled against his interests before he took office, starting with U.S. District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel. After Curiel ruled against Trump in 2016 in a pair of lawsuits detailing predatory marketing practices at Trump University in San Diego, Trump described him as “a hater of Donald Trump,” adding that he believed the Indiana-born judge was “Mexican.”
Trump keeps lashing out at judges
President Trump has a history of denouncing judges over rulings that have negatively affected him personally as well as his administration’s policies. (Drea Cornejo/The Washington Post)
Faced with more than 100 adverse rulings in the federal courts, Trump has continued verbal attacks on judges.
Rufe’s comments gave no hint of what the association could or would do in response.
Some individual judges have already spoken out critically about Trump’s attacks generally, among them U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman, a colleague of Jackson’s in Washington, and most recently, the chief judge of the court in Washington, Beryl A. Howell.
*******************
In reality, judges were among those inside Germany who might have effectively challenged Hitler’s authority, the legitimacy of the Nazi regime, and the hundreds of laws that restricted political freedoms, civil rights, and guarantees of property and security. And yet, the overwhelming majority did not. Instead, over the 12 years of Nazi rule, during which time judges heard countless cases, most not only upheld the law but interpreted it in broad and far-reaching ways that facilitated, rather than hindered, the Nazis ability to carry out their agenda.
— United States Holocaust Museum, Law, Justice, and the Holocaust, at 8 (July 2018)
How soon we forget!
Will Trump & Barr eventually separate Article III Judges’ families or send them to danger zones in Mexico or the Northern Triangle to “deter” rulings against the regime? Will Mark Morgan and Chad Wolf then declare “victory?” Will their families be scattered to various parts of the “New American Gulag” with no plans to reunite them? Will they be put on trial for their lives without access to lawyers? Are there costs for failing to take a “united stand” for the rule of law, Constitutional Due Process, human rights, and the human dignity of the most vulnerable among us?
Why does it take the case of a lifetime sleaze-ball like Roger Stone to get the “life-tenured ones” to “wake up” to the attacks on humanity and the rule of law going on under noses for the past three years?
THE ROLE OF JUDGES TO “SAY WHAT THE LAW IS”: JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT OF IMMIGRATION ADJUDICATION
By Tess Hellgren, Staff Attorney and Justice Catalyst Legal Fellow
January 31, 2020
Since the beginning of the Trump Administration, the immigration court system has been used as a tool to further the executive branch’s anti-immigrant agenda. The Attorney General and other executive officials have enabled widespread due process violations and skyrocketing case backlogs while imposing case quotas and docketing rules that prevent judges from serving as impartial adjudicators.[1]
Last week, the Seventh Circuit highlighted a new abuse of power: the refusal of executive officials in the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to follow a direct order from a federal court.
The BIA is the administrative body responsible for reviewing decisions that are appealed from sixty-eight immigration courts across the country. Like these immigration courts, the BIA is part of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) – the immigration court system, located in the executive branch, that is ultimately overseen by the Attorney General of the United States. Despite the serious flaws inherent in the design of this system, BIA decisions may at least be appealed up to the appropriate federal circuit court, providing a crucial layer of independent judicial review in individual cases.[2]
In the case of Baez-Sanchez v. Barr, the Seventh Circuit had previously held that the immigration laws unambiguously grant immigration judges the power to waive a noncitizen’s inadmissibility to the United States, overruling the BIA’s prior decision to the contrary.[3] On remand, the BIA “flatly refused to implement” the court’s direct order.[4] Writing that the BIA’s decision “beggars belief,” the Seventh Circuit stated that
We have never before encountered defiance of a remand order, and we hope never to see it again. Members of the Board must count themselves lucky that [the Respondent] has not asked us to hold them in contempt, with all the consequences that possibility entails.[5]
This language is an extraordinary rebuke: it is very rare for a circuit court to issue an implicit threat to hold members of an administrative agency in contempt for directly disregarding a court order. The Seventh Circuit was clear that the BIA was mistaken if it thought that “faced with a conflict between our views and those of the Attorney General it should follow the latter.”[6] Affirming foundational separation of powers principles, the Seventh Circuit admonished that
[I]t should not be necessary to remind the Board, all of whose members are lawyers, that the “judicial Power” under Article III of the Constitution is one to make conclusive decisions, not subject to disapproval or revision by another branch of government . . . Once we reached a conclusion, both the Constitution and the statute required the Board to implement it.[7]
The Seventh Circuit’s decision also noted that the Attorney General had submitted a brief asking the court to give the BIA another opportunity to issue “an authoritative decision” on this issue, arguing that such a decision could be entitled to judicial deference.[8] The court aptly responded that this “request is bizarre,” as the court had already held that the applicable regulation was unambiguous – and an agency “cannot rewrite an unambiguous [law] through the guise of interpretation.”[9] As the Supreme Court made clear in Kisor v. Wilkie, “if the law gives an answer—if there is only one reasonable construction of a regulation—then a court has no business deferring to any other reading, no matter how much the agency insists it would make more sense.”[10]
Notably, even if the Seventh Circuit had found the laws in question to be ambiguous, the Attorney General and members of the BIA do not have free reign to impose any interpretation they choose. It is true that federal courts must defer to the reasoned decisions of administrative agencies when Congress has left the agency’s discretion to interpret an ambiguous provision of law, under the doctrine of Chevron deference.[11] But this deference is not boundless. As the Supreme Court made clear in Chevron, courts should defer to agencies’ interpretation of ambiguous statutes when the agency interpretation is “a reasonable accommodation of conflicting policies that were committed to the agency’s care by the statute.”[12] The agency’s interpretation must thus still fall “within the bounds of reasonable interpretation.”[13]
This standard, and the Seventh Circuit’s reprimand, is especially important as the Attorney General attempts to aggressively expand his control of immigration court adjudication. Under the Trump Administration, the Attorneys General have issued a number of “certified” decisions that attempt to restrict eligibility for asylum based on factors such as domestic violence, gang violence, or past persecution due to family membership.[14] In these decisions, which upend years of established immigration precedent, the Attorney General has pointedly asserted his authority to construe the terms of the Immigration and Nationality Act and implied that federal courts must fall in line with his interpretations.[15]
Yet the Attorney General’s reasoning holds only if his interpretations are actually entitled to judicial deference: if the laws in question are ambiguous and the federal courts find his interpretations reasonable.[16] And as the Supreme Court has admonished, “let there be no mistake: That is a requirement an agency can fail.”[17] Indeed, in addressing the application of the Attorney General’s certified decision in Matter of A-B-, at least one federal court has already held that a “general rule against domestic violence and gang-related claims during a credible fear determination is arbitrary and capricious and violates the immigration laws.”[18]
Faced with the Trump Administration’s weaponization of the immigration courts against asylum-seeking individuals, the role of the federal courts is more important than ever. As the Attorney General and other executive officials attempt to expand their authority to define the terms of immigration adjudication, federal courts should heed the Seventh Circuit’s decision – and remember the foundational legal principle that “[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”[19]
[11]Chevron v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842–43 (1984).
[12]Id.at 844–45; see also 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) (a reviewing court shall set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law”).
[13]See Kisor, 139 S.Ct. at 2416, quotingArlington v. FCC, 569 U.S. 290, 296 (2013).
[14]See Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 316 (2018);Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 581 (2019). Note inconsistencies
[15]See Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N at 326–27; Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N at 591–92.
[16]SeeNat’l Cable & Telecommunications Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 982 (2005) (allowing for agency interpretation to override judicial interpretation in certain circumstances, when the agency interpretation is “otherwise entitled to Chevron deference”).
THE NEED FOR AN INDEPENDENT ARTICLE I U.S. IMMIGRATION COURT: A New “Video Short” From AILA Productions!
Starring (in order of appearance):
Hon. A. Ashley Tabaddor President, National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”)MeJeremy McKinney, Esquire Greensboro, NC AILA 2nd Vice PresidentProfessor Shoba Wadhia Penn State Law
Shakeup of immigration court system threatens migrants’ due process
Migrants may soon have a much harder time finding lawyers and understanding their rights in immigration court, as the Trump administration pursues a major overhaul of the agency that oversees those proceedings.
The crucial office that provides basic legal information to migrants and helps connect some of them to pro-bono immigration lawyers will be merged into a Trump-created unit widely viewed as the nerve center of his immigration power grab. Though Friday’s reorganization rule makes no specific threat to shutter those legal assistance programs, the president has wanted to kill them for more than a year.
The bureaucratic reshuffle leaves the assistance programs “buried deep in the bowels” of an agency that today “never does anything without some ulterior political motive relating to the restrictionist immigration agenda,” retired immigration judge Paul Schmidt told reporters Friday.
The regulations concern the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR), where the work of applying immigration laws to individual human cases gets done. In addition to burying the legal-assistance work in a team Trump created, the rule endows EOIR’s director with vast new power to change how immigration laws are applied.
The proposal “shows [the] Trump Administration’s ‘weaponization’ of EOIR as a means of implementing restrictionist policies by precedent decision without going through legislation or rule making,” Schmidt told reporters in an email.
Immigration courts, despite their name, are not independent judicial forums. And because deportation is a civil proceeding rather than a criminal one, migrants who come before the courts are not guaranteed counsel.
Any given migrant’s ability to vindicate the rights they do have in immigration court therefore ends up resting, in many cases, with the presiding judge. If the law says a given migrant’s case might merit a stay of deportation or other relief, and an immigration judge applies the law accordingly, the system slows down and fewer people are evicted from the country.
The Trump administration has repeatedly pushed immigration judges to set aside those legal niceties in favor of rapid removal orders for almost everyone they see. Judges now face discipline if they fail to clear 700 cases per calendar year, a speed judges have repeatedly said makes a mockery of due process.
The big winner in Friday’s order is EOIR’s new Office of Policy, created at the start of President Donald Trump’s term. That team will take over management of a key legal orientation program for giving migrants a basic overview of the legal process they’re facing and the rights they have within it.
The Office of Policy has become the prime mover behind various Trump efforts to create a deportation assembly line that favors speedy removals over the fuller individual consideration envisioned in immigration law, experts said.
“The Office of Policy… has in many ways led the Trump administration’s agenda to reduce the independence of the immigration court system,” American Immigration Council policy analyst Aaron Reichlin-Melnick said in an interview.
Currently, EOIR’s Office of Legal Access Programs helps link some migrants to pro-bono immigration attorneys as part of its legal orientation work. Having a lawyer “is arguably the single most important factor in determining whether someone is allowed to remain in the United States” at the conclusion of their immigration case, Reichlin-Melnick said.
The new rule moves the pro-bono program into the Trump-created policy office, along with the legal orientation system that’s meant to give migrants without attorneys a fighting chance.
There is nothing in the rule that says the DOJ is killing the pro-bono system or the legal orientation program, Reichlin-Melnick stressed.
“But we know in the past this is something the administration has gone after,” he said, noting that the White House tried to defund the legal orientation work in 2018 only for a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers to insist it continue.
“It’s a popular program with pretty much everybody,” he said, “except those inside the Trump administration who think we shouldn’t be spending money on helping people know their rights, because that slows things down.”
The same Office of Policy is widely blamed for concocting the 700-case-per-year standard that judges and experts view as an intentional demolition of immigrants’ due process rights. It is also seen as the driving force behind a new piece of technology that displays a speed gauge on judges’ desks while they work, glaring red when they take the time to explore factual disputes or delve into process issues of a given case and fall behind the administration’s speed requirements.
“That kind of pressure creates problems, even if it doesn’t mean that people are going to explicitly deny cases because of it,” Reichlin-Melnick said. “Even the most well-minded people are affected by someone essentially standing behind them tapping their watch.”
The case-completion rule in question technically came from a different EOIR office. But Trump’s new policy office is understood to have crafted it and passed it to the appropriate internal authority to promulgate.
These maneuvers “create the appearance of coercion” of a professional legal staff who are responsible for applying the law to a complex array of individual circumstances, Reichlin-Melnick said. A political team that isn’t getting the results it wants from immigration courts when they scrutinize the facts is turning to threats – judges can be denied raises or terminated outright over the running-clock rules – and increasing the authority its Office of Policy holds over those judges.
The new rule “raises a number of concerns about conflict of interest that could play out. Maybe they won’t – at this point it’s a little bit premature to panic, or to make large declaratory statements about how this rule will affect the process,” he said. “But it certainly raises concerns.”
Former immigration judge Schmidt was blunter.
The new policy office’s “primary role appears to be to ensure that EOIR functions as an adjunct of DHS Enforcement and that any adjudication trends that enhance Due Process or vindicate Immigrants rights are quickly identified so that they can be wiped out by precedents or policy changes,” Schmidt wrote.
“Look for the [EOIR] Director over time to reinsert himself in the adjudicative activities of EOIR,” he wrote, “for the purpose of insuring subservience to [the] Administration’s political enforcement priorities.”
*****************************
Thanks, Alan, for “telling it like it is.”
Pro bono lawyers have been very successful in both helping asylum applicants vindicate their rights and winning cases. They have also given those who lose before the Immigration Judge the ability to exhaust their remedies before the BIA and challenge wrongful denials in Circuit Courts. Almost every day, one or more Circuit Courts find that the BIA has erred or improperly cut corners in some way.
The success of the pro bono program in achieving asylum and other forms of protection is what the White Nationalists in the Trump Administration hate. They don’t like their immorality and illegality constantly exposed to public view. They would much rather “beat up on” defenseless, unrepresented applicants who can’t even understand English, let alone understand the system and the hyper-technical, intentionally restrictive criteria confronting them. Also, lots of denials, even if completely unfair, bolsters the Administration’s false statistical claim that most asylum claims are without merit.
“Attorney General Jeff Sessionsdelivered remarks to the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) on Oct. 12, arguing that the U.S. asylum system is overburdened with fraud and abuse. Sessions misrepresented the system, relying on virtually no data to reach his, frankly, ignorant conclusions.
. . . .
Fifth, Sessions suggests that because some individuals who pass credible fear interviews fail to apply for asylum, they are fraudulently seeking asylum. This fails to recognize that individuals who pass a credible fear interview have been released with very little orientation as to what to expect next.
For example, asylum law requires that an official application be filed in immigration court within one year of the asylum seeker’s last entry into the United States. U.S. officials, however, fail to tell individuals who pass a credible fear interview about this deadline.
Having just articulated in detail, to a U.S. official, why they are afraid to return to their home country, many asylum seekers believe they have “applied” for asylum, and some even believe they have been granted upon release.
Several groups filed suit against DHS last June based on the lack of notice of the one year filing deadline given to asylum seekers and also the impossibility of filing because the immigration courts are so backlogged that an applicant often cannot file in open court within a year.
Sessions also neglects to mention that asylum seekers face a crisis in legal representation. According to a national study of cases from 2007-2012, only 37 percent of immigrants were represented in immigration court. Representation can make all the difference. Without representation, asylum seekers lack an understanding of what is happening in their case and may be too fearful to appear without an attorney. Their number one priority, remember, is to avoid being sent back to a place where they face persecution and/or torture or death.
Finally, the asylum process itself is complicated and the I-589 form to apply is only available in English. This is overwhelming for a pro se applicant who lacks the ability to read and write in English.
Attorney General Sessions’ remarks should not be surprising, certainly not to any who are familiar with his anti-immigrant track record. It remains disappointing, however, that the nation’s top law enforcement official should politicize and attempt to skew our vision of the asylum-seeking process. As a nation founded by immigrants fleeing religious persecution, it is profoundly disturbing that the current Attorney General sees fit to an attack on asylum seekers and to undermine America’s history of compassionate protection of refugees.
Professor Lindsay M. Harris is co-director of the Immigration & Human Rights Clinic at the University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law.”
****************************************
Go on over to The Hill at the above link and read the rest of Lindsay’s article (containing her points 1-4, which I omitted in this excerpt).
I can confirm that those who have passed the “credible fear” process often mistakenly believe that they “applied for asylum” before the Asylum Office. I also found that few unrepresented respondents understood the difference between required reporting to the DHS Detention Office and reporting to Immigration Court.
Moreover, given the “haste makes waste” procedures applied to recent border arrivals, the addresses reported to EOIR by DHS or entered into the EOIR system were often inaccurate. Sometimes, I could tell they were inaccurate just from my own knowledge of the spelling and location of various streets and jurisdictions in Northern Virginia. Another time, one of the Arlington Immigration court’s “eagle eyed” Court Clerks spotted that a number of supposed “in absentias” charged to Arlington were really located in the state of “PA” rather than “VA” which had incorrectly been entered into our system. No wonder these were coming back as “undeliverable!”
Therefore, I would consider Sessions’s claim of a high “no show” rate to be largely bogus until proven otherwise. My experience was that recently arrived women, children, and families from the Northern Triangle appeared well over 90% of the time if they 1) actually understood the reporting requirements, and 2) actually got the Notice of Hearing. Those who were able to obtain lawyers appeared nearly 100% of the time.
This strongly suggests to me that if Sessions really wanted to address problems in Immigration Court he would ditch the knowingly false anti-asylum narratives and instead concentrate on: 1) insuring that everyone who “clears” the credible fear process has his or her Immigration Court hearing scheduled in a location and a manner that gives them the maximum possible access to pro bono legal representation; 2) insuring that appropriate explanations and warnings regarding failure to appear are given in English and Spanish, and 3) a “quality control initiative” with respect to entering addresses at both DHS and EOIR and serving Notices to Appear.
Jeff Sessions also acted totally inappropriately in delivering this highly biased, enforcement-oriented, political address to the EOIR. Although housed within the DOJ, EOIR’s only functions are quasi-judicial — fairly adjudicating cases. In the words of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in a recent case the function of the Immigration Judiciary is “preserving the rule of law, safeguarding the impartiality of our adjudicatory processes, and ensuring that fairness and objectivity are not usurped by emotion, regardless of the nature of the allegations.”Alimbaev v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 872 F.3d 188, 190 (3rd Cir. 2017).
Consequently, the only appropriate remarks for an Attorney General to make to EOIR and the Immigration Judiciary would be to acknowledge the difficulty of their judicial jobs; thank them for their service; encourage them to continue to render fair, impartial, objective, scholarly, and timely decisions; and explain how he plans to support them by providing more resources for them to do their important jobs. That’s it!!
What is totally inappropriate and probably unethical is for the Attorney General to deliver a “pep talk” to judges spouting the “party line” of one of the parties in interest (the DHS), setting forth inaccurate and unsupported statements of the law, and demeaning the other party to the judicial proceedings — the immigrant respondents and their attorneys.
Although I personally question their ultimate constitutionality under the Due Process Clause, the Attorney General does have two established channels for conveying his views on the law to the EOIR: 1) by incorporating them in regulations issued by the DOJ after public notice and comment; and 2) by “certifying” BIA decisions to himself and thereby establishing his own case precedents which the BIA and Immigration Judges must follow.
Troublesome as these two procedures might be, they do have some glaring differences from “AG speeches and memos.” First, public parties have a right to participate in both the regulatory and the precedent adjudication process, thus insuring that views opposed to those being advanced by the DHS and the Attorney General must be considered and addressed. Second, in both cases, private parties may challenge the results in the independent Article III Courts if they are dissatisfied with the Attorney General’s interpretations. By contrast, the “opposing views” to Session’s anti-asylum screed did not receive “equal time and access” to the judicial audience.
Sessions’s recent disingenuous speech to EOIR was a highly inappropriate effort to improperly influence and bias supposedly impartial quasi-judicial officials by setting forth a “party line” and not very subtilely implying that those who might disagree with him could soon find themselves “out of favor.” That is particularly true when the speech was combined with outrageous discussions of how “performance evaluations” for judges could be revised to contain numerical performance quotes which have little or nothing to do with fairness and due process.
Jeff Sessions quite obviously does not see the U.S. Immigration Courts as an independent judiciary charged with delivering fair and impartial justice to immigrants consistent with the Due Process clause of our Constitution. Rather, he sees Immigration Judges and BIA Appellate Judges as “adjuncts” to DHS enforcement — there primarily to insure that those apprehended by DHS agents or who turn themselves in to the DHS to apply for statutory relief are quickly and unceremoniously removed from the U.S. with the mere veneer, but not the substance, of Due Process.
Due process will not be realized in the U.S. Immigration Courts until they are removed from the DOJ and established as a truly independent Article I court.
ATTORNEY GENERAL Jeff Sessions decried the state of the immigration courts in remarks Oct. 12 before the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review, lamenting “rampant abuse and fraud” in asylum applications. As part of Mr. Sessions’s push for an overhaul of the immigration system, the department also plans to begin evaluating immigration judges on the basis of how many cases they resolve. This proposal would do little to fix the United States’ backlogged immigration courts and much to undermine their integrity.
The Trump administration hinted at the plan in a wish list of immigration policies, alongside commitments to constructing President Trump’s promised border wall and withholding federal grants from so-called sanctuary cities. According to reporting by The Post, government documents show that the Justice Department “intends to implement numeric performance standards to evaluate Judge performance.” Such a metric would probably involve assessing judges based on how many cases they complete or how quickly they decide them — a plan that the National Association of Immigration Judges has called a “death knell for judicial independence.”
Unlike other federal judges, immigration judges are technically Justice Department employees. Currently, the collective bargaining agreement between Justice and the judges’ association forbids evaluating judges based on quotas. But the association says the Executive Office of Immigration Review is working now to remove that language from the contract.”
Note the “progression” by the DOJ: From “performance evaluations would interfere with judicial independence,” to “performance evaluations won’t involve production quotas,” to “judges are just ‘oyster shuckers in robes!'”
Performance evaluations by the DOJ are just as inappropriate and unnecessary for U.S. Immigration Judges now as they were back in 1983 when EOIR was established. The only difference is the plan by Sessions and his politico cronies to co-opt the U.S. Immigration Courts and use them as an enforcement tool in his xenophobic crusade against immigrants, asylum seekers, due process, and the American justice system.
I actually was part of the NAIJ “negotiating team” that negotiated the current procedures and standards for judicial performance evaluations. We were assured over and over by “EOIR Management” that “case quotas” were not part of the plan and that “management recognized” the need for decisional independence in the Immigration Judge corps.
