"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!
EOIR Withdraws Opposition to
NAIJ Motion to Reconsider,
Does Not Oppose Motion to Remand
Judges:
In a filing this morning, EOIR withdrew its opposition to our motion to reconsider before the FLRA and agreed to a remand to the Regional Director. Here’s their brief.
This is a major step forward in our fight against the previous administration’s effort to decertify NAIJ. NAIJ thanks EOIR and DOJ for taking this important step.
EOIR’s actions come after NAIJ filed with the FLRA earlier this week a Motion to Remand and for Stay. NAIJ’s motion was part of a coordinated effort by NAIJ and our parent union IFPTE to bring the importance of the decertification issue to the attention of the highest levels of this administration. It looks like we succeeded.
Although there are many reasons for optimism, this fight is not yet over. The decertificaton matter remains pending before the FLRA. As we are well aware, the FLRA is still composed of the same members who, over a vigorous dissent, reversed the decision of the FLRA Regional Director who had previously upheld our right to unionize. We are closely monitoring the situation with our litigation team to assure this favorable progress continues until our case is definitively resolved, once and for all.
Thank you for your unwaivering support of NAIJ.
We will keep everyone updated with any further developments.
The NAIJ Board
**********************
As pointed out by the NAIJ Board, it’s not over till it’s over! But, definitely a big step in the right direction for the NAIJ, the Garland DOJ, and the Biden Administration!
FULL DISCLOSURE: I am a retired member of the NAIJ!
Judge Amiena Khan, President National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ)
June 7, 2021
The Honorable Merrick Garland Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice Washington, DC 20500
RE: Department of Justice Should Support the National Association of Immigration Judges and Withdraw the Petition to Decertify its Union
Dear Attorney General Garland,
We, the undersigned unions, organizations, immigration law professors and scholars, and other immigration court stakeholders call your attention to the urgent need to preserve and protect the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) and support collective bargaining by Department of Justice (DOJ) career civil servants. We are heartened by President Biden’s announcements on January 22, 2021, that both overturned his predecessor’s policies limiting employee rights to collectively bargain and also implement a wide-ranging policy to protect, empower, and rebuild the career federal workforce. President Biden’s announcements specifically encourage union organizing and collective bargaining.1
After four relentless years of union-busting, decisive leadership is needed to refortify the federal workforce. NAIJ and its 500+ bargaining unit members—immigration judges who are DOJ attorney employees—are in need of protection right now! NAIJ has been the collective bargaining representative for immigration judges since 1979. Yet, in 2019, the Trump administration filed a petition to strip immigration judges of their statutory right to be represented by a union and decertify NAIJ.
The Trump administration targeted NAIJ in retaliation for NAIJ’s criticism of both the unreasonable working conditions that DOJ managers imposed on its members and the sweeping curtailment of due process rights in immigration court.
While the decertification attempt was initially and thoroughly rejected in a decision by a career employee of the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), the decision was abruptly reversed
1 Executive Order 14003, on Protecting the Federal Workforce. 1
in a politically-motivated decision by the FLRA. That FLRA decision ignored the detailed fact-finding of the career employee and reversed long-standing FLRA precedent that 20 years earlier had found that immigration judges were not in a position to influence agency policy.
The FLRA decision is devoid of any reasoned analysis and creates an extremely dangerous precedent for professional workers throughout the federal government. Future administrations could wield this decision like a sword to preclude other professional employees such as physicians, scientists, engineers, and others from unionizing. Indeed, this ill-conceived anti-union precedent could have devastating repercussions for decades to come.
At this moment, a motion to reconsider is currently pending at the FLRA, and we call on the DOJ to withdraw its opposition to that motion, withdraw its decertification petition, and take all steps to restore collective bargaining rights for NAIJ members. President Biden has committed to restoring labor unions and fair working conditions for federal employees. We ask the DOJ to do its part in supporting that objective by taking all necessary actions to ensure that the NAIJ remains a union so that it can continue to represent its members in support of fair working conditions. Doing so will be a service to Immigration Court stakeholders and the public at large.
We seek your immediate review and leadership in this matter. Sincerely,
Amiena Khan
Amiena Khan, President
National Association of Immigration Judges
Unions: AFL-CIO
American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), AFL-CIO American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), Local 511
American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), Local 3525
American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees American Federation of Teachers
Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO
Association of Flight Attendants-CWA
2
Communications Workers of America (CWA)
Department for Professional Employees, AFL-CIO
Federal Education Association
International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE) International Union of Painters and Allied Trades
Labor Council for Latin American Advancement National Association of Government Employees National Education Association
National Federation of Federal Employees National Nurses United
National Treasury Employees Union
National Weather Service Employees Organization Patent Office Professional Association
Service Employees International Union (SEIU) The International Brotherhood of Teamsters UNITE HERE
United Mine Workers of America
United Power Trades Organization
Organizations:
African Services Committee
Alliance for Justice
American Immigration Lawyers Association AsylumWorks
3
Bellevue Program for Survivors of Torture Brooklyn Law School Safe Harbor Project Catholic Labor Network
Catholic Legal Services, Archdiocese of Miami Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. Center for Gender & Refugee Studies
Columbia Law School Immigrants’ Rights Clinic Disciples Immigration Legal Counsel
Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project Immigrant Defenders Law Group
The Legal Aid Society
Migrant Center for Human Rights
Minnesota Interfaith Coalition on Immigration Mississippi Center for Justice
National Immigration Law Center
National Network for Immigrant & Refugee Rights The Right to Immigration Institute
Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
Law Professors and Scholars with Institutional Affiliation for Identification Purposes only:
Sabi Ardalan
Clinical Professor of Law
Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program Harvard Law School*
Roxana C. Bacon
4
Adjunct Professor of Law Arizona State University* University of Arizona* University of Miami*
David Baluarte
Associate Clinical Professor of Law Washington & Lee University School of Law*
Jon Bauer
Clinical Professor of Law and Richard D. Tulisano ’69 Scholar in Human Rights University of Connecticut School of Law*
Lenni B. Benson
Distinguished Chair of Immigration and Human Rights Law New York Law School*
Matthew Boaz
Professor
Washington & Lee School of Law*
Stacy Caplow
Associate Dean of Experiential Education & Professor of Law Brooklyn Law School*
Rose Cuison-Villazor
Vice Dean and Professor of Law Rutgers Law School*
Ingrid Eagly
Professor of Law
University of California Los Angeles School of Law*
Lauren Gilbert
Professor
St. Thomas University College of Law*
Lindsay M. Harris
Associate Professor & Director, Immigration & Human Rights Clinic University of the District of Columbia, David A. Clarke School of Law*
Katie Herbert Meyer
Associate Professor of Practice and Director of the Immigration Law Clinic Washington University*
Geoffrey Hoffman
Clinical Professor and Immigration Clinic Director
5
University of Houston Law Center*
Alan Hyde
Distinguished Professor of Law and Sidney Reitman Scholar Rutgers Law School*
Erin Jacobsen
Professor and Director at Vermont Law School’s South Royalton Legal Clinic Vermont Immigrant Assistance
Vermont Law School*
Hiroko Kusuda
Clinic Professor and Director of Immigration Law Section
Loyola University New Orleans College of Law*
Stuart H. Smith Law Clinic and Center for Center for Social Justice
Vanessa Merton
Professor of Law
Immigration Justice Clinic Elizabeth Haub School of Law*
Karen Musalo
Professor and Founding Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies and the Refugee and Human Rights Clinic
U.C. Hastings College of the Law*
Lori A. Nessel
Professor
Seton Hall University School of Law*
Michael A. Olivas
Wm B. Bates Distinguished Chair (Emeritus) University of Law Center*
Maria Mercedes Pabon Professor of Law
Loyola University New Orleans*
Carrie Rosenbaum
Lecturer in Legal Studies University of California, Berkeley*
Faiza Sayed
Visiting Professor of Clinical Law and Co-Director Safe Harbor Clinic
6
Brooklyn Law School*
Gemma Solimene
Clinical Associate Professor of Law Fordham University School of Law*
Elissa Steglich
Clinical Professor and Co-director Immigration Clinic University of Texas School of Law*
Mark E. Steiner
Professor of Law
South Texas College of Law Houston*
Enid Trucios-Haynes Brandeis School of Law University of Louisville*
Irene Scharf
Professor
Immigration Law Clinic University of Massachusetts*
Doug Smith
Lecturer in Legal Studies Brandeis University*
Paul Wickham Schmidt Immigrationcourtside.com
Erica B. Schommer
Clinical Professor of Law
St. Mary’s University School of Law*
Michael J. Wishnie
William O. Douglas Clinical Professor of Law Yale Law School*
*Institutional affiliation for identification purposes only
7
*****************************
FULL DISCLOSURE:I am a retired member of the NAIJ.
Thanks to my friend Judge Amiena Khan and the rest of her leadership group at the NAIJ for all they do to fight for due process for individuals in Immigration Court!
To date, Garland and his team have been busy defending Billy Barr’s and Trump’s corruption from legal accountability, appointing Barr’s hand-picked “judges” to their overtly non-progressive judiciary, attempting to intimidate the press (until the White House finally had to intervene), and carrying out pre-existing Stephen Miller inspired precedents and policies. Oh yeah, and engaging in their own mindless unilateral round of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (a/k/a yet another designed to fail “Dedicated Docket”) in Immigration Court while continuing to build on the pre-existing 1.3 million case backlog. They have also been occupied with ignoring every progressive and expert suggestion and NOT appointing progressives to leadership and judicial positions. Wow! That’s a very full plate (of unappetizing food)!
So, I’m not holding my breath for a favorable response to the latest request for the injection of some legality, common sense, and decency into EOIR. Nor am I expecting Biden and Harris to honor their commitment to Federal Employee Unions, after watching their performance to date on immigration and human rights. Additionally, given the continuing abysmal performance of EOIR and its ongoing waste and incompetence, I doubt whether they want any “internal critics” speaking truth to power.
So far, Garland is on course to be “Billy Barr, Jr.” While that might help Barr to avoid legal accountability for his corrupt administration of justice @ Justice, it’s not so good for progressives who would like to see (and once believed they would see) some “justice from Justice” particularly for racial minorities, women, children, asylum seekers, and other migrants.
They also would like to see at least minimally professional and respectful treatment of those appearing and representing individuals in Immigration Court. While Garland, Monaco, Gupta, and Clarke are all being paid comfortable “top of the line” USG salaries for ignoring long-overdue progressive reforms @ EOIR, many attorneys representing individuals in their “Star Chambers” are operating pro bono or low bono in their attempts to keep Garland’s failing and flailing system afloat.
Just more reasons why we need an independent Article I Immigration Court to deliver due process, racial, and gender justice to individuals, regardless of status.
Lowering The Barr by Randall Enos, Easton, CT Republished By License. Guess Garland forgot to flush!
The Outrageous Decision to Decertify the IJ’s Union
Our attention is understandably focused elsewhere right now. However, it must be mentioned that on the eve of Election Day, a panel decision of the Federal Labor Relations Authority decertified the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) as a union. While this might seem to be a minor issue at the moment, it is not. At stake is the integrity of the nation’s Immigration Courts and the life-changing decisions its judges make.
The NAIJ was formed in 1971, and was certified as the recognized collective bargaining representative of Immigration Judges in 1979, 41 years ago. It weathered a similar decertification effort in 2000. Then as now, the agency argued that Immigration Judges are managers, and thus ineligible to unionize. Under federal labor law, one is classified as a manager if their position “influences policy.” 20 years ago, both the initial decision of the Regional Director and the appeal to the FLRA resoundingly dismissed that notion. In its September 2000 decision, the FLRA agreed with the finding below that IJs are not involved in creating agency policy. The FLRA then noted that “unlike decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the decisions of Immigration Judges are not published, do not constitute precedent, are binding only on the parties to the proceedings, and are subject to de novo review. The RD accordingly concluded that the decisions of the Judges do not influence and determine the Agency’s immigration policy, in contrast to the decisions of the Board.”
In two decades, the only change to the above is that while the IJ’s findings of law remain subject to de novoreview, their findings of fact are now reviewed for clear error. Of course, facts are entirely case-specific, and thus have no influence whatsoever on policy. So as before, rather than create or influence policy, IJs implement established policy. Yet EOIR once again sought decertification. At the hearing in January, EOIR stipulated that the judges’ duties and responsibilities had not changed since the prior decision. As reported in an article covering the hearing, EOIR’s Director, James McHenry, testified that Immigration Judges are not supervisors, adding that they “are at the bottom of the org chart so they don’t supervise anything,” and further noted that “they cannot hire or fire anyone.” Nevertheless, he argued that because an Immigration Judge’s decision becomes a final ruling binding the agency if not appealed, Immigration Judges influence policy.
The Regional Director dismissed the claim based on the above arguments and testimony. But there was always a sense that the administration had something up its sleeve. That “something” turned out to be two Trump appointees, FLRA Chairperson Colleen Duffy Kiko, and FLRA Member James T. Abbott. They have jointly issued a series of decisions overturning decades of precedent to erode the rights of federal employees’ unions, a result clearly favored by the administration that appointed them. The two stayed true to form in decertifying the NAIJ. The FLRA’s lone Democratic appointee, Ernest DuBester, issued a scathing opinion in the NAIJ’s case, which concluded with the following language:
This is the antithesis of reasoned decision making. Based upon the conclusory nature of the majority’s analysis, along with the facetious manner in which it reconciles its decision with Authority precedent precluding collateral attacks on unit certifications, it is abundantly clear that the majority’s sole objective is to divest the IJs of their statutory rights. Once again, I refuse to join a decision “so fundamentally adverse to the principles and purposes of our Statute.”
By deciding in this matter, the decision violates the FLRA’s own rules regarding when such reversals of past holdings are allowed. Moreover, not that it matters to Chairperson Kiko and Member Abbott, but if allowed to stand, their decision ignoring the NAIJ’s 41 years as a certified union and reversing its own precedent without any reasoned basis will accomplish the following damage.
First, Immigration Judges would lose their voice, collective bargaining rights, ability to be individually defended by their union representative, and their ability to push back against the relentless attack on their independence, neutrality, and ability to fulfill their proper function as a check against executive branch overreach. Second, NAIJ officers have remained the only Immigration Judges able to allow the public to peek behind the scenes at these tribunals, by speaking at law schools and conferences (with the exception of management level judges who may be permitted to state the party line, sometimes by reading it from index cards). As several leading scholars explained in an article in Slate: “Judges and asylum officers are being instructed to decide cases in ways that many contend are contrary to law. A virtual gag rule has been placed on them in the context of law schools and the broader public. This denies information to coming generations of lawyers and eliminates public discourse on some of the most critical civil rights issues of our time.”
But of great importance is a point I raised last year in an article I wrote forLaw360 on the decertification effort: the administration’s citing to a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Lucia v. SEC:
while irrelevant to the management inquiry, the citing of Lucia points to another motive of the DOJ. In a leaked internal memo, the Justice Department indicated its interpretation of the decision as a basis to bypass the Merit System Protection Board, allowing the Administration to more easily terminate ALJs whose decisions don’t align with its political views. Such actions would constitute a troubling attempt by the executive branch to influence case outcomes. Similarly, decertifying the NAIJ would simplify the removal of IJs whose decisions are at odds with the administration’s stated immigration goals by eliminating the present collective bargaining agreement’s right to an independent arbitrator in matters concerning IJ discipline and termination.
Just prior to the FLRA’s decision, an executive order creating a schedule of career federal employees who can be more easily fired for purely political reasons (such as issuing decisions not in line with the administration’s views). By ruling that IJs influence agency policy (contrary to its prior decision), the FLRA has put the Immigration Judges squarely in the crosshairs of the new executive order. To be clear: Immigration Judges whose neutral and independent application of the law would lead them to issue decisions the administration doesn’t like would be subject to easy termination. And of course, having just lost their union, those judges will have lost their best means of challenging such termination. Then, the hiring of their replacements would become even more nakedly partisan.
While it seems as I write this there will be a new administration come January, that doesn’t render this issue irrelevant. First, the earlier decertification effort in 2000 occurred under a Democratic administration. Second, leaving the above ruling in place would allow it be used as a weapon in the ways described by any subsequent administration. Whatever one’s political leanings or views on immigration, we should all be able to agree that decisions of such importance should be rendered by fair, neutral judges by applying law to facts, protected from rank political pressures.
The creation of an Article I Immigration Court is ultimately the most durable way to guarantee the independence of these vital tribunals, but the evisceration or protections caused by allowing this decision to stand is too egregious to ignore even in the short term. It is therefore hoped that readers will amplify the news of the decision and all it means. It is hoped those with the capacity to do so will provide amicus or other legal support for further actions by the NAIJ to legally challenge the FLRA decision. And the decision must be brought to the attention of an incoming Biden administration, which has so much damage to correct
There also needs to be consequences for those who abandoned their obligation of fairness and neutrality under the present administration. FLRA Member DuBester is to be applauded for continuing to strongly voice his defense of justice in the dissent. But perhaps a Biden administration can assess whether Kiko and Abbott might be better suited for other work.
Copyright 2020 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved. reprinted with permission.
***********************
Thanks for speaking out so forcefully and articulately, my friend,
I am confident that the Biden-Harris Administration will correct this egregious miscarriage of justice. As “Good Government” folks, I’m also confident that they they will constructively address the disgraceful dysfunctional mess at EOIR that threatens to topple the American justice system. We will finally have “problem solvers” leading our Government! That will make a positive difference for all Americans.
Hon. A. Ashley Tabaddor President, National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”)
Here’s a message Judge Tabaddor sent to all Immigration Judges:
Subject: Update on Agency Action to Decertify NAIJ
THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF IMMIGRATION JUDGES
November 3, 2020
Dear Colleagues,
Today the Federal Labor Relations Authority reversed two decades of precedent and issued a baseless decision effectively decertifying the National Association of Immigration Judges as the union of immigration judges. See the decision here. We are outraged, though not surprised, by the lack of legal analysis. As dissenting member Ernest DuBester notes, the decision is pure “sophistry.”
This decision is not being rendered in a vacuum. We have suffered an all-out assault on labor and unions from the outset of three executive orders designed to decimate bargaining rights of unions to the most recent executive order designed to transform the federal workforce into an ”at-will” and deeply politicized body. And in the context of immigration judges, this is in line with our experience of undue interference and influence in our independent decision making authority.
We have lost this battle, but we will win the war. The NAIJ has prepared for just this day. We shall continue to fight. We are pursuing any and all available legal and other options.
Your support of NAIJ is now more important than ever. NAIJ needs you. If you have not previously joined NAIJ, join now by contacting us directly. In turn, NAIJ will continue to support immigration judges both individually with management and also as a group through public outreach, media contacts, and work on the Hill. We will need to work together to make sure that misguided policies like quotas and deadlines and micromanagement of IJs are not utilized to target us for discipline or removal from office. Even absent the protection of a collective bargaining agreement, we continue to have rights as federal government employees, including before the Merit System Protection Board. And if nothing else, this highly politicized decision is another compelling exhibit in our case for the creation of an independent Article 1 immigration court.
As always, feel free to reach out to myself or any of the NAIJ board members with any questions or concerns. My personal email address is ashleytabaddor@gmail.com and my cell is (310) 709-3580.
Ashley Tabaddor
President, NAIJ
—
***********************
Unquestionably, the move by the Attorney General to “decertify” the NAIJ (essentially eradicate it) was intended to “punish and silence” Judge Tabaddor and other NAIJ officers who have spoken out about serious due process abuses and chronic mismanagement at EOIR and the DOJ. Indeed, since all other sitting IJs are “muzzled” by the DOJ, and “EOIR Star Chamber” operations have become increasingly more secretive, less transparent, and wildly inconsistent from court to court under the Trump regime, the NAIJ is one of the few sources of accurate information for Congress and the public about the ever-deteriorating conditions in Immigration Court!
Don’t expect this battle for the “heart and soul” of Federal Civil Service and American democracy to go away any time soon!
As my long term, friend, Round Table colleague, and member of the “EOIR Founder’sClub,” Judge John Gossart said:
Great news…I was at the hearing which was shameful and disingenuous and a waste of taxpayer money. Well done NAIJ.
That about sums it up!
As the decision pointed out, even as the DOJ/EOIR kakistocracy reduces Immigration Judges basically to “deportation clerks,” stripping them of even minimal authority to control their dockets, and largely circumscribing their exercises of discretion, they make the outrageously fraudulent claim that these “deportation clerk judges” are “managers” to squelch their First Amendment rights to speak out and reveal the ongoing fraud, waste, and abuse at EOIR.
There was a time when public officials might have hesitated to engage in such dishonest conduct in full public view for fear of being held accountable. However, thanks to a feckless Congress and indolent Supremes’ majority, those days are gone.
The Trump kakistocracy now feels free to violate the Constitution, ignore statutes, make disingenuous arguments to courts and other tribunals, lie, and loot the Treasury without fear of consequences other than an occasional “slap on the wrist” when, as in this case, someone actually dares to “just say no” to their degradation of American democracy.
One could easily wonder why a FLRA Regional Director has more courage, integrity, legal knowledge, and a better understanding of what’s really going on in our Immigration “Courts” than a majority of Justices on the Supremes and many Article III Judges who simply “pretend to look away” as these outrageous abuses of our justice system are “normalized” in Billy Barr’s corrupt and unconstitutional “courts.”
One can only hope that legal historians will expose truth and “rip apart” the legacies of those Justices, judges, legislators, and other public officials who allowed these “crimes against humanity” to be carried out with impunity on their watch!
The Trump administration argued in an executive branch court on Tuesday that the duties of immigration judges housed within the Justice Department have grown more important in the last two decades, elevating the judges to management and therefore rendering them ineligible to form a union.
The Justice lawyers and their first witness—James McHenry, the director of the Executive Office of Immigration Review, which employs the nation’s 400 immigration judges—faced pointed questions from an attorney with the Federal Labor Relations Authority who oversaw the hearing and questioned whether the judges actually set department policy. The administration first announced in August it would attempt to decertify the National Association of Immigration Judges, bringing the case to FLRA to argue the employees are not eligible to collectively bargain.
Union representatives argued at Tuesday’s hearing that their members’ duties have not fundamentally changed since 2000, when the Justice Department last attempted to decertify the union. FLRA rejected the Justice Department’s argument that year that immigration judges make policy through the issuance of decisions, noting the judges do not set precedent and their rulings are often appealed and reviewed. FLRA also said the immigration court system was established specifically so judges do not maintain any management duties to enable them to focus on hearings.
The arguments followed a similar path on Tuesday, though Justice attorneys and McHenry said several changes to Executive Office of Immigration Review policy and relevant precedents created an opening for a new FLRA ruling. William Krisner, the regional attorney for FLRA’s Washington office who presided over the hearing, said Tuesday morning the authority would first have to determine if anything had changed since 2000 before ruling on the merits of the case. William Brill, a Justice attorney, pointed to a 1999 streamlining effort by the department that enabled the immigration appeals board within the review office to simply affirm a judge’s ruling without issuing a separate opinion as one such change. The change was not presented during the previous FLRA case, Brill said, and was amplified in 2002 when EOIR again shifted course to allow just one board member to affirm a judge’s ruling.
Facing Brill’s questioning, McHenry said the “factual day-to-day” of immigration judges’ work has not changed since 2000 but the “legal significance of those duties” had been overhauled.
Legal changes have “fundamentally recast the nature and importance of immigration judge duties,” McHenry said.
Richard Bialczak, an attorney for the union, rejected the argument, saying Justice’s claims were nothing more than a retread.
The Trump administration is “raising the same arguments and hoping for a different outcome,” Bialczak said. “There’s no factual basis for it. The Department of Justice simply does not want to deal with a vocalunion that asserts its rights.”
Brill also argued immigration judges’ workload increasingly involves issuing decisions that cannot be appealed to the Executive Office of Immigration Review’s board. While immigrants can appeal those cases to the federal circuit, Brill and McHenry said the judge’s initial ruling represents the department’s official position. Immigration judges collectively issued about 280,000 decisions in fiscal 2019, about 38% of which could not be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Justice also pointed to Lucia v. SEC—a 2018 Supreme Court case that dictated that administrative law judges must be appointed by the president or a designated official, rather than hired normally—as relevant to immigration judges. The Executive Office of Immigration Review employees are administrative judges, not administrative law judges, but McHenry said their “duties and functions are very similar.”
“It’s difficult to conceive someone who needs to be appointed by the head of an agency but does not make management decisions,” Brill said.
Margaret Tough, another attorney for the union, countered that Lucia had no bearing on immigration judges, who are appointed by the attorney general and have been dating back prior to 2000. She and Bialczak said the judges are now under stricter oversight by management, facing new performance evaluations, quotas for their annual caseload and a restriction on speaking publicly. On cross examination, McHenry noted the judges can face discipline if their rulings are not up to acceptable standards and the board can remand cases back to them. Under their performance standards, judges cannot exceed a pre-set remand rate.
Upon follow-up questioning from Kirsner, the FLRA attorney, McHenry conceded the judges “are not supervisors.”
“Immigration judges are at the bottom of the org chart so they don’t supervise anything,” McHenry said, noting they cannot hire or fire anyone.
Tough highlighted that the Executive Office of Immigration Review has hired additional supervisory judges and under McHenry created the Office of Policy, which the agency director said was launched to “ensure better coordination of policy making within the agency.” He added, however, that adjudicatory policy making remained the sole power of immigration judges and their supervisors cannot influence the judges’ rulings.
Kirsner repeatedly sought more information on immigration judges’ power to set precedent. Generally speaking, their rulings do not influence more than the case at hand. Kirsner also clarified that unless there is a remand, their work on a case is finished after they issue a decision. Justice attorneys noted various statements in which the union suggested immigration judges should be removed from the executive branch and placed into an independent court, but Kirsner rejected them as irrelevant.
FLRA is expected to continue to hear from witnesses through Thursday before issuing a decision on the union’s fate later this year.
*************************
Many thanks to my long-time friend, fellow retired judicial colleague, member of the Round Table, and former NAIJ President Judge Joan Churchill for passing this along.
“Immigration judges are at the bottom of the org chart so they don’t supervise anything,” McHenry said, noting they cannot hire or fire anyone.
FLRA also said the immigration court system was established specifically so judges do not maintain any management duties to enable them to focus on hearings.
The above quotes “say it all” about the absurd position being argued by the DOJ. But, since neither administrative nor Article III courts hold the regime accountable for dishonesty before tribunals and engaging in frivolous litigation, like private parties would be, there is no incentive for the regime and its toadies at DOJ to stop flooding the courts with lies, misrepresentations, and meritless litigation.
Indeed, the Article IIIs unwillingness to deal “head-on” with the clearly unconstitutional nature of the Immigration Courts and their grotesque and unethical mismanagement by the DOJ have lead to an absurd growing backlog of 1.3 million cases (each involving real human lives) and the impending collapse of one of the largest sectors of the American justice system. What will it take for the “life-tenured ones in their ivory towers” to get out of the clouds and engage in the fray before it’s too late for our nation?
As I say over and over: Imagine if we had an honest Administration and Article III courts with integrity that forced the Government and private parties to work together to solve pressing legal and policy problems, particularly in the field of immigration, rather than squandering time and resources on Government-generated meritless litigation and schemes intended to collapse our entire justice system?
Worse yet, Article III Courts like the Supremes and the Fifth Circuit regularly reward the regime for its scofflaw performances, thus showing contempt for their own judicial roles, our Constitution, the rule of law, and, worst of all, for the human lives destroyed by invidiously motivated and illegal policies of the Trump regime. It also encourages this scofflaw behavior to continue and escalate.
That’s why the feeble and feckless complaints by Chief Justice Roberts about loss of respect for the courts and the ugly tenor of public discourse encouraged and engendered by the Trump regime are so discouraging and annoying. Actions speak louder than words, Chiefie! And, Trump has figured out that you’re all bluster and no backbone when it comes to standing up and speaking out in real cases about his all-out assault on American democracy!
Finally, let’s not forget that while DOJ/EOIR “management” is squandering everyone’s time on wasteful and frivolous efforts like “decertification,” here are just a few of the real management problems facing the Immigration Court system:
No e-filing system;
Growing 1.3 million case backlog, notwithstanding almost doubling the number of Immigration Judges, with no coherent plan for addressing it effectively for the foreseeable future;
Inaccurate and deficient record keeping as documented by TRAC;
Defective hearing notices;
Rock bottom judicial and staff morale, resulting in premature departure of some of the “best and brightest;”
“Single source” judicial selection process that effectively excludes non-Governmental candidates from the Immigration Judiciary;
Huge discrepancies among judges in asylum decision-making;
Continuing quality control problems with both Immigration Judges and BIA Judges misapplying basic legal standards and established precedents, as noted by Circuit Court decisions;
Problems in providing qualified in-person interpreters for hearings;
Inadequate training of Immigration Judges.
Seems like we’d all be better off if the NAIJ, rather than what passes for “EOIR management” were in charge of our Immigration Courts. And, while the FLA’s Krisner quite properly ruled it irrelevant to the proceedings before him, it’s more obvious than ever that the myriad of problems plaguing the Immigration Courts can’t and won’t be solved until there is an independent, Article I U.S. Immigration court established outside the Executive Branch!
