"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.
Rae Ann Varona Legal Reporter Law360 PHOTO: Linkedin
Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Immigration Community helpfully forwarded the pdf’s of Rae Ann’s article and the three briefs. You can access them here:
Our Round Table, with the help of some of the greatest litigators and law firms out there, continues to provide key support for the NDPA and timely expertise to the Federal Courts and father Executive on all levels!
The second Latina to be confirmed to the Northern District of California bench and one of the few immigrant rights attorneys to become a federal judge will be a thoughtful, compassionate jurist who understands firsthand how the law impacts real people, lawyers who know her say.
U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín was confirmed by the U.S. Senate in a 48-48 vote in February, with Vice President Kamala Harris casting the tie-breaking vote in her favor. Her confirmation makes Judge Martínez-Olguín just the second Latina to serve in the Northern District of California, according to the White House’s July announcement of her nomination.
It also makes Judge Martínez-Olguín the rare federal judge who has spent most of her career helping protect immigrants’ rights.
“It’s a slightly different path than we’re used to seeing in folks appointed to the bench, which I think is great,” said attorney Nora Preciado, who worked with Judge Martínez-Olguín at the National Immigration Law Center.
That background gives Judge Martínez-Olguín a unique understanding of the law, particularly when it comes to constitutional issues, which she often dealt with in her immigrant rights work, Preciado added.
But it will also make her more compassionate as a judge, according to those who know her.
“Immigration is a complex field that requires a lot of legal knowledge, but also requires compassion and empathy,” said Brian Amaya, current president of the East Bay La Raza Lawyers Association.
“The ability for a person to stay in this country with their family in order to avoid persecution, famine, war or political instability can be the most important legal decision or conclusion our legal system can make,” Amaya told Law360 Pulse. “It is important that members of our bench are individuals that can apply the law to real-life situations involving real-life people, in ways that are both lawful but full of compassion.”
While at NILC, Judge Martínez-Olguín spearheaded the organization’s work involving the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, including representing a class of DACA recipients who challenged the U.S. Department of Homeland Security‘s efforts to curtail that program, according to a questionnaire she submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
She contributed to merits and post-argument briefing when that case was consolidated with parallel challenges before the U.S. Supreme Court, she told the Senate.
Judge Martínez-Olguín also served as lead counsel in a Tennessee civil rights class action brought by Latino workers who alleged that their arrests during a worksite immigration raid lacked probable cause and were discriminatory.
Those cases and others showed the judge to be a very calm, steady and methodical litigator, according to Preciado, who worked with her on the Tennessee case.
“Areceli has always been somebody who’s very thoughtful, thorough, methodical in her legal thinking,” Preciado said. “She’s somebody who always wants to really dig deep into issues. She has a very steady approach and temperament to practicing law.”
“As an attorney, Judge Martínez-Olguín was known as a quick learner and could handle any type of legal issue,” echoed Ray Manzo, president of the San Francisco La Raza Lawyers Association.
She also loved to discuss those issues with her teammates, Preciado added.
Amaya added, “Just from talking to her, you could tell she was a brilliant legal mind. It was often my pleasure to just talk law with her. I believe that this was her most impressive quality — her vast understanding of the law and her ability to critically think about it and discuss it in a straightforward manner.”
Prior to her work at NILC, Judge Martínez-Olguín established and ran the Immigrants’ Rights Project at Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto, California, where she conducted policy advocacy, took on impact litigation and counseled local community groups, according to her Senate questionnaire.
“She certainly jumped into a lot of issues,” the organization’s executive director Katrina Logan said. The judge was “always looking for opportunities to use the law to promote and support our clients and the issues that impact them,” Logan said.
She also developed the organization’s emergency plan to deal with potential U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention of the group’s clients or possible ICE appearances at the organization’s offices, according to Logan.
“She was super-resourceful,” Logan added. “It was really great working with her, and I think she added a lot to our organization.”
Judge Martínez-Olguín also spent time in the ACLU‘s Women’s Rights Project and Immigrants’ Rights Project, litigating human trafficking claims involving the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and educating female farmworkers about how to protect their rights when faced with sex discrimination on the job, she told the Judiciary Committee.
She worked on the team that challenged the constitutionality of Arizona’s policy of denying driver’s licenses to DACA recipients under the supremacy and equal protection clauses, according to her Senate questionnaire. And she was part of a group of advocates who provided expertise about crafting the 2008 reauthorization of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act to better protect foreign workers.
Judge Martínez-Olguín has also worked at Legal Aid at Work as a staff attorney in its National Origin, Immigration and Language Rights Program, and in the U.S. Department of Education‘s Office for Civil Rights, where she investigated complaints against school districts and universities, according to her Senate questionnaire.
That background dealing with immigrants’ rights issues means the new jurist is steeped in constitutional issues such as due process, equal protection and freedom of speech, Preciado pointed out.
“It’s a great addition to the court because she’s somebody who has had to grapple very deeply with constitutional issues throughout her career, and I think few lawyers have that kind of experience under their belt,” Preciado said.
But more than her legal knowledge and acumen, what stands out to most of the attorneys who know her is how compassionate and caring she is, especially when it comes to her clients, they said.
“She was somebody who approached the law and the power of the law from a very human perspective, from a very personal connection with folks who are going through the system,” Preciado said.
This skill was especially apparent when the judge was dealing with the clients she and Preciado represented in the Tennessee case, where it was important for her to connect with those clients after they’d been through a traumatic immigration raid, Preciado said.
“She wasn’t showing up as just a brilliant lawyer, but also a human being and somebody who understood what people had gone through and wanted to be there to support in any way possible,” Preciado said. “That’s something that I really admire in her.”
Judge Martínez-Olguín also cares deeply about mentoring young Latina attorneys and working to improve their representation in the legal industry, according to these lawyers.
She has served as president and on the board of the East Bay La Raza Lawyers Association and on the board of the San Francisco La Raza Lawyers Association, according to her Senate questionnaire. Both organizations focus on expanding legal access in the Latinx community and supporting Latinx attorneys.
She “worked tirelessly” to keep the East Bay La Raza Lawyers Association funding scholarships and promoting mentorships for Latinx law school students, according to Amaya. And she made sure the organization’s Judicial Endorsement Committee met with and endorsed candidates for the bench, especially those who would promote the organization’s mission.
“She did a lot to continue our mission statement of growing the Latinx community’s presence in the California bar and bench,” said Amaya.
Judge Martínez-Olguín has even taught Spanish for Lawyers at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, where she earned her law degree.
That wasn’t her first time in the classroom. Before attending law school, the judge was a bilingual kindergarten teacher in Oakland, California, she told the Senate Judiciary Committee.
After graduating from law school, she clerked for U.S. District Judge David Briones in the Western District of Texas.
All those elements of her background mean Judge Martínez-Olguín will bring a unique and much-needed perspective to the federal bench, according to attorneys.
Her confirmation is “very significant, because it will bring a different viewpoint that is missing on the bench,” Manzo said. “Judges bring their career and personal experiences when making decisions, and having her there with a civil rights/immigration attorney and Latina viewpoint will create a richer discussion and interpretation of the law.”
“She will truly be able to apply sound legal principles to real-life situations that deal with real-life people and have real-life outcomes,” echoed Amaya.
“She will be a wonderful judge,” he added.
–Editing by Nicole Bleier.
******************************
We need MORE NDPA “practical scholars” like Judge Martínez-Olguín — MANY MORE — on the Federal Bench — at ALL levels! The place where the NDPA can make the most immediate positive impact is at EOIR! That’s why I’m urging NDPA members to get those applications in for current Immigration Judge vacancies and all that come up in the future.
We’ve seen in the past few weeks, graphically, how horrible judging from unqualified right wing zealots appointed by Trump can destroy precious individual rights and freedoms in America. NOW is the time to “model” the positive impact that practical scholars committed to due process, immigrants’ rights, and excellence in decision-making can have on American justice — starting at the all-important “retail level!”
NQRFPT = “Not Quite Ready For Prime Time” — Unfortunately, it’s a more than apt descriptor for the Biden Administration’s overall inept and tone-deaf approach to due process and immigrants’ rights in the beyond dysfunctional and unjust “Immigration Courts” under EOIR @ Garalnd’s DOJ.
Mike LaSusa Legal and Natioanl Security Reporter Law369 PHOTO: Twitter
Influx Of Solo Kids Poses Challenge For Immigration Courts
By Mike LaSusa
Law360 (March 31, 2022, 2:44 PM EDT) — Unaccompanied minors arriving in increasing numbers at the southern U.S. border are likely to face a tough time finding legal representation and navigating an overwhelmed immigration court system that has no special procedures for handling their cases.
The number of unaccompanied children encountered by U.S. Customs and Border Protection has risen sharply over the past year, to an average of more than 10,000 per month, according to CBP data. Those kids’ cases often end up in immigration court, where they are subject to the exact same treatment as adults, no matter their age.
“Nobody really thought of this when the laws were enacted,” said retired Immigration Judge Paul Wickham Schmidt, now an adjunct professor at Georgetown Law. “Everything dealing with kids is kind of an add-on,” he said, referring to special dockets for minors and other initiatives that aren’t expressly laid out in the law but have been tried in various courts over the years.
About a third of the immigration court cases started since October involve people under 18, and of those people, 40% are 4 or under, according to recent statistics from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review, which operates the courts.
It’s unclear how many of those cases involve unaccompanied children and how many involve kids with adult relatives, and it’s hard to make historical comparisons because of changes in how the EOIR has tracked data on kids’ cases over the years.
But kids’ cases are indeed making up an increasing share of immigration court dockets, according to Jennifer Podkul, vice president of policy and advocacy for Kids in Need of Defense, or KIND, one of the main providers of legal services for migrant kids in the U.S.
“The cases are taking a lot longer because the backlog has increased so much,” Podkul said. Amid the crush of cases, attorneys can be hard to find.
. . . .
The immigration courts should consider “getting some real juvenile judges who actually understand asylum law and have real special training, not just a few hours of canned training, to deal with kids,” said Schmidt, the former immigration judge.
. . . .
***************************
Those with Law360 access can read Mike’s complete article at the link.
For what seems to be the millionth time with Garland, it’s not “rocket science.”🚀 He should have brought in Jen Podkul, her “boss,” Wendy Young of KIND, or a similar qualified leader from outside Government, to kick tail, roll some heads, clean out the deadwood, and set up a “Juvenile Division” of the Immigration Court staffed with well-qualified “real” judges, experts in asylum law, SIJ status, U & T visas, PD, and due process for vulnerable populations.
Such judicial talent is out there. But, that’s the problem with Garland! The judicial and leadership talent remain largely “out there” while lesser qualified individuals continue to botch cases and screw up the justice system on a regular basis! Actions have consequences; so do inactions and failure to act decisively and courageously.
And, of course, Garland should have replaced the BIA with real judges — progressive practical scholars who wouldn’t tolerate some of the garbage inflicted on kids by the current out of control, undisciplined, “enforcement biased,” anti-immigrant EOIR system.
Instead, Garland employs Miller “restrictionist enforcement guru” Tracy Short as his “Chief Immigration Judge” and another “Miller holdover” David Wetmore as BIA Chair. No immigration expert in America would deem either of these guys capable or qualified to insure due process for kids (or, for that matter anyone else) in Immgration Court.
Yet, more than a year into the Biden Administration, there they are! It’s almost as if Stephen Miller just moved over to DOJ to join his buddy Gene Hamilton in abusing immigrants in Immigration Court. (Technically, Hamilton is gone, but it would be hard to tell from the way Garland and his equally tone-deaf lieutenants have messed up EOIR. Currently, he and Miller are officers of “America First Legal” a neo-fascist group engaged in “aiming to reinstate Trump-era policies that bar unaccompanied migrant children from entering the United States,” according to Wikipedia.)
Meanwhile, the folks with the expertise to solve problems and get the Immigration Courts back on track, like Jen & Wendy, are giving interviews and trying to fix Garland’s ungodly mess from the outside! What’s wrong with this picture? What’s wrong with this Administration?
We’re about to find out! Big time, as Garland’s broken, due-process denying “court” system continues it’s “death spiral,” ☠️ taking lots of kids and other human lives down with it!
Law360 (January 12, 2022, 2:09 PM EST) — A top U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement attorney appeared elated when a sitting Massachusetts judge was indicted in 2018 for helping an immigrant in the country illegally evade custody, asking in an email if it would be “the first of many” such arrests, according to records made public in court Tuesday.
The email by then-ICE Principal Legal Adviser Tracy Short was part of a series of documents filed by a civil liberties group and government watchdog suing the agency to obtain even more records relating to the obstruction of justice charges against Newton District Court Judge Shelley Joseph.
Short posed the rhetorical question as a Fox News article circulated in emails among agency staff on the day Judge Joseph was indicted. In a later email to agency executives, Short said, “This is a great day.”
“Indeed,” responded Matthew Albence, ICE director of enforcement removal operations, according to the court filings. ICE chief of staff Thomas Blank allegedly chimed in, “Blessed.”
Judge Joseph is accused of helping the immigrant evade federal custody by allowing him to leave out the back door of her courtroom while agents from ICE were waiting out front to arrest him.
The case has been criticized by retired judges, academics and Massachusetts defense lawyers as an overreach by the federal government. Judge Joseph has argued that she acted within the scope of her judicial authority and therefore cannot be criminally charged. The issue is on appeal at the First Circuit.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts and American Oversight, a government watchdog, attached the emails ICE produced to a motion for a pretrial win in the lawsuit they filed against the agency for records relating to the charges against Judge Joseph and her court officer Wesley MacGregor.
The civil liberties groups told U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley that the 83 pages of communications handed over by ICE in response to its records request “calls into serious question the adequacy of its search” for documents.
Among the groups’ concerns are that no records were produced for the 11 months that followed the incident, no text messages were searched, the search terms used were too narrow, and the agency never searched its Homeland Security Investigations Division even though the unit wrote a memo about the incident.
The groups asked the court to grant them summary judgment, order ICE to conduct a reasonable search — including emails and text messages — and release pages ICE is withholding under claimed exemptions from the public records law.
In December, ICE asked for a win in the case, saying it handed over what it needed to and withheld other sought-after documents that would harm pending criminal proceedings if released.
Judge Joseph and MacGregor have appealed a federal judge’s decision to not toss the charges on judicial immunity grounds. The First Circuit, in early December, heard the appeal and wrestled with how to define the judge’s immunity claim.
The ACLU’s records request was spurred by a November 2019 New York Times article that reported then-acting ICE Director Thomas Homan had been communicating with the Massachusetts U.S. Attorney’s Office in seeking legal recourse against Judge Joseph.
The ACLU requested records from March 15, 2018, through April 25, 2019, including emailed messages and letters between the U.S. attorney’s office and ICE about Judge Joseph, as well as records concerning an ICE investigation into the judge.
ICE told the ACLU in 2019 that it couldn’t do the search because the ACLU was a third party in the criminal case against Judge Joseph and needed her approval to access the records.
The ACLU protested and asked the agency to reconsider, saying that its request didn’t need Judge Joseph’s approval. In February 2020, the ICE Office of the Principal Legal Advisor ruled that a records search could be made, but ICE has failed to respond to the ACLU’s request since then, the complaint says.
Daniel McFadden, an ACLU staff attorney on the case, said in a statement to Law360 that ICE’s decision to charge Judge Joseph was “unprecedented.”
“The public has a right to know how this prosecution arose, and whether it was part of a pressure campaign to force Massachusetts court officials to assist in federal immigration enforcement,” McFadden said.
ICE and the Department of Justice declined to comment on the filing when reached Wednesday.
The ACLU of Massachusetts is represented in-house by Krista Oehlke, Daniel L. McFadden and Matthew R. Segal.
American Oversight is represented in-house by Katherine M. Anthony.
Update: This article has been updated to include comments from the ACLU.
******************
Look, whether Short can be fired or not, he has no business being the Chief Immigration Judge at EOIR. Short never held a judicial position before his inappropriate appointment under Trump.
His career as a hard line, widely disrespected ICE Prosecutor took him through probably the worst Federal Court in America — the Atlanta immigration Court, a self-styled “Asylum Free Zone” where “due process and fundamental fairness go to die and be buried.”
No Senior Executive like Short has “life tenure” in a particular senior position. For example, former Chief Immigration Judge, current BIA Appellate Judge Michael J, Creppy, woke up one morning in 2006 to find himself“out at OCIJ” and on his way to OCAHO, widely considered the “Siberia of EOIR.” His “offense:” “losing the confidence” of the then powers that were at DOJ and EOIR during the Bush II Administration!
I had a similar experience when I was “pushed out” as BIA Chair and then Appellate Judge because Ashcroft and his team of hard liners (including the notorious neo-fascist nativist Kris Kobach) didn’t like my decisions standing up for the legal rights of migrants!
Once in power, the GOP makes good on its threats against asylum seekers and other migrants, without necessarily passing any legislation. By contrast, with weak-kneed, tone-deaf “leaders” like Mayorkas and Garland, Dems fail to keep their campaign promises and won’t even move the worst of the GOP holdovers out of key positions where they undermine justice and ruin human lives.
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration JudgesMe
Excerpts from Jennifer’s article:
. . . .
Garland’s latest vacatur was well-received by Jeffrey S. Chase and Paul W. Schmidt, who were among 40 retired immigration judges to sign a letter last spring urging Garland to undo all 17 BIA decisions issued by his Trump-appointed predecessors.
“Prohibiting an appellate body from accepting party stipulations below or honoring concessions on appeal is simply insane. Why would any party stipulate to an issue if it will simply be ignored on appeal?” Judge Schmidt said in a statement to Law360, calling such agreements “a really important part of encouraging efficiency in litigation and reducing backlog.”
According to Judge Chase, Monday’s order “will again allow valuable court time to be spent focusing only on issues actually in dispute between the parties, a practice that could save hours of hearing time on a single case.”
“And limiting the scope of administrative review to the issues actually raised on appeal by the parties eliminates the need to sacrifice fairness in order to achieve that increased efficiency,” he continued.
Retired Immigration Judge Paul Wickham Schmidt, a former chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals who was also general counsel to the Immigration and Naturalization Service at the time of the EOIR’s creation, likewise praised Judge Illston’s order in an interview with Law360 Thursday.
Judge Schmidt, a vocal opponent of the Trump administration’s management of the EOIR, characterized the rule as part of a larger effort to discourage immigrants by stacking the courts against them, rather than a good-faith effort to reduce ballooning backlogs.
“When your docket is 1.3 million, it’s not the fact that someone is getting a few extra days in a continuance, it’s the fact that DHS is adding more cases,” he said.
As for whether the DOJ under President Joe Biden would continue defending the rule — as it is for one of the Trump-era asylum rules — Judge Schmidt said it was hard to say. But newly confirmed Attorney General Merrick Garland should prioritize changing the EOIR, as he stated his mission would be to restore nonpartisanship and defense of civil rights as pillars of the department, the judge said.
“If Garland wants to straighten out the Department of Justice, he’s got to straighten out EOIR. EOIR is a living refutation of everything Garland says he stands for,” Judge Schmidt told Law360.
Representatives for the DOJ did not respond to a request for comment Thursday.
The immigrant advocates are represented by Jingni (Jenny) Zhao, Anoop Prasad and Glenn Michael Katon of Asian Americans Advancing Justice — Asian Law Caucus, Seferina Young Berch, Stephen Chang, Naomi Ariel Igra, Michael O McGuinness, Scott T. Nonaka and Irene Inkyu Yang of Sidley Austin LLP, and Judah Ben Lakin and Amalia Margarete Wille of Lakin & Wille LLP.
*************************
Thankfully, Jennifer is operating “outside the paywall” on this particular article. So, all of you can get full access to her outstanding reporting on this case at the above link.
Dear Judge Garland:
Congratulations again and best wishes on your recent appointment as our Attorney General. I write to beg you, as a former DOJ colleague, Senior Executive, and administrative judge to deal immediately with a festering problem undermining the entire U.S. Justice system that is unfolding right under your nose, whether or not you have had time to focus on it.
A number of the individuals and organizations whose help you will need to fix EOIR and achieve equal justice for all in America are instead having their time and precious resources diverted to defending our justice system and the Constitution from absurdly illegal and obscenely counterproductive decisions and actions now being taken in YOUR NAME, such as the illegal EOIR regulations in this case. Indeed, these regulations and many other travesties still being pursued by EOIR at the behest of the former regime should have been on the chopping block long before you were even sworn in.
Not only are you now squandering Executive Branch and private sector resources that could better be devoted to solving problems, you are also wasting the time and trying the patience of thoughtful Federal Judges like U.S. District Judge Susan Illston. Certainly, as a former highly admired and respected Federal Judge, you know the value of judicial time in our system.
Additionally, failure to take immediate steps to end the dysfunction, disorder, and nonsense still streaming from EOIR on a daily basis is not only destroying vulnerable human lives, but also costing you goodwill with the very NGOs and talented, dedicated, often pro bono advocates whose assistance and support will be absolutely necessary for you to succeed in your stated objectives of returning integrity to the DOJ, eradicating institutionalized racism, and finally, finally achieving long overdue equal justice under law for all in America.
As I told Jennifer, EOIR is a “living contradiction” of everything you said in your confirmation hearing. It’s also a repudiation of the values that I have always seen and respected in you, even if mostly from afar.
I beseech you to “pull the plug” on today’s EOIR and put someone in there who can start getting it back on track: A “Due Process/Human Rights/Immigration Guru,” if you will. In terms to which we both can relate, you must find a judicial leader in the image of our late great colleague from the Carter DOJ, and your former colleague on the D.C. Circuit, Judge Patricia M. Wald. As we both know, she was was brilliant, energetic, yet highly practical, well-organized, and unswervingly committed to realizing social justice on both the national and eventually international stages.
Put someone who can run a real due-process-oriented court system in charge of the EOIR mess and let ‘er rip. You can cement your legacy to American Justice by achieving EOIR’s once noble, now discarded, vision that many of us who once served there established to guide our actions: “Through teamwork and innovation, be the world’s best tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.”
With my very best wishes for your continued success,
Hon. “Sir” Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration JudgesKnightess of the Round Table
Hi all: A few outcomes right before the holiday (two good, one bad):
(1) The Fourth Circuit just granted the motion for rehearing en banc in Portillo-Flores v. Barr, in which the Round Table filed an amicus brief. This was a decision with a very problematic unwilling/unable determination by two judges (the petitioner, who was 14 when the events occurred, stated on the third time he was asked that it was possible the police might have taken some action), and a very strongly worded dissent.
(2) In a bond case in the Second Circuit in which we also filed an amicus brief in a case represented by Legal Aid., Arana v. Barr, the petitioner was released from custody today after having two prior requests denied. Legal Aid believes our brief was helpful in achieving that result. Counsel is expecting a stipulation for dismissal without prejudice.
(3) The bad news: in a petition to the 4th Circuit in support of CAIR Coalition involving Matter of A-B- issues, the 4th Cir. denied the petition for review, but did so in an unpublished decision.
Wishing everyone a very safe and happy Thanksgiving!
All my best, Jeff
**************************
Thanks, Sir Jeffrey!
I’m so thankful for all of the fantastic work that you and our other knightesses and knights of the Round Table do to keep due process and best practices on the forefront and spread truth in the face of tyranny, lies, and false narratives. While we often focus on the weekly amicus briefs we file with tribunals across the nation, the work also goes on in analysis, public speaking, media interviews, teaching, political involvement, video appearances, and grass roots pro bono and community work.
For example, our amazing colleague Judge Charlie Pazar of Tennessee just reported that he was featured on a CLE panel entirely devoted to the work and impact of our Round Table! Way to go Charlie! You are one of those who tirelessly works to improve American justice on all levels and you are certainly “super generous” in sharing your time, knowledge, expertise, and perspective!
Just recently, Sir Jeffrey, along with Round Table knightesses Judge Denise Slavin and Judge Sue Roy, in addition to yours truly and our friend NAIJ President Judge Ashley Tabaddor, were quoted by Suzanne Monyak in a Law360 article about the future of the NAIJ and the Immigration Court in a Biden Administration. Sadly, the article is “hidden behind the pay wall,” but those with access can read it in its entirety.
Compare these unselfish, teamwork-oriented, effective, expert professional activities aimed at improving the justice system and access to it for everyone with the disgraceful, ignorant, divisive, counterproductive, and often downright racist and illegal actions of the current regime’s immigration kakistocracy, starting, but by no means ending, with the deadly ☠️⚰️🏴☠️ “EOIR Clown Show” 🤡!
Think what a “Better EOIR” and a “better bureaucracy,” led by members of the NDPA could do to solve problems, promote the rule of law and best practices, and make “equal justice for all” a reality rather than a false promise that is intentionally never fulfilled! It isn’t rocket science. But, it does take replacing the kakistocracy, on all levels, throughout Government with experts from the NDPA committed to achieving “good government in the public interest.”
J Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration JudgesKnightess of the Round Table
Asher Stockler reports for Law360:
. . . .
But the government said that, even if these withholding claims succeed, it still retains the right to deport the group of immigrants to other countries that will accept them. Because deportation is still on the table regardless of the status of those claims, the administration argued, the group of immigrants should be treated identically to those who are about to be deported.
The ACLU rebutted that argument, saying that such third-country deportations are exceedingly rare. Because of this, the ACLU said the availability of a third-country option should not mean the
11/12/2020 Justices Told Of Due Process Issues Without Bond Hearings – Law360
deportation-ready provision of the law kicks in. According to the American Immigration Council, fewer than 2% of immigrants who received persecution-based relief in fiscal year 2017 were ultimately deported to a third country.
The Justice Department also raised the possibility that having to scrutinize the practical odds of removal from immigrant to immigrant would be “patently unworkable.”
“A case-by-case approach … would needlessly add to the burdens that are already ‘overwhelming our immigration system,'” the department said, quoting a prior case.
But a coalition of former immigration trial and appeals judges pushed back on that idea with their own amicus brief Thursday.
“Bond hearings in withholding of removal proceedings are no different than bond hearings in other contexts,” the group, representing 34 judges who have cumulatively overseen thousands of cases, wrote. “Contrary to [the administration’s] assertion, bond hearings in withholding of removal proceedings neither lead to a slowdown of cases that ‘thwart Congress’ objectives’ in enacting the immigration laws, nor impose an administrative burden on immigration courts.” The American Civil Liberties Union is represented by its own Michael Tan, Omar Jadwat, Judy Rabinovitz, Cecillia Wang and David D. Cole.
The coalition of former judges is represented by David Keyko, Robert Sills, Matthew Putorti, Daryl Kleiman, Patricia Rothenberg and Roland Reimers of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP.
The plaintiffs are represented by Paul Hughes, Michael Kimberly and Andrew Lyons-Berg of McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg and Rachel McFarland of the Legal Aid Justice Center, Mark Stevens of Murray Osorio PLLC, and Eugene Fidell of Yale Law School’s Supreme Court Clinic.
The Trump administration is represented by Noel Francisco, Jeffrey Wall, Edwin Kneedler and Vivek Suri of the U.S. Solicitor General’s Office and Lauren Fascett, Brian Ward and Joseph Hunt of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Division.
The case is Tony H. Pham et al. v. Maria Angelica Guzman Chavez et al., case number 19-897, at the U.S. Supreme Court.
–Editing by Michael Watanabe.
**********************************************
Read the complete article over on Law360. The case comes from the Fourth Circuit. Hopefully, the Biden-Harris Administration will withdraw the SG’s disingenuous petition (if not already denied by the Supremes) and implement the Fourth Circuit’s correct decision nationwide.
That’s the way to promote due process and judicial efficiency instead of constantly promoting inhumanity, abuse of due process, judicial inefficiency (fair adjudication is hindered by unnecessary detention in the Gulag), and chaos!
Many, many, many thanks to our all-star pro bono team:
David Keyko, Robert Sills, Matthew Putorti, Daryl Kleiman, Patricia Rothenberg and Roland Reimers of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP.
Couldn’t have done it without you guys! You constantly “Make us look smart!”
I also note with great pride the following “charter members” of the “New Due Process Army” who were on the plaintiffs’ legal team:
Rachel McFarland, my former Georgetown Law student;
Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, who appeared before me at the Arlington Immigration Court, and is an occasional contributor to “Courtside;
Mark Stevens, who appeared before me at the Arlington Immigration Court.
Well done, fearless fighters for due process!
Rachel McFarland Legal Aid Justice Center Charter Member, New Due Process Army
This disgraceful performance by the Solicitor General’s Office (once revered, now reviled) has become “the norm” under Trump. Francisco’s arguments are those of an attorney who didn’t do “due diligence,” but doesn’t expect the Court to know or care what really happens in Immigration Court. And, unfortunately, with the exception of Justice Sotomayor and perhaps Justice Kagan, that may well be a correct assumption. But that doesn’t make it any less of a powerful and disturbing indictment of our entire U.S. Justice system in the age of Trump.
Reality check: I routinely did 10-15, sometimes more, bond hearings at a Detained Master Calendar in less than one hour. I treated everyone fairly, applied the correct legal criteria, and set reasonable bonds (usually around $5,000) for everyone legally eligible. Almost all represented asylum seekers and withholding seekers eligible for bond who had filed complete and well-documented asylum or withholding applications were released on bond. About 99% showed up for their merits hearings.
I encouraged attorneys on both sides to file documents in advance, discuss the case with each other, and present a proposed agreed bond amount or a range of amounts to me whenever possible. Bond hearings were really important (freedom from unnecessary restraint is one of our most fundamental rights), but they weren’t “rocket science.” Bond hearings actually ran like clockwork.
Indeed, if the attorneys were “really on the ball,” and ICE managed to find and present all the detainees timely, I could probably do 10-15 bond cases in 30 minutes, and get them all right. My courtroom and my approach weren’t any different from that of my other then-colleagues at Arlington. In thirteen years on the bench, I set thousands of bonds and probably had no more than six appeals to the BIA from my bond decisions. I also reviewed many bond appeals at the BIA. (Although, most bond appeals to the BIA were “mooted” by the issuance of a final order in the detained case before the bond appeal was adjudicated.) Most took fewer than 15 minutes.
Indeed, my past experience suggests that a system led (not necessarily “run”) by competent judicial professionals and staffed with real judges with expertise in immigration, asylum, and human rights and unswervingly committed to due process and fundamental fairness could establish “best practices” that would drastically increase efficiency, cut (rather than mindlessly and exponentially expand) backlogs, without cutting out anyone’s rights. In other words, EOIR potentially could be a “model American judiciary,” as it actually was once envisioned, rather than the slimy mass of disastrous incompetence and the national embarrassment that it is today!
The idea that doing something as straightforward as a bond hearing would tie the system in knots is pure poppycock and a stunning insult to all Immigration Judges delivered by a Solicitor General who has never done a bond case in his life!
Yes the system is overwhelmingly backlogged and dysfunctional! But that has nothing to do with giving respondents due process bond hearings.
It has everything to do with unconstitutional and just plain stupid “politicization” and “weaponization” of the courts under gross incompetence and mismanagement by political hacks at the DOJ who have installed their equally unqualified toadies at EOIR. It also has to do with a disingenuous Solicitor General who advances a White Nationalist political agenda, rather than constitutional rights, fundamental fairness, rationality, and best practices. It has to do with a Supreme Court majority unwilling to take a stand for the legal rights and human dignity of the most vulnerable, and often most deserving, among us in the face of bullying and abuse by a corrupt, would-be authoritarian, fundamentally anti-American and anti-democracy regime.
It has to do with allowing a corrupt, nativist, invidiously-motivated regime to manipulate and intentionally misapply asylum and protection laws at the co-opted and captive DHS Asylum Office; thousands of “grantable” asylum cases are wrongfully and unnecessarily shuffled off to the Immigration Courts, thus artificially inflating backlogs and leading to more pressure to cut corners and dispense with due process.
It also paints an intentionally false and misleading picture that the problem is asylum applicants rather than the maliciously incompetent White Nationalists who have seized control of our system and acted to destroy years of structural development and accumulated institutional expertise.
Good Government matters! Maliciously incompetent Government threatens to destroy our nation! (Doubt that, just look at the totally inappropriate, entirely dishonest, response of the Trump kakistocracy to their overwhelming election defeat by Biden-Harris and the unwillingness of both the GOP and supporters to comply with democratic norms and operate in the real world of facts, rather than false narratives.)
Due process, fundamental fairness, equal justice, simple human decency, and Good Government won’t happen until we get the White Nationalist hacks out of the DOJ and replace the “clown show” at EOIR with qualified members of the New Due Process Army. Problem solvers, rather than problem creators; over-achievers, rather than screw-ups!
The incoming Biden-Harris Administration is left with a stark, yet simple, choice: oust the malicious incompetents and bring in the “competents” from the NDPA to fix the system; or become part of the problem and have the resulting mess forever sully your Administration.
The Obama Administration (sadly) chose the latter. President Elect Biden appears bold, confident, self-aware, and flexible enough to recognize past mistakes. But, recognition without reconstruction (action) is useless! Don’t ruminate — govern! Like your life depends on it!
And, by no means is EOIR the only part of DOJ the needs “big time” reform and a thorough shake up. We must have a Solicitor General committed to following the rules of legal ethics and common human decency and who will insist on her or his staff doing likewise.
The next Solicitor General must also have demonstrated expertise in asylum, immigration, civil rights, and human rights laws and be committed to expanding due process, equal justice, racial justice, and fundamental fairness throughout the Government bureaucracy and “pushing” the Supremes to adopt and endorse best, rather than worst, practices in these areas.
American Justice and our court systems are in “free fall.” This is no time for more “amateur night at the Bijou.”
And here are some thoughts for the future if we really want to achieve “Good Government” and equal justice for all:
Every future Supreme Court Justice must have served a minimum of two years as a U.S. Immigration Judge with an “asylum grant rate” that is at or exceeds the national average for the U.S. Immigration Courts;
Every future Solicitor General must have done a minimum of ten pro bono asylum cases in U.S. Immigration Court.
Due Process Forever! Clown Show (With Lives & Humanity On The Line) Never!
Hannah Albarazi Federal Courts Reporter Law360Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Retired Immigration JudgesMe
Ex-FAIR Research Director Among 46 New Immigration Judges
“It would be impossible for one to receive a fair hearing before Matthew O’Brien,” Jeffrey Chase, a New York City immigration lawyer and former immigration judge, told Law360. Chase said O’Brien has expressed a view of asylum law that is at odds with the controlling circuit case law that he would be tasked with applying from the bench.
Chase said O’Brien has “basically spouted propaganda for an organization openly hostile to immigration.”
His appointment, Chase said, shows that the Trump administration doesn’t want a fair and independent immigration court and is proof that the Executive Office for Immigration Review needs to be taken out of the control of the Department of Justice, an enforcement agency.
The administration “has repeatedly emphasized to classes of new immigration judges that they are above all employees of the attorney general, who does not believe most asylum seekers are deserving of protection,” Chase said.
These appointments could negatively impact the immigration courts for decades, Chase said.
Paul Wickham Schmidt, a retired U.S. immigration judge who chaired the Board of Immigration Appeals in the Clinton administration, also slammed the recent wave of appointments.
“The idea that these are the 46 best qualified individuals in America to discharge these awesome responsibilities in a fair, impartial and expert manner, in furtherance of due process of law and with recognition of the human rights and human dignity of the individuals whose lives are at stake, is beyond preposterous. It’s a fraud on American justice,” Schmidt told Law360.
Schmidt didn’t mince his words about O’Brien’s appointment either.
“As someone who has helped FAIR spread its racially biased, anti-immigrant, and anti-asylum propaganda and false narratives, O’Brien is not qualified to be a fair and impartial quasi-judicial decision maker as required by the due process clause of our Constitution,” Schmidt said.
. . . .
**********************************
Those with Law360 access can read Hannah’s complete article at the link.
The U.S. Justice system, once the envy of free nations throughout the world, is disintegrating before our eyes. If there is no justice for those whose lives are at stake, there will be no justice for any of us in the Trump/Barr Third World kakistocracy.
Due Process Forever! Corrupt & Feckless Institutions Parodying Justice, Never!
Easy to see why ending racism and applying the crystal clear Constitutional requirement of due process and equal justice for all persons in the U.S. has been so hard to achieve! Achieving would start with Justices who actually believe in the Constitution!
What if Justices believed “that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?”While some might find these rights to be “self-evident,” not so much the majority of current Supremes’ Justices who apparently believe asylum seekers to be something less than human.
The Dred Scott decision is no longer good law. When will we get Justices who unanimously stop applying it to immigrants and asylum seekers in our country?
It isn’t rocket science. You either believe in equal justice under law, as required by our Constitution, or you don’t. Just how did so many “nonbelievers” in the Constitution make it to our highest Constitutional Court?
Planned Asylum Overhaul Threatens Migrants’ Due Process
By Suzanne Monyak | June 12, 2020, 9:34 PM EDT
The Trump administration’s proposed overhaul of the U.S. asylum process, calling for more power for immigration judges and asylum officers, could hinder migrants’ access to counsel in an already fast-tracked immigration system.
The proposal, posted in a 161-page rule Wednesday night, aims to speed up procedures and raise the standards for migrants seeking protection in the U.S. at every step, while minimizing the amount of time a migrant has to consult with an attorney before facing key decisions in their case.
“It certainly sets a tone by the government that fairness, just basic day-in-court due process, is no longer valued,” said Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, director for the Center for Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Penn State Law, University Park, Pennsylvania.
The proposed rule, which will publish in the Federal Register on Monday, suggests a slew of changes to the U.S. asylum system that immigrant advocates say would constitute the most sweeping changes to the system yet and cut off access for the majority of applicants.
Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration law professor at Cornell University Law School, said that it was as if administration officials took every precedential immigration appellate decision, executive order and policy that narrowed asylum eligibility under this administration and “wrapped them all in one huge Frankenstein rule that would effectively gut our asylum system.”
Among a litany of changes, the rule, if finalized, would revise the standards to qualify for asylum and other fear-based relief, including by narrowing what types of social groups individuals can claim membership in, as well as the very definitions of “persecution” and “torture.”
In doing so, the proposal effectively bars all forms of gender-based claims, for example, as well as claims from individuals fleeing domestic violence.
These tighter definitions and higher standards would make it difficult even for asylum-seekers who are represented to win their cases, attorneys said.
“I worry about how a rule like this can cause a chilling effect on private law firms, or even BigLaw, from even engaging with this work on a pro bono level because it’s just so challenging and this rule only puts up those barriers even more,” said Wadhia.
But for migrants without lawyers, the barrier to entry is particularly profound. For instance, the rule permits immigration judges to pretermit asylum applications, or deny an application that the judge determines doesn’t pass muster before the migrant can ever appear before the court.
This could pose real challenges for migrants who may not be familiar with U.S. asylum law or even fluent in English, but who are not guaranteed attorneys in immigration court.
“If you’re unrepresented, give me a break,” said Lenni B. Benson, a professor at New York Law School who founded the Safe Passage Project. “I don’t think my law students understand ‘nexus’ even if they’ve studied it,” she added, referring to the requirement that an individual’s persecution have a “nexus” to, or be motivated by, their participation in a certain social group.
“Giving all judges the authority to end an asylum application with no hearing at all is pretty jaw-dropping,” she said. “Those 90%-denial-rate judges are doing that with the respondent in front of them who’s already testifying about the persecution they’ve suffered or their fear.”
The proposal also allows asylum officers, who are employed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and are not required to have earned law degrees, to deem affirmative asylum applications frivolous, and to do so based on a broader definition of “frivolous.”
Currently, applicants must knowingly fabricate evidence in an asylum application for it be deemed frivolous. But the proposal would lower that standard, while expanding the definition of “frivolous” to include applications based on foreclosed law or that are considered to lack legal merit.
The penalty for a frivolous application is steep. If an immigration judge agrees that the application is frivolous under the expanded term, the applicant would be ineligible for all forms of immigration benefits in the U.S. for making a weak asylum claim, Collopy said.
“And under the new regulation, everything is a weak application,” she added.
Benson also said that allowing asylum officers to deny applications conflicts with a mandate that those asylum screenings not be adversarial.
When consulting for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security during the Obama administration, Benson had once supported giving asylum officers more authority to grant asylum requests on the spot when migrants present with strong cases from the get-go. But with this proposal, DHS “took that idea,” but then went “the negative way,” she said.
. . . .
“I can’t even think of a single client I have right now that could get around this,” Collopy said.
“It’s a fairly well-crafted rule,” said Yale-Loehr. “They clearly have been working on this for months.”
But it may not be strong enough to ultimately survive a court challenge, he said.
The proposal was met with an onslaught of opposition from immigrant advocates and lawmakers, drawing sharp rebukes from Amnesty International, the American Immigration Council and AILA, as well as from House Democrats.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., who leads the committee’s immigration panel, slammed the proposal in a Thursday statement as an attempt “to rewrite our immigration laws in direct contravention of duly enacted statutes and clear congressional intent.”
If the rule is finalized — the timing is tight during an election year — attorneys said it would likely face a constitutional challenge alleging that it doesn’t square with the due process clause by infringing on an individual’s right to access the U.S. asylum system.
And while the administration will consider public feedback before the policy takes effect, attorneys said it could still be vulnerable to a court challenge claiming it violates administrative law.
Benson said the proposed rule fails to explain why its interpretation of federal immigration law should trump federal court precedent.
“They can’t just do it, as much as they might like to, with the wave of a magic wand called notice-and-comment rulemaking,” she said.
Yale-Loehr predicted a court challenge to the policy, if finalized, could go the way of DHS’ public charge rule, which was struck down by multiple lower courts, and recently by a federal court of appeals, but was allowed by the U.S. Supreme Court to take effect while lawsuits continued.
If the policy is in place for any amount of time, it will likely lead to migrants with strong claims for protection being turned away, attorneys said. But Yale-Loehr didn’t believe it would lead to fewer asylum claims.
“If you’re fleeing persecution, you’re not stopping to read a 160-page rule,” he said. “You’re fleeing for your life, and no rule is going to change that fact.”
–Editing by Kelly Duncan.
***********************
Read Suzanne’s full analysis at the above link.
Although nominally designed to address the current Immigration Court backlog by encouraging or even mandating summary denial without due process of nearly 100% of asylum claims, as observed in the article, the exact opposite is likely to happen with respect to backlog reduction.
As Professor Steve Yale-Loehr points out, finalization of these regulations would undoubtedly provoke a flood of new litigation. True, the Supreme Court to date has failed to take seriously their precedents requiring due process for asylum seekers and other migrants. But, enough lower Federal Courts have been willing to initially step up to the plate that reversals and remands for fair hearings before Immigration Judges will occur on a regular basis in a number of jurisdictions.
This will require time-consuming “redos from scratch” before Immigration Judges that will take precedence on already backlogged dockets. It will also lead to a patchwork system of asylum rules pending the Supreme Court deciding what’s legally snd constitutionally required.
While based on the Court Majority’s lack of concern for due process, statutory integrity, and fundamental fairness for asylum seekers, particularly those of color, shown by the last few major tests of Trump Administration “constitutional statutory, and equal justice eradication” by Executive Order and regulation, one can never be certain what the future will hold.
With four Justices who have fairly consistently voted to uphold or act least not interfere with asylum seekers’ challenges to illegal policies and regulations, a slight change in either the composition of the Court or the philosophy of the majority Justices could produce different results.
As the link between systemic lack of equal justice under the Constitution for African Americans and the attacks on justice for asylum seekers, immigrants, and other people of color becomes clearer, some of the Justices who have enabled the Administration’s xenophobic anti-immigrant, anti-asylum programs might want to rethink their positions. That’s particularly true in light of the lack of a sound factual basis for such programs.
As good advocates continue to document the deadly results and inhumanity, as well as the administrative failures, of the Trump-Miller White nationalist program, even those justices who have to date been blind to what they were enabling might have to take notice and reflect further on both the legal moral obligations we owe to our fellow human beings.
In perhaps the most famous Supreme Court asylum opinion, INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 436-37 (1987), Justice Stevens said:
If one thing is clear from the legislative history of the new definition of “refugee,” and indeed the entire 1980 Act, it is that one of Congress’ primary purposes was to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United. States acceded in 1968.
These proposed regulations are the exact opposite: without legislation, essentially repealing the Refugee Act of 1980 and ending U.S. compliance with the international refugee and asylum protection instruments to which we are party. Frankly, today’s Court majority appears, without any reasonable explanation, to have drifted away from Cardoza’s humanity and generous flexibility in favor of endorsing and enabling various immigration restrictionist schemes intended to weaponize asylum laws and processes against asylum seekers. But, are they really going to allow the Administration to overrule (and essentially mock) Cardoza by regulation? Perhaps, but such fecklessness will have much larger consequences for the Court and our nation.
Are baby jails, kids in cages, rape, beating, torture, child abuse, clearly rigged biased adjudications, predetermined results, death sentences without due process, bodies floating in the RioGrande, and in some cases assisting femicide, ethnic cleansing, and religious and political repression really the legacy that the majority of today’s Justices wish to leave behind? Is that how they want to be remembered by future generations?
Scholars and well-respected legal advocates like Professor Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr, Professor Lenni Benson, and Dree Collopy have great expertise in immigration and asylum laws and an interest in reducing backlogs and creating functional Immigration Courts consistent with due process and Constitutional rights. Like Professor Benson, they have contributed practical ideas for increasing due process while reducing court backlogs. Instead of turning their good ideas, like “fast track grants and more qualified representation of asylum seekers, on their heads, why not enlist their help in fixing the current broken system?
We need a government that will engage in dialogue with experts to solve problems rather than unilaterally promoting more illegal, unwise, and inhumane attacks on, and gimmicks to avoid, the legal, due process, and human rights of asylum seekers.
As Professor Yale-Loehr presciently says at the end of Suzanne’s article:
“If you’re fleeing persecution, you’re not stopping to read a 160-page rule,” he said. “You’re fleeing for your life, and no rule is going to change that fact.”
Isn’t it time for our Supreme Court Justices, legislators, andpolicy makers to to recognize the truth of that statement and require our asylum system and our Immigration Courts to operate in the real world of refugees?
TWO NEW ITEMS FROM IMMIGRATIONPROF BLOG SHOW A MALICIOUSLY INCOMPETENT AND CORRUPT TRUMP REGIME IMMIGRATION BUREAUCRACY THAT BELIEVES AND FUNCTIONS LIKE IT IS ABOVE THE LAW, ACCOUNTABILITY, & HUMAN MORALITY!
McCord Pagan for Law360 reports that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) violated the law by taking funds designated by Congress for consumables and medical care for migrants and instead used some of the money for its canine program, dirt bikes and upgrades to its computer system, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO).
While CBP spent some of the designated funds on baby products, food, defibrillators, and masks, CBP violated the law by spending certain funds meant for such migrant care on canines, boats, dirt bikes, ATVs, a vaccine program for its employees, and upgrades to its computer network, sewer system, as well as janitorial services, according to the GAO report.
The 2019 law providing supplemental funds to CBP to help address a surge of migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border designated about $112 million to CBP for “consumables and medical care.”
“We conclude that CBP violated the purpose statute when it obligated amounts expressly appropriated for consumables and medical care and establishing and operating migrant care and processing facilities for other purposes,” according to the GAO opinion. The Congressional watchdog is conducting an audit of CBP and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on the care of the adults and children in its custody, it said.
In response to GAO’s findings, a CBP spokesperson sent Law360 a statement calling the violations “technical in nature” and said it will take prompt remedial action.
CNN reports the latest skirmish between the state courts and federal immigration enforcement.
U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoffissued an order yesterday blocking ICE from making arrests in New York courts, finding that the practice is illegal. The introductory paragraph of his ruling reads as follows:
“Recent events confirm the need for freely and fully functioning state courts, not least in the State of New York. But it is one thing for the state courts to try to deal with the impediments brought on by a pandemic, and quite another for them to have to grapple with disruptions and intimidations artificially imposed by an agency of the federal government in violation of long-standing privileges and fundamental principles of federalism and of separation of powers.”
State and local officials argue that when ICE officers apprehends immigrants at courthouses — where they are making appearances as defendants, witnesses or victims — it endangers public safety by making it harder to prosecute crimes.
Baby jails, stealing from kids, interfering with the administration of justice. Just another day in the Disunited Kakistocracy of Trump.
These situations result in part from a feckless Congress led by Mitch and a failed Supremes led by Roberts who won’t stand up for our Constitutional rights and restrain an obviously corrupt and lawless Executive with a racist agenda.
It’s no surprise that much of Trump’s wrongdoing is exposed by the Government’s own ”watchdogs.” Unlike GAO, which works for Congress, those in the Executive Branch often are then unethically fired by Trump as Congress and the Supremes fail to stand up for honesty in Government. Worse yet, they fail to protect public employees who courageously expose corruption.
And, the high ranking legislators and judges who have watched and enabled Trump’s scurrilous attacks on our Constitution and human values ultimately bear much of the responsibility! As my friend Ira Kurzban would say, “this is not normal.” “Normalizing” and “enabling” illegal, unethical, and racist-driven behavior is obscene. If “watchdogs” and U.S. District Court Judges can speak out against lawless actions and corruption, how is it that Mitch, Roberts, and the rest of the GOP have “swallowed the whistle?”
Justices’ Fleeting Unanimity In Free Speech Immigration Case
By Paul Schmidt
Law360 (May 11, 2020, 6:09 PM EDT) —
Paul Schmidt
On May 7, the U.S. Supreme Court‘s so-called Bridgegate decision got the attention, but the decision released that day in U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith is also notable.
In a unanimous decision by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the court pummels a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for overreaching on a constitutional overbreadth issue not argued by the parties below.
Observers expecting a blockbuster resolution of the tension between the First Amendment and criminal sanctions for “inducing or encouraging” extralegal immigration undoubtedly were disappointed.
Nevertheless, I find three significant takeaways from the ruling in Sineneng-Smith.
First, an ideologically fractured court desperately seeks common ground on something relating to immigration enforcement.
Second, the judicial restraint preached by Justice Ginsburg in her opinion conflicts with the U.S. attorney general’s use of the immigration courts to advance his restrictionist policy agenda.
Third, and ironically, Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurring opinion calls not for judicial restraint, but solicits a conservative judicial assault on the overbreadth doctrine that generally protects individuals from government overreach.
Facts
Evelyn Sineneng-Smith, a California immigration lawyer, filed labor certification applications for clients to help them get U.S. green cards. She charged each client more than $6,000, netting $3.3 million.
Smith knew that particular path to a green card involving filing for labor certification and adjusting status without leaving the country had been eliminated by statute, except for those in the country on Dec. 21, 2000, who had applied for a labor certification before April 30, 2001.
Smith’s clients did not satisfy that grandfathering criteria. However, Smith apparently did not tell them that the applications they paid her to file could not lead to successful adjustments of status.
A criminal prosecution followed which included, but was not limited to, charges that Smith had unlawfully induced or encouraged her clients to reside in the U.S. in violation of law. Smith, represented by counsel, argued at trial that the criminal statute penalizing inducing or encouraging unlawful immigration did not apply to her specific situation of filing immigration applications for clients.
She also asserted that interpreting the statute to include her particular situation as a lawyer representing clients seeking immigration status would violate the right to petition and free speech clauses of the First Amendment, specifically as applied to her.
She did not claim that all applications of the criminal inducing or encouraging unlawful immigration statute were unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
A U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California rejected all of Smith’s defenses and convicted her on the inducing or encouraging charge, as well as some additional charges of filing false tax returns and mail fraud that were not contested by the time the case reached the Supreme Court.
Smith appealed her encouraging-or-inducing conviction to the Ninth Circuit.
Ninth Circuit Proceedings
On appeal, Smith advanced the same statutory and constitutional arguments, based on the specifics of her situation, that had failed at trial.
The Ninth Circuit panel basically pushed aside both Smith’s and government counsel. Instead, they appointed three amici — friends of the court — principally to argue the case. According to Justice Ginsburg, this essentially made bystanders out of counsel for the actual parties.
Even more egregiously says Justice Ginsburg, the panel reframed and restated the issues for the amici to address. Instead of the narrow issues argued by the parties on the specific facts of the case, the panel posited three new and much broader issues.
The first was “whether the statute of conviction is overbroad or likely overbroad under the First Amendment.”
Faced with a new theory of the defense suggested by the panel itself, Smith’s lawyer, who was allowed but not required to participate in the supplemental briefing by the amici, merely adopted the amici’s overbreadth argument without discussion.
The panel then overturned Smith’s conviction solely on the basis that the statute was overbroad under the First Amendment.
The solicitor general petitioned the court which took the case because it invalidated a federal statute on constitutional grounds.
The court reversed and remanded, instructing the panel to ditch the overbreadth issue and concentrate on the narrower issues relating to Smith’s specific conduct under the statute, as actually argued by the parties at trial and on appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
Analysis
Misleading “Togetherness”
The court’s unanimous rebuke of the panel below provides insight without much useful guidance. It probably could, and should, have been a two sentence, unsigned vacate and remand, referencing the court’s previous jurisprudence on the essential role of cases and controversies in Article III judging.
Notwithstanding some commentators touting the number of unanimous decisions, this court is riven by a deep ideological split between five conservative GOP-appointed justices moving sharply right and four moderate to liberal Democrat-appointed justices trying to hold the line on important individual rights in the face of government overreach.
Nowhere has this gap been more apparent than in the executive’s aggressive efforts to rewrite, and effectively annihilate, previous American immigration laws and human rights policies.
The court’s recent 5-4 decision vacating a stay in Wolf v. Cook County illustrates this. There, five conservative justices accepted the solicitor general’s invitation to interfere with litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, involving the administration’s rewrite of the so-called public charge rules applicable to immigrants.
The majority’s failure to even explain its decision earned an unusually sharp rebuke from Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Unlike this case that involves one individual, the administration’s rule changes, green-lighted by Cook County, have been cited as deterring many individuals legally in the country from seeking medical advice in this pandemic.
So much for judicial restraint as a norm. Here, by contrast, the justices bridged the gap only by finding a common enemy in the panel below. Don’t expect this agreement to carry over into the merits of more controversial immigration issues.
Immigration Courts Don’t Follow This Standard
My colleagues, former mmigration judges Jeffrey Chase and Susan Roy, pointed me to the dissonance between the court’s admonitions here and the attorney general’s legislate-by-decision approach to the immigration courts.
Both former Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Attorney General William Barr eagerly have reached down into the immigration court system they respectively controlled to implement restrictive immigration policies by precedent decision without invitation from the actual parties to litigation.
In two of the best known instances, Sessions acted unilaterally to change established rules concerning domestic violence asylum claims for women and to eradicate nearly four decades of precedent allowing judges to administratively close low priority or dormant cases on their burgeoning dockets.
Notwithstanding their expressed concerns about uninvited judicial activism, the court has effectively overlooked the glaring operational and constitutional problems embedded in an immigration “court” system run by the chief prosecutor. Will they pay attention when future litigants raise this disconnect?
Justice Thomas’ Ironic Concurrence
Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion attacks the overbreadth doctrine and solicits future challenges to it, presumably from right-wing advocates and activist conservative judges who agree with him.
Right-wing activists like Thomas customarily harken back wistfully to the golden age of American jurisprudence when the exclusively white, male, nearly 100% Christian federal judiciary was perfectly happy to look the other way and bend the rules to favor ruling elites.
Those disfavored were often African Americans, women, children, the poor and others who weren’t part of the club. How would Justice Thomas himself have fared in the past world he longs to re-create?
Conclusion
The substantive constitutional issue unanimously ducked by the court might eventually reappear, particularly if Justice Thomas has his way. But, don’t expect repeats of the court’s manufactured harmony in more controversial aspects of the administration’s attacks on the rights and humanity of migrants, like, for example the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals case.
I also wonder if this court can continue ignoring the glaring constitutional deficiencies and clear biases in the current immigration court system, defects they would never accept from any Article III judges?
Many thanks and much appreciation to my good friends and “Round Table” colleagues Judge Jeff Chase and Judge Sue Roy for their ideas and contributions to this article.
Suzanne Monyak Senior Reporter, Immigration Law360Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Retired Immigration JudgesLaura Lynch Senior Policy Counsel AILA“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”
U.S. Circuit Judge Frank H. Easterbrook didn’t mince words earlier this year when sharing his thoughts on a recent decision by the immigration courts’ appellate board: “We have never before encountered defiance of a remand order, and we hope never to see it again.”
The Seventh Circuit judge, a Reagan-appointee, said the board had ignored the court’s directions to grant protection to an immigrant fighting deportation, instead ruling against the immigrant again. The rebuke wasn’t the first time the Board of Immigration Appeals has been reprimanded by the federal judiciary for seemingly prejudiced decisions under the Trump administration.
Just a month earlier, a judge on the Third Circuit tackling an appeal from the BIA wrote in a concurring opinion that it didn’t appear the board “was acting as anything other than an agency focused on ensuring [an immigrant’s] removal rather than as the neutral and fair tribunal it is expected to be.”
“That criticism is harsh and I do not make it lightly,” U.S. Circuit Judge Theodore McKee wrote.
While President Donald Trump’s judicial nominees and U.S. Supreme Court picks grab headlines for rtheir potential to shape the judiciary for years to come, the administration is staffing the lesser known BIA with former immigration judges who have high asylum-denial rates and individuals with backgrounds in law enforcement. Some of the picks have prompted advocates for immigrants and lawmakers to claim the hiring process is too politicized.
Documents newly obtained through the Freedom of Information Act reveal that the Trump administration has aimed to fast-track the hiring process while giving the director of U.S. Department of Justice‘s Executive Office for Immigration Review, James McHenry, and the U.S. attorney general more say in who gets the nod.
Unlike the federal and appellate courts, the BIA, an administrative appellate board that hears appeals from immigration trial courts, is not independent but rather is housed with the EOIR.
Yet the board can issue precedential decisions that shape immigration policy — and the lives of immigrants facing deportation — well into the future.
“That the reasonably ordinary citizen has not heard of the BIA does not take away from the fact that it is the most important agency establishing immigration jurisprudence in the country, and when you politicize that, you’re obviously politicizing immigration jurisprudence,” said Muzaffar Chishti, head of the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute’s New York office.
A spokesperson for EOIR told Law360 that the office sped up the hiring process as part of “commonsense changes” and in response to criticism from Congress.
She also said that EOIR “does not choose board members based on prohibited criteria such as race or politics, and it does not discriminate against applicants based on any prohibited characteristics,” and that “all board members are selected through an open, competitive, merit-based process.”
During the most recent hiring cycle, every panelist evaluating candidates was a career employee, not a political appointee, according to the spokesperson.
“Individuals who assert that such changes make the hiring process less neutral are either ignorant or mendacious,” the spokesperson said.
High Rates of Asylum Denials
Since August, the Trump administration has installed nine of the 19 current permanent members of the BIA, and most of the newcomers have asylum-denial rates above 80% and backgrounds in law enforcement or the military.
All but one of the nine were previously immigration judges, and according to data collected by Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, the average asylum-denial rate among those eight judges was just over 92%. The denial rate for each of those eight judges ranged from 83.5% to 96.8%.
The average asylum-denial rate for immigration courts nationally is 63.1%, according to TRAC.
Asylum-denial rates aren’t perfect metrics; controlling asylum law varies by circuit, and the viability of asylum claims can vary based on location. New York’s immigration courts for instance, tend to see more asylum claims from Chinese citizens fleeing political oppression, which are more frequently successful, while courts near detention centers may see harder-to-win claims from longtime U.S. residents with less access to counsel.
However, Jeffrey Chase, a New York City immigration lawyer and former immigration judge, told Law360 that no one deciding cases fairly could have a 90% asylum denial rate.
“You’re looking to deny cases at that point,” he said.
The one recent Trump administration BIA hire who wasn’t previously an immigration judge had been a trial attorney at the Justice Department, while many of the other former judges had prior experience at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security or its predecessor agency.
One, V. Stuart Couch, was previously a senior prosecutor for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
“There’s overall just a lack of diversity on the immigration judge bench, which is deeply concerning,” said Laura Lynch, senior policy counsel at the American Immigration Lawyers Association. “I think the mark of justice is the idea that decision makers come from a diverse background.”
A hire to the BIA announced earlier this month, Philip J. Montante Jr., has come under fire not only for a sky-high asylum-denial rate — 96.3% — but for a history of ethics complaints.
In 2014, the DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility concluded that Judge Montante’s handling of an immigration case was “inappropriate” after an attorney accused him of showing bias when deciding a client’s case.
In March, not long before his promotion to the BIA was announced, the New York Civil Liberties Union accused Judge Montante in a proposed class action in federal court of denying detained immigrants’ bond requests nearly universally.
According to the advocacy organization, Judge Montante rejected 95% of bond requests between March 2019 and February 2020, bringing him within the top five lowest bond grant rates among the more than 200 immigration judges nationwide.
. . . .
**************************
Read the rest of Suzanne’s excellent article, with more quotes from my fellow members of the NDPA, Judge Jeffrey S. Chase and Laura Lynch, at the above link.I have been told that this article is “outside” the Law360 “paywall,” so you should be able to read it even if you don’t have a subscription.
I find the Article III Courts’ recognition of the Due Process travesty going on in individual cases, while they ignore the systemic unfairness that makes a mockery out of the Due Process Clause of our Constitution, the rule of law, our entire justice system, and humanity itself, perhaps the most disturbing institutional failure under the Trump regime. While Article III Judges are “shocked and offended” by contemptuous actions directed at them in particular cases, they remain willfully “tone deaf” to the reality of our dysfunctional and biased Immigration Courts and their impact on “real human lives.” ☠️
This is how individuals seeking justice and the courageous lawyers representing them, many serving at minimal or no compensation to inject a modicum of integrity into our system, are treated every day. Not every wronged individual has the ability to reach the Article IIIs.
And, given the Article IIIs failure to take the courageous, systemic steps necessary to stop abuses of migrants, the Trump regime has “taken it to a new level” by coming up with various illegal schemes and gimmicks to keep individuals seeking asylum from even getting a hearing in Immigration Court. Due Process? Fundamental Fairness? Rule of Law? No way!
Yet, this unfolds before us daily as the Article IIIs basically “twiddle their collective thumbs” 👎🏻 and “nibble around the edges” of a monumental Constitutional disaster and blot on the humanity and integrity of our nation and our own souls. The complicity starts with the Supremes who have “passed” ona number of critical opportunities to “just say no” to blatant violations of the Fifth Amendment, the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Refugee Act of 1980, international human rights conventions, and misuse and clear abuse of “emergency authority” to achieve a White Nationalist, racist agenda.
In other words, the Supremes’ majority is knowingly and intentionally encouraging the regime’s program of “Dred Scottification” — dehumanization or “de-personification” before the law — of “the other.” This disgusting and fundamentally un-American “resurrection and enabling” of a “21st Century Jim Crow Regime” might be “in vogue” with the “J.R. Five” and their right-wing compatriots right now. But, they are squarely on the “wrong side of history.” Eventually, the “truth will out,” and they will be judged accordingly!👎🏻
That’s why I say: “Constantly Confront Complicit Courts 4 Change.”
Law360, Washington (April 27, 2020, 8:50 PM EDT) — A D.C. federal judge ordered the government Monday to apply certain standards laid out in a landmark consent decree that established bedrock standards of care for migrant children in custody to adults held in three residential detention centers in Pennsylvania and Texas amid the coronavirus outbreak. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ruled during a teleconference hearing that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement must deliverby May 15 an account of what’s being done to expedite the release of adult detainees as well as efforts to ensure those detained at facilities with confirmed COVID-19 cases are being protected. The decision came amid allegations by immigration advocacy groups that ICE has exhibited indifference to families at high risk of contracting the disease and that no appropriate steps are being taken to prevent the spread of the novel coronavirus. The Rapid Defense Network, ALDEA — the People’s Justice Center, and the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Serviceslast month sued federal immigration authorities, demanding the immediate release of dozens of migrant families at detention centers in Berks County, Pennsylvania, and Dilley and Karnes City, Texas. In his ruling Monday, Judge Boasbergonce again declined to grant immediate release of the asylum-seekers. But the judge applied some conditions in the landmark 1997 federal consent decree known as the Flores settlement agreement, which established bedrock standards of care for migrant children in custody. The decree prohibits the U.S. Department of Homeland Security from detaining migrant children beyond the 20-day limit. Judge Boasberg expanded that holding to cover their parents, but stopped short of mandating the government to explain why an adult has been in detention for more than 20 days. The judge noted that while adults are not protected under Flores, the government has been providing some information on adults in detention to U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee of California, who has been overseeing the consent decree as part of a long-running class action. “I think this is sufficient at this point to ensure the constitutional treatment of” detainees, the judge said of his order during the teleconference session. Nonetheless, Judge Boasberg indicated that ICE has been making substantial efforts to prevent the spread of the novel coronavirus at the facilities, pointing out that the three centers are at least 16% under capacity. So far, none of the centers have recorded cases of COVID-19, the government told the court. “Conditions are definitely improving,” the judge said. “That’s highly significant to me.” Monday’s order builds upon previous decisions by the judge, who instructed ICE to provide the court with statistics on the number of detained migrants seeking asylum; testing and treatment plans; and compliance with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s guidance for congregate settings such as detention centers. Vanessa Molina, a U.S. Department of Justice attorney representing ICE, argued against applying Flores in this case. She maintained that it would be improper to demand that the agency explain why adults are in detention for more than 20 days because the consent decree was never meant to include parents or adults. Detention is a part of the removal process pending a deportation proceeding, Molina continued, and the plaintiffs have not demonstrated their burden of showing why they should be released. And there’s no finding in this case that ICE had been deliberately indifferent to the medical needs of asylum-seekers with COVID-19 risk factors, she said. “ICE is authorized to detain the adults pending deportation proceedings,” the government attorney doubled down
Judge Boasberg responded that the government has been producing detention information on minors to the California federal judge and asked, “Why would there be any objections … [to provide similar data to the D.C. district court] for the adults?” Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP partner Susan Baker Manning, an attorney for the migrant families, conceded to the government’s argument that detention is authorized as part of the deportation process. But the lawyer contended that her clients are being held in unsanitary conditions, that they are not subject to mandatory detention, and that they are not a danger to the community because they have no criminal histories. Manning had urged Judge Boasberg to include the 20-day condition because it “is a perfect and reasonable benchmark to understand why migrants are being held in facilities where they are at risk of contracting COVID-19.” But the judge declined to do so. The judge has set a May 20 teleconference hearing for the parties to discuss the latest developments in the litigation. The migrants are represented by Susan Baker Manning of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, ManojGovindaiah and Curtis F.J. Doebbler of the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, Amy Maldonado of The Law Office of Amy Maldonado, and Sarah T. Gillman and Gregory P. Copeland of Rapid Defense Network. The government is represented by Vanessa Molina of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Division’s Office of Immigration Litigation and Daniel Franklin Van Horn of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia. The case is O.M.G. et al. v. Wolf et al., case number 1:20-cv-00786, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
**************************
Thanks to Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Immigration Communityfor sending this!
Sadly, the lack of leadership among all three branches of our Government means that what should be uniform policies applicable throughout the country are instead litigated piecemeal, with differing results. Not surprisingly, as the regime touts draconian immigration “bans and bars” approaches to the coronavirus crisis, it continues to fail on the everyday “Xs and Os” of competent government, requiring constant prodding from lawyers, judges, and journalists to get the basics right.
